The Spiral of Success (or Failure)

To be successful in anything in life you need to address a few key factors. First up you need to have a clear goal. I have produced a mini guide on how to do this, if you would like a copy, just e-mail me with the subject heading ‘Achievement Guide’, and I’ll ping it into your inbox.

No matter how clear that goal, it absolutely needs to be a ‘must’, not a ‘should’. You can learn more about this pivotal mindset here http://humanperformanceconsulting-uk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/stop-lying.html. Simply put, set your benchmark to a higher standard.

Here’s a quick fact, less than 50% of people with chronic disease actually comply with their treatment protocol. So even what is considered a ‘must’ is actually a ‘should’ in the majority of the population. I do not doubt this statistic at all, on many occasions I’ve seen people being treated for cancer, outside the Oncology department building still hooked up to I.V. drips…smoking…

If you want to succeed, you need to make a proper decision, not a preference. A preference results in a ‘should’, which then leaves the doors open for the option of taking action, or not. A decision though, is vastly different. A real decision leaves no room for ambiguity, it essentially burns all other bridges on your journey, so that you have to use the only bridge left, no matter how decrepit and rickety. There are reasons why a preference is often made over a decision, but that’s not the focus of this article.

It’s not enough just to have a clear goal, and for it to be a ‘must’. You have to embody ‘why’ it’s a must. It has to be compelling for you, not repelling. So your goal must be generated by passion, and also generate passion within you, so that you are pulled, not pushed towards your goal.

However, this is often still not enough for people to succeed. Why? Because it doesn’t account for probably the most important feature in success: Belief.

‘Whether you think that you can, or that you can’t, you are usually right.’ ~ Henry Ford

I created HPC-UK to help people realise their potential. However what people don’t understand, and it is way beyond the scope of this piece to cover, is how much potential they have. When you look into what Humans, all of us, are capable of, it’s phenomenal.

And this potential phenomenal ability is really absolutely governed by your belief.

Trouble is the word ‘belief’ is usually attached to the wrong meaning. The way belief is usually used, actually means to ‘wish’ or ‘hope’ something is a certain way; ambiguity again, right? True belief, on the other hand, even if it’s based on faulty knowledge, means absolute certainty that something is a certain way.

The usual meaning is actually a limiting or conflicting belief, and this has fundamental implications on how much potential you can realise.

Let’s see how this works.

Take a look at the DNA double helix image alongside this article, and consider the four words that are present: Potential, Action, Results and Belief (or Attitude). Now considering the amazing ability that all Humans possess, does the usual person’s result’s reflect their potential? No, otherwise we’d all have a name similar to ‘Jordan Mozart Einstein-Ghandi’.

So why is this? Well, we’re all probably not taking enough action to make this a reality. No Action = No Results (or at least not the results we wanted).

But sometimes you can take loads of action, but still not get the results you want. And this is because the actions you’re taking are not aligned with your goal, for instance would you go on an African safari to see a Penguin? You can, and invest a lot into it, but I’m not sure you’d get much return on your effort.

However, let’s say you’re taking action and they’re the right actions, do people’s results now reflect their potential. Nope.

So we’ve got immense potential, we’re taking action and it’s the right action, and we’re still not getting results. If this is the case there’s only one place left to look, your belief.

Whenever you try to achieve a goal, if you believe it’s not going to work, or you don’t think you’re capable of doing it, then you’ll find ways to meet your own belief. In this mindset, how much do you think you’ll draw on your potential, a little, or a lot? A little, right? Why would you invest (time, effort etc) in something you didn’t truly believe was going to work. So you invest little (weak action), and get little results. Now you’ve validated your initial belief, which means you’ll draw even less on your potential, invest even less action, and get even less results. Now you’ll further reinforce your limiting belief, and so the cycle continues.

This is called a Vicious Spiral and it’s a slippery slope.

It’s not that there wasn’t potential there, it just wasn’t tapped into due to the conflicting belief.

But people who are successful generally do things a little differently. People who are successful often have unbounded beliefs. Potential can’t be changed, it is what it is, but how much you can express, as we’ve seen above is down to your actions. And the quality of your actions is determined by your belief.

We have already seen that true belief really means absolute certainty. So let’s look at the four words again in this mindset. We’ve set a goal which we are passionate about achieving and that we are absolutely certain we can nail. In this situation, how much (action) would you invest? A lot, after-all you’re certain you can achieve it. If you invest a lot in the (right) action, you’re going to get better results than had you invested little. So now you’ve smashed your goal, and cemented your initial belief. You’ve now proven to yourself that you can achieve goals that you set for yourself, so now you believe in your ability even more. With this improved state of mind do you think you’ll draw upon your potential more or less? More of course, so you take even more action which leads to better results and so on through the cycle.

This process is called the Virtuous Spiral and it’s the foundation of success. Make sure your beliefs aren’t holding you back.

Conceive. Believe. Achieve.

HPC-UK Bitesize (Health): Tele-tubbies?

Recent findings are suggesting that television viewing time is a risk factor for excessive weight gain among adolescents.

Television isn’t the innocuous pastime many assume it is, although a seemingly passive activity, it can stimulate many pathways in the brain that real-life activity utilise. An example of this phenomenon is found in sport, where athletes are advised by their coaches to visualise the perfect execution of movements within and outside of training sessions. Why? Because motor imagery (thinking about movement) and motor action (performing actual movement) engage overlapping brain systems.(1) The act of thinking about movement stimulates and reinforces the exact same neural pathways that are used when the actual movement is performed. And television works in a similar manner.

Television is primarily a visual context, to which your eyes are the key conduit. The optic nerves that transmits information from the retina to the brain, not only wraps around the hypothalamus but also give off connections to the very areas that control your neurotransmitters and hormones. As I’ve shown in previous articles the hypothalamus is a key area for metabolism and especially hunger and thirst regulation. The intensity, colours and shape of the light hitting your eyes have numerous effects on your brain and the hormonal systems it controls. And so research is unveiling.

Television is linked to two cognitive functions that go part way to explaining the link between viewing exposure and overweight. These two cognitive functions are called reward saliency and inhibitory control. Television stimulates ‘wants’ (reward salience) and lessens the ability to dampen down or stop a particular activity or response (inhibitory control) to these ‘wants’.(2) And because junk food is readily available in current society and strongly taps into these reward pathways, that (junk) often becomes the focus of our hunting and foraging expeditions into the deepest, darkest recesses of our kitchens. And so again, the research is showing.

Recent studies are showing that increased television viewing was associated with an increased intake of sugary drinks, energy dense foods and trans fat consumption, with a concomitant decreased intake of fruit, vegetable and fiber.(3, 4) Which is no surprise, since as I’ve shown in previous articles, food manufacturers purposely create what is known as hyper-palatability in certain lines of food to tap into these powerful evolutionary drives.

This has an especially potent effect in young children as they haven’t developed the mechanisms to detach themselves from present stimuli as much as (some) adults, so are more at the mercy of strong biological drives than the rest of us. Therefore with increased exposure to television and its incentivising of ‘wants’, combined with a weakening of the ability to resist these ‘wants’ in a child who is already undeveloped in this regard, and the ‘super-charging’ of food to reward the consumer, you have a perfect storm for excessive eating.

The storm however, can be weathered, it just requires a first rate skipper to guide the vessel. And ‘Mon Capitan’, that is where you come in…

As adults I believe we should take responsibility for our children until such a stage where we have helped them develop their own ability to control their own drives. I’m not telling you what to do; I’m just presenting the information and possible solutions. What you do with that information is entirely, and to paraphrase Bobby Brown, your ‘prerogative’.

References:

1- Baeck JS et al. (2012) Brain activation patterns of motor imagery reflect plastic changes associated with intensive shooting training. Behav Brain Res: Sep 1;234(1):26-32.

2- Chapman CD et al. (2012) Lifestyle determinants of the drive to eat: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. Sep;96(3):492-7.

3- Miller SA et al. (2008) Association between television viewing and poor diet quality in young children. Int J Pediatr Obes.;3(3):168-76.

4- Ford C et al. (2012) Television viewing associated with adverse dietary outcomes in children ages 2-6. Obes Rev. Dec;13(12):1139-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01028.x.

HPC-UK Bitesize (Health): Fat Screen TV

Current figures (2010/2011) have estimated that 30% of children in the UK are now either overweight (31%) or obese (29%). As you can hopefully appreciate, there isn’t one simple factor (although the common perception is to try to find one) that contributes to obesity, regardless of whether that person is an adult or a child. There are, however, a few overarching factors that are certainly strongly correlated, and in a lot of cases causative, to this outcome.

One significant feature found in current life is television.

One recent study set out to determine whether reducing television viewing time would have any effect of the rate of weight gain in the subjects. The researchers observed a clear association between reduced hours spent watching television and decreased weight gain over one year. The findings suggest that television viewing time is a risk factor for excessive weight gain among adolescents.

As suggested above overweight and obesity is multi-factorial, so there are other key influences that need to be addressed in order to assist our children in maintaining a healthier weight. However it seems that the simple action of moderating time spent viewing television actually creates an impetus for these other factors to fall into place.

So a logical first step would be to moderate television exposure time. This doesn’t mean that you have to confine your children to a monk-like life, as I’ll show you in a following Bitesize piece, it may be as simple as a very brief activity exchange.

Reference:

Simone A. French, Nathan R. Mitchell, Peter J. Hannan. Decrease in Television Viewing Predicts Lower Body Mass Index at 1-Year Follow-Up in Adolescents, but Not Adults. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 2012; DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2011.12.008

HPC-UK Bitesize (Fat Loss): Forging a Lean Body with Iron

Intra-abdominal obesity (visceral fat) is an important risk factor for low-grade inflammation, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes, cardiovascular disease as well as most prevalent disease states.

Generally, recommendations to treat or prevent overweight and obesity via physical activity have focused on aerobic endurance training, as it is was once thought that aerobic training was associated with much greater energy expenditure during the exercise session than resistance training. This vestigial thought process of the last century is now changing in part to our better understanding and ability to measure less accessible workings in the body.

The metabolic consequences of reduced muscle mass that accompanies normal ageing and/or decreased physical activity is currently one of the key ideas thought to lead to a higher prevalence of metabolic disorders.

Because evidence suggests that resistance training promotes a negative energy balance and may change body fat distribution, it is possible that an increase in muscle mass after resistance training may be a key mediator leading to a better metabolic control.
.
It has also been recently shown that resistance training has considerable effects on reducing visceral fat and the inflammatory response across a broad spectrum of intensity ranges.

So whether you train in a more typical hypertrophy specific manner, or a use a protocol geared towards maximal strength, both have benefits in protecting the body against excessive inflammation.

Whatever your personal taste in fitness, make sure you flavour it with some variety of iron.

References:

Strasser, B., Arvandi, M. and Siebert, U. (2012), Resistance training, visceral obesity and inflammatory response: a review of the evidence. Obesity Reviews, 13: 578–591. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.00988.x

Çakir-Atabek, Hayriye et al. (2010), Effects of Different Resistance Training Intensity on Indices of Oxidative Stress. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24 (9): 2491-2497 doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ddb111

HPC-UK Bitesize (Fat Loss): Liposuction Increases Visceral Fat

Liposuction is one of the most popular elective surgeries in the world. However a recent study shows that Nature does not like to be fooled.

Researchers at the University of Sao Paulo found that liposuction of subcutaneous (under the skin) fat in the abdomen caused an increase in visceral fat (fat surrounding the organs).

Visceral fat is a significant risk factor in metabolic syndrome (also called Syndrome X or the CHAOS series of disorders). So by attempting to take a short-cut to leanness, you’re stimulating the body to produce a sub-set of fat that is particularly potent in its effect on physiology. Visceral fat is extremely pro-inflammatory, and if you’ve been following HPC-UK for a while, you’ll know how devastating chronic inflammation is to your health and how it is a driver of a majority of disease states.

Yet reducing body-fat can be achieved in pretty much anyone (99.99%) with the right approach. The problem is most people have been seduced by commercial company’s lies, which really have no interest in you succeeding or finding out the truth of how to succeed, as by doing so they’ll lose a repeat customer.

The key to losing body-fat is essentially two-fold:

(1) Provide the body with nutrients that it needs to optimise physical structures and their metabolism. You can’t do this by reducing intake of food; that would cause a deficit in nutrients required for optimum functioning. You have to eat the right food, in the right amounts, at the right time.

(2) Perform the right exercise to stimulate the body to absorb and utilise the nutrients in the right way, and optimise the expression of your genome to create a blueprint for a lean body architecture. The majority of the exercise promoted by weight-loss companies actually creates a body set up for fat gain, rather than loss.

If you’re intending to lose fat, be careful from whom you receive your information; otherwise you can be figuratively jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Reference:

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (2012). 97 (7); 2388-2395

What is Real?

Reality is a funny old thing. The universe that we see, hear and feel is a tiny percentage of what is actually there. Take for example vision. Humans have the ability to perceive wavelengths of lights between 390 (Violet) -750nm (Red), with the most clarity at 555nm. The wavelength 555nm is right smack dab in the middle of the green portion of the spectrum.

This range makes up the most necessary colours we need to operate and survive in our natural environment. We haven’t always had this ability though, or rather we have, but we lost it, and then re-gained it again. Contrary to what most people think Evolution isn’t a straightforward gaining process, sometimes if an adaptation becomes superfluous to needs (and thus costly to maintain) it can be ‘evolved out’. Our ancestors (not Human) actually went through stages of acquiring colour vision when it became a survival advantage, and then lost it when it was not (during a stage where our ancestors were mainly nocturnal), and then re-gained the ability when it once again gave our ancestors an advantage.

Most mammals still haven’t regained a large range of colour vision, whereas other species of animals can see wavelengths outside of the Human range of perception. Bees and birds for example, can see in the ultraviolet range of light, which is totally invisible to us. Yet these species take advantage of it to navigate their world. However ‘invisible’ and ‘does not exist’ are not two interchangeable terms. The reality of different life forms is no less, or more real, than each other. Reality simply ‘is’ whether we can understand and appreciate it or not.

Perception is a key process in how much, or how little of reality you can interact with, how much you can control, and how much it can control you. Your perception of the world influences ‘your’ reality.

In the past few years the research into stress and health has been growing rapidly, especially in the field of genetics and epi-genetics. Many papers have demonstrated that there is a direct link between the stress response and health. The key word here is response, which we will get to in a bit.

There are different forms of stress: physical, chemical and emotional, all of which can profoundly alter your reality, for better or worse. But here we will concentrate on emotional (or psychological) stress.

The term stress isn’t inherently negative (or positive), but the common understanding usually falls more to the former of the two expressions, which is another evolutionary safety mechanism we shall not explore here. Emotional stress comes in two forms: positive stress, which many people do not know about, is called eu-stress, and negative stress, which many DO know about, is called dis-tress. They are two sides of the same coin; however, it is the distress side of the coin that is most linked to ill-health and disease.

Stress like all other emotions, does not exist in any object or situation. Some people have a terrifying fear of cats (Ailurophobia), whereas others (usually ladies of middle-age and beyond) have an obsessive love for them (Ailurophilia). The emotion of fear (or love) has no physical existence at all, except in a person’s expression of the emotion. And that emotion, be it fear, love, excitement etc is created by the ‘meaning’ that a person gives (or attaches) to that object or situation. Emotions therefore are generally created by memory and triggered by environment.

So if you change your perception (or the meaning you attach to something) you can change your emotional response to pretty much any object or event.

And so a recent study is proving. Researchers at Penn State University, as part of a much larger study, surveyed 2000 people, once a day over 8 days, at two points 10 years apart. The survey covered such things as the use of their time, their moods and any physical health symptoms they had felt in the previous 24 hours. They also asked about their productivity and any daily stressful events they had experienced, such as being in a traffic jam, having a row (quarrel) with somebody, or looking after a sick child.

As well as the data collected from the surveys, the researchers also collected data on the participant’s cortisol (one of the key stress hormones) levels throughout these days.

The study was cleverly designed to not only look at short term stress reactions, but also how this could possibly manifest a decade later. And the study showed an interesting result; people who become upset by daily stressors and continued to dwell on them after they had passed were more likely to suffer from chronic health problems -- especially pain, such as that related to arthritis, and cardiovascular issues -- 10 years later.

The key finding of the paper was that it isn’t stressor ‘exposure’ that caused the chain of processes that led to ill health, but rather stressor ‘reactivity’.

Think about a time when you’ve been driving, if you’ve been doing it long enough chances are that at one time or another you’ve probably had a near-miss (near-hit really?). When this happens there usually is an automatic reaction of fear and often anger. The more enlightened amongst us, almost immediately, realise that they are unhurt, calm themselves and continue along their path in life in quiet serenity.

Those who do not realise this, allow the fear and anger to remain and build, sometimes to the point of what is called ‘road rage’. Not only do they occasionally hurt others, but every…single…time…they hurt themselves. Here’s how.

Your brain wasn’t always as it is now, but unlike many items in history that no longer exist and require speculation of their once upon a time existence, our heritage is still firmly in place and fully visible with the right approach.

If you slice a brain straight down the middle, separating the left and right sides (or for the squeamish use an MRI scanner), a lot of our history is revealed. These images are plentiful on the internet, so do a search for a visual representation of these structures; look for what is called a ‘mid-saggital section’.

The brainstem (pons and medulla oblongata) is our most primitive brain; it’s a mass of nerves that unlike our brain today, formed the entire brain of our ancestors. The medulla’s primary function is to stimulate the vacuuming up of food and reject the bits that might cause us problems, although we now call these gagging, vomiting, coughing and sneezing. Together with the pons, the brainstem is the fundamental structure involved in breathing, and heart function. This relatively simple nervous system supports a very basic form of life; essentially eating, pooping and a bit of locomotion.

As we evolved, additional components and layers were added to these basic structures, the next component being the cerebellum. The cerebellum adds to the brainstems function by providing the ability to further control the body’s function, especially in regards to movement. The cerebellum allows for further refinement in motor control such as co-ordination, precision and timing of movements.

Just in front of the cerebellum is the forebrain which contains the R-complex, so called because they first evolved in the (r)eptilian brain. This area of the brain is responsible for instinctual behaviours such as aggression, dominance, territoriality, and ritual displays. It still serves the same purpose in reptiles, and us, today.

Above and surrounding this area, are the paleo-mammalian and neo-cortex. The R-complex plus the paleo-mammalian complex are commonly (but not quite accurately) grouped together as the limbic system. The limbic systems adds to the above R-complex behaviours with additional feelings of motivations (drives) and emotions surrounding love, hate, joy, sadness, hope, despair and sexuality. The neo-cortex adds to this further as does the cerebral cortex.

The cerebral cortex is what most people in the public consider to be the brain; it’s the wrinkly, cauliflower looking bit that most of us know comes in two half’s (hemispheres). It is the area of the brain that is involved in producing functions that most people would recognise as what makes Humans ‘Human’. It plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and what we call consciousness.

The ancient structures of our brain have been within our genetic lineage for around 60 to 200 million years, depending on the structure. The cerebral cortex in contrast has only been around for 6 million years. And the Human version of the cerebral cortex is thought to have occurred only 150,000 years ago in our evolution.

Because most people don’t consider the components and layers under the cerebral cortex when thinking about the brain, they also don’t realise the powerful influence these structures have on the newer evolved structures and therefore function (perception being one) of the brain. As a result of their deep seated rooting, the primitive structures hold a lot of sway, and can easily over-ride the higher functions of the recently evolved Human parts of the brain. If you let it.

If you need persuading of this primitive brain ability to distort perception, consider the use of substances that are commonly called social drugs such as alcohol, nicotine, or more potent drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines and other chemicals. These substances all work by tapping into the primitive parts of the brain, so while under the influence the feelings of confidence, fear, panic, ease, rage, and pleasure can be amplified. But because the primitive brain in intimately linked into the higher brain, the perceptions of the user also becomes distorted as a consequence of these more fundamental changes. So distorted thoughts occur in response, which is different for each individual based on their personal memories and make-up. Sometimes these perceptions can be experienced as heightened pleasure and ease, and others depending on the past and current state of the individual can be rather more unpleasant such as paranoia or abject terror, amongst others.

This happens because anything that alters the input’s into the brain, be it a chemical substance, a thought or a programmed perception changes the neuronal function of your brain, the sum of which absolutely governs the way your body functions and the thoughts that you experience as consciousness.

A final example, just to clarify how tapping into the primitive brain can profoundly distort your perception of reality, is the chemical lysergic acid, colloquially known as simply ‘acid’. ‘Acid’ is an extremely potent chemical, that can cause an extreme change in the chemical functioning of your neurons so that the user experiences altered thinking processes, synesthesia (the stimulation of one sense causing an experience in another, such as seeing sounds or hearing movements) and altered sense of time. Reality hasn’t changed one bit, only the user’s perception of it.

Now, it’s not a one way door, it certainly swings both ways. The primitive parts of the brain can definitely influence the higher functions but so can higher functions feed into the primitive structures. And once triggered they (the primitive brain parts) cause not only altered thought processes, as described above, but rapid and powerful changes to the functioning of the rest of the body (for which they were originally evolved), which left uncontrolled will certainly lead to ill health and disease.

But being Human we are not as directly tied into moment to moment stimuli as more simple life-forms. As suggested before, we can understand that emotional (psychological) stressors do not exist in any object or event. The stressor lies in the meaning we attach to it. So by deciding to attach a different meaning we can alter our perception of reality and our response to it, so that it not only doesn’t harm us, but if we attach the right meaning can actually be advantageous to our reality and our existence within it.

By controlling your perception of life and how you respond to life events, you can open up doors that either seemed locked or did not appear to exist at all. The potential within most Humans is vastly untapped, yet we all have the ability to claim this prize if we so choose. And therein lies the crux, it all starts with a choice.

Learn to make the right ones.

Reference:

Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s12160-012-9423-0

HPC-UK Bitesize (Health): Shining A Little Light On The Big T

A recent study at Harvard University of almost 1,500 health professionals showed that the men with the highest blood levels of vitamin D also had the highest levels of Testosterone. In the 25% of men with the highest vitamin D levels, total and free Testosterone were on average 3 percent greater than the men with the lowest 25% of vitamin D levels.

Vitamin D, as well as being found in dietary sources, is also synthesised by an interaction between the skin and sunlight. The researchers did not find a seasonal variation in Testosterone, unlike they found with vitamin D. This could partly be attributed to the fact that at lower levels the association between vitamin D and Testosterone is linear, but not at higher levels of vitamin D. A certain level of vitamin D is required for optimal Testosterone metabolism, but levels beyond this do not stimulate supra-physiological levels. This is because vitamin D is one of the many links in the chain of synergy required to manufacture Testosterone. Beyond addressing a deficiency (in vitamin D), any extra vitamin D will not further raise Testosterone levels.

Higher levels of vitamin D are beneficial for other reasons though, so don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also add to this that the majority of people in the higher latitudes of the Nothern Hemisphere are vitamin D deficient (ask your Doctor for a blood test to determine this), in which case you could probably assume you might need a little boost in that area, which will give you a 'boost' in others.

Reference:

Clinical Endocrinology. Volume 77, Issue 1, pages 106–112, July 2012

HPC-UK Bitesize (Health): Sugar Decreases Testosterone

Low Testosterone increases the risk of heart disease and is strongly linked to metabolic syndrome, decreased sexual performance, loss of muscle mass, depression and decreased quality of life.

A recent study showed that sugar consumption has an abrupt effect on the level of Testosterone production and availability once produced.

74 men (between the ages of 19-74 years) with varying glucose tolerance (how well their body handles sugar) were selected to take part in the study. The subjects were presented with a 75g oral glucose load and then blood withdrawals were performed at 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes post consumption. The blood was then tested for a number of indices related to Testosterone metabolism.

The researchers concluded that glucose ingestion induces a significant reduction in total and free T levels in men, which is similar across the spectrum of glucose tolerance.

So if you’re looking to maintain or increase your level of ‘Vitamin T’, a good place to begin would be modulating your sugar and high glycemic index carbohydrate consumption.

Reference:

Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2012 Jul 17. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2012.04486.x.

HPC-UK Bitesize (Fat Loss): Beige Fat Helps Battle The Bulge

The fat in your body comes in a variety of flavours. The majority is white adipose tissue (WAT) which is most easily recognised as the fat that covers our body and serves amongst other functions as a major store of excess energy. Brown adipose tissue (BAT) is a highly thermogenic tissue that converts food energy (chemical) into heat instead of storing it as fat. Up until recently that is all we thought there was; and seeing as Human adults have little BAT, and it’s tricky to influence its activity, then unless a person was very motivated to set up the right conditions then this seemed like a dead-end. However this year (2012) researchers from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute discovered a new kind of fat cell called beige fat, which works with exercise to promote fat (WAT) loss.

Beige fat cells resemble WAT but function more like BAT in response to certain signals. During exercise muscles produce a hormone called irisin, which increases the activity of BAT and promotes fat loss. Beige fat also increases the conversion of chemical energy to heat in response to high levels of irisin.

Beige fat cells may be an important tissue for promoting exercise-induced fat loss.

Reference:

Cell, Volume 150, Issue 2, 366-376, 12 July 2012

HPC-UK Bitesize (Training): Music Ramps Up Performance

Enter any gym or sports facility and you’ll see athletes during some, if not all of their sessions listening to their iPod/ MP3 players. Many athletes feel that specific music helps to create a beneficial environment to get into the training groove. A recent study by Cal State University (Fullerton) shows that they may be right.

The study found improved performance in explosive exercise when listening to self-selected music. Intensity is a key component in increasing muscle mass, strength and power. Utilising the right kind of music might be an easy method of achieving this aim.

To help you on the road to all around general awesomeness load up your iPod with this Badassery (www.deepseagreen.co.uk) and smash up those sessions.

Reference:

Journal Strength Conditioning Research, 26: 1934-1938, 2012

HPC-UK Bitesize (Health): Weight Training = Medicine?

Even among active adults there is a loss of about 20 percent of their muscle mass between the ages of 40 and 60 years. Muscle loss, known as Sarcopenia, causes reduced metabolic rate, progressive fat accretion, decreased control of blood sugar and reduced quality of life.

Wayne Wescott (Quincy College, Massachusetts), in a review of the current literature, concluded that weight training increases lean mass and metabolic rate while decreasing body fat in middle- and older-aged adults.

Weight training was also found to improve physical performance, walking speed, quality of life, mental function and self-esteem. In addition it improves blood sugar regulation, blood fat levels, preserves bone density and lowers blood pressure. It may also reduce back pain and joint discomfort associated with arthritis.

Weight training is a key component in any wellness program, but especially for middle- and older-age adults.

Reference:

Current Sports Medicine Reports, 11: 209-216, 2012

HPC-UK Bitesize (Nutrition): After Weight Loss, Low Fat Diets Promote Weight Gain

Many people lose 25 to 50 pounds or more in a year. The secret is maintaining the weight loss.

After significant weight loss, metabolic rate slows by as much as 20 percent. A study from Boston Children’s Hospital found that dietary composition affects metabolic rate after weight loss.

Researchers examined young adults who lost 10-15 percent of their bodyweight. Low fat diets decreased metabolic rate more than low or very low carbohydrate diets. However, most weight loss ‘experts’ still recommend low fat diets for weight loss. The study showed that these diets promote weight gain and trigger high blood pressure, abnormal blood fats, abdominal fat deposition and poor blood sugar regulation.

The best strategy for preventing weight gain after significant weight loss is to reduce sugar and glycemic load rather than restrict fat intake.

Reference:

Journal of American Medical Association, 307: 2627-2634, 2012

What are you going to do with yours?

Just to plant a little seed in your head, consider the following:

'There are more possible connections in the human brain than there are atoms in the known Universe'.

With that phenomenal amount of potentiality, are you really making the most of yours?

What’s Keeping You from Success?

When I taught Phys Ed I would see a whole range of abilities; from kids who could precisely place a football into a 1 metre spot from a minimum of 50m away, to others who would seemingly not be able to hit a 5x5m target from 10m away. Now in terms of outcomes those results are miles apart.

But here’s the thing, in terms of execution the difference is sometimes so subtle, it takes a trained eye to be able to spot it. Literally, a millimetre, or a quarter of a degree angle of attack, off of the precise spot upon impact could be the cause of the huge variation in the end result.

In the above example, the difference in execution was miniscule, but with distance the difference became progressively larger. So the difference in success or failure wasn’t actually the vast distances seen as a result (measurable in hundreds of metres), it was a tiny discrepancy in execution (measurable in millimetres).

This may be the case in your own life. What may seem like an abysmal failure (the result), could possibly be caused by a small disparity in some action (execution). So small differences, especially when compounded by time or repetition, can cause dramatic differences in effect.

If you have something you really want to achieve but it always seems to end in failure, try to think about small, seemingly inconsequential, actions you could take that may over time turn your previous failures into success.

This is a concept I use in the Lean for Life program. We make a small progression each week that over time (we use a 6 month timeline) will lead to a big outcome. And as each progressive action is supported by the previous actions, the momentum of the program grows as the time continues, but it actually gets easier as the program continues (and the first action is really easy, and if it’s not we’ll modify it so it is).

If you want to lose weight, have a look at the program and I’d love for you to get in touch.

Lean for Life Program

Stop Lying!!!

The key to success in any endeavour starts with one thing- who you believe you are and what you believe you are capable of.

Obviously HPC-UK is concerned with helping people develop their body and minds to fulfil their potential. So I get to speak to many people who are not happy with their body, their minds not so much; which is a shame because the unfulfilled potential in their body pails into insignificance compared to what they could do with their minds.

The reason 99.9% of these people have failed, and continue to fail to achieve progress with their body, is that their belief in 'who they are' dictates this.

Case in point = Me.

My body is athletic; it has a good level of muscle mass and low bodyfat percentage. I can co-ordinate various parts with precision and so on, etc, etc...for most of my adult life I've been 13 - 13 1/2 stone at approximately 6% bodyfat.

Why is this so? Because of my self belief that 'I'm an athlete'.

Okay so now you're saying, of course you believe you're an athlete when you have that body, that can do those things and you compete...DUH!!!

You honestly couldn't be further from the truth.

My body is that way, because I wholeheartedly believe it to be so. I have no doubt in my mind that I'm an athlete...three years ago my body disagreed.

Three years ago I was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma, a fairly aggressive cancer, but fortunately due to the great work of scientists worldwide and the amazing, AMAZING people in the NHS, very treatable. So 9 months of Chemotherapy, end result being lots of vacuuming around the house (hair loss), huge muscle loss, huge fat gain, nerve damage (intermittent loss of feeling alternating with periods of intense pins and needles), lung damage, and cardiovascular damage (heart and blood vessels).

I ended up at 14 1/2 stone at approximately 20 percent bodyfat, not being able to effectively feel my hands and feet, not being able to walk the length of a street without feeling exhausted and out of breath, mitochondrial dysfunction, and as for co-ordination, well, the chemo-brain did a wicked number on that.

One thing didn't change, in fact it became even more resolute in my mind….'I'm a mudda-funking athlete'. My body at that point certainly wasn't what I would consider athletic. I however, mindfully disagreed back.

Had I agreed, I would still be in the same, if not worse, shape now. Why? Because if I no longer saw or believed that I was an athlete, I didn't really 'need' to do certain things. Maybe I still 'should' do these things, but as we know 'should’s' don't usually happen. When you truly 'need' to do something, in fact a better term to use would be 'must'...when we 'must' do something, it gets done...period. And when we take the right actions and get them done, we get the right results. After all, outcomes don't occur without actions.

As an athlete, I must train. Specifically, as a sprinter I must sprint. To support my sprinting I must weight train. To support my weight training I must eat the correct foods. A big part of sprinting is co-ordination and reaction speed, so I developed a training and nutrient supplement to improve this. I can't carry 20 percent bodyfat and still hope to move fast, so that too must be changed. And it would be a good idea to be able to feel your hands and feet, so again I developed a nutritional protocol to assist in the repairing of my nerves. I sought out the best information and practiced it consistently and frequently.

Where am I today? 13 stone at 10% bodyfat (and still getting leaner, I'm not rushing this as some of the toxins from the chemo' are stored in the fat cells which makes me ill if released too quickly). I'm completing higher quality sessions than I ever did in my earlier career and aiming towards some big things in the next few years.

Now honestly, if you're always 'wanting' to lose weight, or continually dieting, why do you never really achieve your goal? Be really honest, what is the story you tell yourself? Do you believe you're a cover model or do you actually just tell yourself you're fat and never really truly believe this will change? If it's the latter, guess what, you're right. If you believe you're fat and have tried 'everything' to lose weight, then you'll always remain the same, even if you temporarily lose a bit. Why? Because if you believe this, your actions will reflect it.

If you truly believe you're a cover model, then that bottle of wine and sharing size packet of crisps, although appealing doesn't get consumed. They may indulge occasionally but not frequently. The things they do practice frequently are train, eat goal supportive meals and generally organise their environment to ensure that specific actions are taken.

If you believe you're fat and out of shape, then you're much more likely to make decisions and take actions that affirm this, or tend to gravitate towards people who affirm this for you, and you for them. You change your standards to reflect your vision.

If this is you, and you're happy with it, fine. Nobody really (really, really...) cares. But make the decision and live with it, stop saying you 'wish this' or 'wish that'. No you don't. You simply are lying to yourself. If it's important to you, you'll find a way. If it's not, you'll find an excuse.

If you really want to make progress with a facet of your life, make the decision. Be honest about what you want, and get it clear in your head where you want to be. Think about what you need to do to get there (here’s a hint: look at what the majority do, and do the opposite). Find the absolute best information you can to achieve your goal. Then frequently (every day) do those things.

‘We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.’ ~ Aristotle

Maximum Weight Loss Calculator

Back in January I wrote an article that briefly described a recent representative study which suggested that for permanent fat loss there is a specific threshold that if crossed will compromise your metabolism and future ability to maintain weight. You can read that article by following the link here Link to Article

Thanks to two very smart individuals I've been able to put together a simple, easy to use calculator that provides you with a figure for how much weight you can lose without overstepping this 'metabolic killing' threshold.

All you need to do is follow this link (http://www.hpc-uk.net/5.html) and open up the 'Maximum Weight Loss Calculator'. In the calculator simply enter your current weight and the period of time you are aiming to focus specifically on fat loss. The calculator will return the maximum amount of weight you can lose (for the entire period) without disrupting your metabolism and your end weight.

Give it a shot.

Olympic Legacy

The legacy of the Olympics has been one of the most heavily promoted aspects of the London games, which even has its own development corporation based on using the infrastructure created to regenerate the iconic East End of London.

A legacy is defined as ‘a gift of property, or anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor.’ This particular definition of legacy is what most of the focus is upon, that is how this local area, given a much needed injection of investment, will utilise these resources in order to flourish. But that is a fairly limited view of the legacy, which doesn’t really address the majority of the UK population.

Legacy is also defined as ‘of or pertaining to old or outdated computer hardware, software, or data that, while still functional, does not work well with up-to-date systems.’ This definition on the other hand applies to a legacy that can affect us all regardless of our locale. The reason the location is irrelevant is because we all carry this particular infrastructure within us, it is the only place you can truly call home. That place is your brain.

Unlike a computer infrastructure which cannot keep pace with technological development, the Human brain has a neat trick; it can update its hardware and software in response to the information put into it. However, in order to do this it has to be given the right information, at the right time, in the right way. Without these specific conditions the updates cannot occur. This upgrade is known as neurogenesis, which is the growth of new neurons in the brain. It’s a fairly new science; only really gathering pace around 1997, but substantial amounts of knowledge has been gathered in these 15 years.

So what has this got to do with the Olympics? Well, like myself, you probably have found yourself being a voracious spectator of the amazing displays of skill the Olympians provided over the 2 weeks of the games, whether at the venues or simply in front of your TV. Whilst viewing the sports you probably would’ve felt at least some kind of stimulation from witnessing some of the most magnificent performances ever produced by a Human. However, this level of stimulation does nothing to promote growth of your mind. But real sport participation, that’s a completely different animal.

I use the word ‘real’ purposely, as in the last few years video games using motion sensing technology have become very popular. Although enjoyable, these simulations do not engage the brain in the same way as actual participation, and do not stimulate growth of the brain. In fact there’s mounting evidence, especially in regards to sporting performance, that they may actually hinder it.

Taking part in physical activity, especially those that require higher degrees of skill and the necessary focus and mental application to be successful, are key to promoting growth of new neurons, especially in the areas of the brain that are particularly vulnerable to degeneration; the striatum and the hippocampus. The striatal cortex is the area of your brain responsible for balance, movement and decision making. The hippocampus is where your memories are formed. Loss of neurons and functioning in these key areas are central in development of Parkinson’s (Striatum) and Alzheimer’s (both Striatum and Hippocampus).

As is becoming readily apparent, our increased longevity is opening the doors to disease states that were in less long-lived days fairly rarely seen. These longer lived diseases will primarily affect the brain, whereas we can patch up or replace many body-parts; with the brain it’s not quite so simple. You have to create what’s called a cognitive reserve, which is essentially a buffer, so that even when the inevitable neuronal die-off occurs, you have hopefully built up enough neurons to see you through your days intact. And this is where sports and physical activity come into play; they help build this cognitive reserve infrastructure. Two of the ways it does this is through increased blood flow to vital areas of the brain, and stimulation of Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) which we know is key for improvements in learning and memory.

If you already participate in sport or physical activity, that’s great, but to take advantage of your brains ability to grow new neurons, activity must tick a few boxes.

It needs to voluntary. It’s likely that forced activity creates an excessive stress response, which among other things elevates levels of Cortisol. Chronic levels of Cortisol are a known cause of neuron loss in the Hippocampus.

As previously suggested it needs to demand your attention, if it’s so easy that there is no active involvement then there is little stimulation to your brain. Challenge is key, which leads onto the next requirement, adrenaline.

Although an excessive stress response is detrimental, a lower level of stress is needed to illicit a response. So sports and activities that cause excitement are definitely order of the day. Again, this leads onto a further requirement; success and failure. You have to perceive whether you’ve been successful or unsuccessful in order for your brain to set up the correct environment for growth. And key to this, is how closely the signal follows the execution. The more immediate the signal for success or failure is to the action, the more effective the stimulation. This is related to an axiom in neuroscience known as Hebbian theory which is summed up as ‘neurons that fire together, wire together’.

To further up the ante in regards to success/ failure, alongside the signal there needs to be immediate reward or punishment for success or failure respectively. In regards to this success/failure outcome, the sport or activity should be sufficiently adjusted in difficulty so that failure occurs approximately once every 6-10 times.

So if you’ve found yourself inspired by a sport from the games, or you’ve seen a sport that you may not even known existed, make use of your current excitement and go and get involved.

Regenerate your own infrastructure and become part of the Olympic legacy, it’s the best investment you’ll ever make.

1 Percent’ers

According to recent statistics only 25% of the (English) population gets a minimum of 30 minutes of activity 3 times per week (90 minutes total).1

The recommended minimum amount of moderate intensity exercise is 150 minutes per week (or 75 min’s of vigorous activity). So in regards to the above statistic we are falling woefully short, even more so if you follow the WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines of 300 minutes per week (or 150 min’s of vigorous activity) in order to achieve additional health benefits.

If you already are achieving the above recommendations; well done and keep it going. If however, you are part of the 75% who are not even getting a minimum of 90 minutes per week, you may want to consider incorporating physical activity into your daily schedule. I’m fully aware that life today is extremely busy and it often seems impossible to grab a bit of ‘me’ time, but entertain me for a moment.

A day is 1,440 minutes long, so each 1% of this is roughly 15 minutes. If you can find a way to set aside approximately 1% on 3 days out of a week (less than 1 ½ percent of your entire week) then here’s a workout* that you can use to begin making amends.

This workout is an example of what is known as a metabolic complex, they’re generally used as an alternative to usual ‘cardio’ sessions, or as a means of conditioning for many sports. The great thing about them is their density. That is, they involve a lot of volume in a short period of time, so they are an extremely efficient way of exercising.  

Essentially the complex involves a series of Barbell exercises using the same weight performed sequentially without a rest between exercises for a determined amount of repetitions per circuit. Once you complete the complex, you rest for the designated time (in this case 90 seconds).

The exercises used are:

A1 Deadlift

A2 ‘Stiff’-Leg Deadlift

A3 Bent-Over Row

A4 Front Squat

A5 Overhead Press

A6 Back Squat

Here’s a fairly rudimentary schedule you can use, that runs for 6 weeks. At the end of the 6 weeks you simply increase the weight (based on your 8 repetition maximum for the Overhead Press) and start the schedule over.

Week 1- 1, 2, 3, 2, 1

Week 2- 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1

Week 3- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Week 4- 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1

Week 5- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Week 6- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

So in week 1 you would perform the complex by doing 1 repetition of each exercise in a row. You would then rest 90 seconds, then complete the second set by doing each exercise for 2 repetitions then resting again for 90 seconds and so on until all sets are completed.

To get the most benefit in terms of metabolism the complex is best done in the morning.

Give it a go and let me know how you’re getting along.

*Bear in mind this is simply a workout, it does not constitute training, or a program, which are many magnitudes different in respect to strength and conditioning.

References

1.  http://www.aso.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/2012-Statistics-on-Obesity-Physical-Activity-and-Diet-England.pdf (Accessed 19/ 7/ 2012)

It's not about the Calories

A recent study has provided further support that when it comes to regulating bodyweight the emphasis on 'Caloric content' is erroneous.

21 overweight/ obese individuals were recruited to participate in the study. To do so the subjects were required to demonstrate a loss of 10-15% bodyweight prior to the start of the study, as the purpose of the study was to investigate the ability to maintain weight loss, not create weight loss per se.

The subjects were divided into 3 groups; low fat; low glycemic; and very low carbohydrate. All diets were 'iso-caloric', meaning they contained the same amount of Calories, the difference being the macro-nutrient (Protein, Lipids and Carbohydrate) ratios that comprised the diets. The subjects followed these diets for 4 weeks.

The results were not really surprising; the low carbohydrate diet resulted in the least reduction in both Resting and Total Energy Expenditure, demonstrating a maintenance of metabolic rate. The low fat diet (similar to the usual dietary advice given by most health authorities) showed the largest drops in metabolic rate. The low glycemic diet was in-between these two diets, but closer to the low carbohydrate diet.

In a nutshell the difference in Total Energy Expenditure between the low fat Vs low carbohydrate is 300Kcal per day, even though the intakes were deemed similar.

There are flaws in the study, which hopefully a follow up study will resolve, but I expect the result will not be dissimilar.

So what is happening?

As I've said before, Calories are only vaguely related to how Humans process food. We don't consume Calories, store them or burn them, but because the term and idea has become so entrenched in the common psyche it's hard to get people to think using a different mental construct.

The study, in addition to Energy Expenditure, also measured a number of key hormones and this (the changes in hormones) begins to tell the real story.

The hormones measured (or related measures) were leptin, thyroid stimulating hormone, triiodothyronine, and free urinary cortisol, insulin sensitivity (indexes derived from an oral glucose tolerance test ), high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 activity, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein [CRP].

For most indices the low fat group fared worst, whereas the low carbohydrate improved the indices most, except for two; 24 hour Cortisol excretion and C-Reactive Protein. Cortisol is a measure of stress and CRP is a measure of inflammation, both hormones are intimately linked with each other and also in adiposity via Insulin resistance, so this is a fly in the ointment of this particular dieting format.

The low glycemic group again was somewhere in the middle, showing improvements in most indices better than the low fat group, but not quite as good as the low carbohydrate group. However, the low glycemic group modulated their cortisol better (and probably as a consequence CRP), which is a known effect of low, but stable blood glucose/ Insulin.

So from a purely metabolic rate stand-point the low carbohydrate diet is the clear favourite, however, due to the Cortisol/ CRP issue, it's certainly not ideal.

The low glycemic diet demonstrated modulation of the Cortisol/ CRP pathways, but it didn't quite have the same metabolic impact of the low carbohydrate diet, so although good, again it's not ideal.

Is there a way to gain the benefits of all of the different diets? Absolutely. In fact we can actually surpass the benefits of any of the individual diets and utilise their specific strengths; it's all a matter of timing. Taking into account the temporal effect of physiology and adjusting our environment to account for this, we can hugely increase our metabolic rate and improve our biomarkers of health all without a need to deprive ourselves of any type of food.

If you'd like to learn how to do this, the Lean for Life Program will show you in the easiest possible manner. To find out more about this state of the art program, follow the link below. As a bonus, the Lean for Life Program is being offered at a 50% discount for the group beginning in August 2012.

Lean for Life Program

Reference:

Ebbeling, Cara B. Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance. JAMA. 2012;307(24):2627-2634. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.6607

Mr and Ms Average

Looking at the most current figures the average UK resident is in fairly woeful shape. Ms Average is a touch over 5 ft 3 inches and weighs in at 11 stones with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 26.9. If Ms Average is 30 years of age then her body-fat percentage is about 35%.

To give you an idea of what this looks like, if you look at the attached image (above), the two photos on the left are a visual representation of a female at about 35% (although the lady in this picture is over 5 ft 4 inches, so this would be a ‘good’ example of 35%). The photo on the right is the same lady at about 18% body-fat.

To take Ms. Average from 35% to 18% and remain there without a subsequent constant battle with the scale is achievable in as little as 6 months if the right approach is adopted. 

Approximately 25% Vs. 10% Bodyfat

Mr Average fares about the same. Mr Average is about 5 ft 9 inches, 12 and a half stones with a BMI of 27.4. Again, assuming he is 30 years of age, his body-fat percentage is about 24%.

In the same 6 months Mr. Average could go from 24% body-fat to approximately 10% without too much upheaval in their life.

This is what the Lean for Life Program sets out to achieve. The Lean for Life Program guides you one step at a time; essentially one habit per week, for 26 weeks to a place where your body is metabolically primed to remain lean permanently with minimal effort.

And in July the Lean for Life Program is being offered at a 50% discount.

For more details please see http://www.hpc-uk.net/6.html

Fat Loss Done Right

Graphical representation of the amount of fat lost over 6 months. This is 104 packets of butter.

Quarter Turns - Front

Quarter Turns - Side

Quarter Turns - Rear

This final photo was taken a few days before the final set of photo's. It has slightly better lighting, which shows the actual width of Russ' back compared to his waist. It demonstrates that not only has Russ lost a substantial amount of fat, but in the process gained a significant amount of lean body mass at the same time. This puts him in a better position now than at the beginning to further recompose his body composition, as he has more muscle tissue and an increased number, density, and activity of his mitochondria.

Whereas other 'weight loss' programs cause a down shift in metabolism and the supposed 'inevitable plateau', Russell has primed his metabolism to be able to shift up further, in addition to which it has already.