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