Let me ask you something, have you ever visited PubMed or an equally nerdy site in an effort to look up promising research only to find that the language used flew way past over your head? Well, you’re not alone. Just reading some of the abstracts on fitness studies will leave you clueless, helpless and no smarter than before.

Luckily for you, I had a chat with my man Mark Young who created a product called How To Read Fitness Research. Basically, he deciphers all the crazy lingo when it comes to reading and understanding research so you can actually absorb what the hell is being said and put it to good use. After going through it, nerd talk has never been so comprehensible!

Look, there is no substitute for good, solid evidence and if you’re the least bit interested in improving the way you look, feel or perform than reading research should become a common activity at some point in your week. And now, it couldn’t be easier. So get with the program, grab a beer and enjoy the interview. It’s quite jam packed!

The Interview

me: So Mark first up, big ups for doing this. I know you’re a new daddy and got a brand new pooper er… I mean, “baby” running around recently.

Mark: Thanks man. Things definitely change when you’ve got a little one, but I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

me: They say fatherhood changes you. And makes you less sexy. But you’ve managed to keep the sexy (minus the dressing like a retarded monkey bit). So give me a little breakdown of how you manage to keep the sexy while handling fatherly duties and publishing nerdalicious research.

Mark: Unlike the old days when I could train whenever I wanted, these days I’m up at 5AM at least 3 days per week to lift some heavy shiznit and hit up some cardio. Any additional stuff I get in during the week is a bonus.

Nutritionally, I just do pretty much as I’ve done before…although I usually end up finishing off my daughter’s breakfast as well.

me: Putting her in a caloric deficit already. Bad Mark.

Mark: She actually never really eats much at breakfast. Not sure why. I think she’s on some intermittent fasting plan or something.

me: Yeah, Brad Pilon is also a Canadian. Wouldn’t be surprised if she read Eat-Stop-Eat already.

Mark: He actually lives pretty close to me, but he’s yet to invite me over for one of those delicious steaks he’s always talking about on Facebook. Bastard.

me: I say we raid his house. I’ve got air guns and boxing gloves. That’s more equipment than the RCMP.

Mark: Hah, I’m down. I think we need to catch him at then end of a fasting day when he’s weakest.

me: Agreed. He’ll be mixing his BCAA’s or some shit. I’ll snipe, you barge.

Mark: Sounds like a plan Stan. Although running this interview publicly in advance may make this plan less effective.

me: It’s ok, my shit is too scandalous for him to read, hah. Now speaking of your little one, how soon are you going to introduce her into the world of lifting heavy awesomeness? Because one question I get all the time, from who I presume to be hot MILFS, is “how soon should my son or daughter start lifting weights”?

Mark: Well…she’s 20 months now so it’ll probably be a while. The goal for her youth is to keep her active and athletic. I’d have to refresh with CSEP position stand on resistance training for youth, but I think you could start pretty young with bodyweight resistance if she’s interested. Strength at that age mostly comes from neural improvements versus muscular changes anyway. The key for us as parents is to model the behaviours we eventually want her to follow. So eventually I’m guessing she’ll become an iron addict.

me: So there’s no specific age you would wait for before recommending the iron? Because my standard response is to throw them into gymnastics, where the emphasis on bodyweight training is prime. I also coach this sport and have been in it for many years so I know the benefits it provides physically. Then when they reach teen years, start lifting.

And I fully agree with the role modelling. Blaming kids for being fat is retarded.

Mark: Based on the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology position stand (which is based on research) there is no minimum age for resistance training in children. Bodyweight takes the emphasis, then progressing up as high as 4 weighted sets of 8-15 reps for as many as 8-12 exercises. Even Olympic lifts are seen as okay.

me: That’s interesting, good to know. Now how about a short Mark Young history lesson. Who are you, where’d you come from, how did you start etc?

Mark: Basically, I finished my undergrad in kinesiology in 2000. Took a year off to travel and ended up working at a gym until the following September when I entered a Masters program in Biomechanics which I eventually changed to Exercise Physiology. Somewhere in there, I launched my own training business and the rest is history. I’ve now been training peeps for about 11 years and have had the opportunity to do research in one of the world’s leading muscle protein metabolism research labs.

me: You’re probably the coolest nerd I’ve met.

Mark: I am an exceptional nerd…except I don’t watch Harry Potter. I don’t get that shit.

me: Yeah me neither, but hot nerd chicks like it so it’s an easy date option. Plus later she can get intoxicated and play with my wand. It’s very magical. If you have any single friends, they can thank me later for such an epic pick up line.

Mark: I hear chicks dig miniature wands.

me: They like growers not showers; that’s part of the magic yo! Actually that came out like “shower” but that can be fun too. Ok so your extreme nerdiness inspired you to create a product called “How To Read Fitness Research” – I’ve gone through 80% of it and must say, that’s a brilliant niche you’ve found. How did you get the idea for this?

Mark: Frankly, I used to read a lot of blogs and fitness articles on the internet and I finally came to the conclusion that 95% of everything I was reading was complete BS. And while a lot of that stuff “works” it is largely not based on science.

For example, the old dogma that suggested we HAD to eat 6 times per day worked for fat loss, but this was ultimately because it doesn’t matter whether you eat 2 times per day or 6 as long as you are in a caloric deficit. It took a few smart people to look a research, figure this out, and then the industry was changed in a heartbeat.

me: Very true. Now I have a philosophy that science follows nature, not the other way around. Which means there are techniques and methods out there that WORK, but haven’t been backed by peer reviewed research… yet. Do you have any examples of such training methods you personally use or do you just not bother with things until they are proven?

Mark: The first point to understand is that nothing can technically be proven. In research, we test a theory (or method). If that method is better than another then it stands as the most accepted theory for that time, but that does not mean that it cannot later be disproven. In fact, the whole purpose of research is to TEST not to prove.

That said, I tend to limit myself to stuff that has some experimental evidence behind it OR a scientifically valid reason why it MIGHT work. Generally speaking though… I won’t trust some internet author who tells me his methods are scientifically valid unless he provides such reasoning. Most people on the internet don’t know what on earth an ANOVA is so I’m not going to trust them to provide me with any scientific input. If I’m interested in what they’re saying, I’ll look it up myself.

me: Hmm, I remember going through that part of the course yesterday. And I think that’s the biggest “a-ha” most people will have; that research is meant to test not prove. Is this how most “cherry picking” happens?

Mark: Abso-friggin-lutely! A lot of people (*cough* Mercola *cough*) write an article and have a pet theory about a specific topic. Then when they hit the research (assuming they can read it properly in the first place) look only for studies that validate what they say.

To me, the purpose of research is to take what you think you know and test it.

If it stands against the rigorous controls of science then you know it is a valid method and worth implementing in the real world.

I think of it like a multi level screening. If I hear something I’m interested in, I look it up to see of there is any research backing it. This is my first level filter to weed out a lot of BS. If the method proves valid I’ll test it in the real world which is what I consider my second level filter. By doing this, I can prevent trying stuff that is a total waste of time and/or money (with possible negative health consequences).

me: Wise words for all. And I can see that this 2 step screening process guarantees that Type 1 errors won’t fuck you over. To those that don’t know these errors can you give a brief sentence or two on type 1 and 2 errors.

Mark: Sure. A type 1 error is basically what we call a false positive. It means that the statistics we used for our research find that a method (or supplement) works when it really doesn’t. According to the filters above, this would mean that you’d find support for this method, test it in the real world (your second filter) and it wouldn’t work. So you’d scrap it.

A type 2 error is what is called a false negative. This means that the statistics we used for our research find that a method or supplement does NOT work when it actually does. In this case, my first level filter would say not to try this method until evidence was strong enough to support its use. So I probably wouldn’t try this in the real world and I might miss out on stuff like this.

Then again, any study with a small number of subjects is at risk of errors which is why larger studies are of more value and you have to take this into consideration when looking at research. In studies where a type 2 error was present you’d usually see a trend towards statistical significance (meaning that it was shown to be “almost useful”) so it might indicate it is worth trying anyway.

…Dammit. I so don’t know how to write short sentences.

me: No worries, I like peeps who have a lot to say. And that fact right there had me re-reading studies I’ve read in the past. Just to give me new fun things to try. Now you recently were an author on this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21755358 which I thought was pretty interesting. For those that get confused reading abstracts, can you give us a gist of what you basically found.

Mark: Sure man. The gist of it is that training with pure eccentrics (a.k.a negatives) has long been thought to result in greater strength gains than training with exclusively concentric (lifting) actions. Unfortunately, since eccentric contractions allow us to lift up to 40% more we thought that this difference really didn’t have anything to do with the type of action (lowering vs lifting), but just the amount of total work that was done.

In our study we trained one arm with purely negatives (lengthening contractions) and the other arm with purely positives (shortening contractions) but we matched the total amount of work using a fancy machine called a Biodex. Basically, the concentric arm did extra reps to match the work done with the eccentric arm. In the end, we found that the strength gains and muscle gains were the same between both groups. So negatives aren’t really better for strength or size.

me: Bam. This is the type of study I was looking forward to for a while. I was and still am a huge fan of eccentrics, but it was obvious that they produced stellar results due to the greater stimulus you could pound your muscles with. Now here’s what people most likely want to know – based on what you found, do you think trainers/trainees should change a few things around in their program protocol?

Mark: Well this is where reading research carefully really comes into play. Those who read the study will notice that one group did pure eccentrics (no lifting portion) and the other group did pure concentrics (no lowering portion). In real lifting this pretty much never happens as we have to both lift and lower a weight. So, in essence, this is a study investigating the mechanisms of what causes strength and growth which furthers our scientific understanding of how muscle grows. It is NOT really a good study to translate into practice except to say that if you’re overloading yourself with max eccentrics that there are alternatives that may be less taxing on the CNS.

me: Indeed. Shows you can’t get “everything” from the abstract, which is also something you harp on quite a bit in your product. Alright Mark, let’s end this nerd-tastic session with a rapid fire round. I’ll ask a bunch of questions and you answer them as fast as you can. Single sentence or less. Ready?

Mark: Let’s do it.

me: 1. Top 3 journals anyone who wants to be strong should be subscribed to

Mark: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Strength and Conditioning Journal, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition.

me: 2. Your current favourite supplement?

Mark: Fish oil.

me: 3. One quick effective tip people can use to lean down for the beaches?

Mark: Eat less calories than you burn. Not rocket science. Anyone who tells you differently is probably selling something.

me: 4. Three books anyone interested in fitness should read.

Mark: Muscles: Testing and Function with Posture and Pain by Kendall. Movement by Gray Cook. Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle by Tom Venuto.

me: 5. Would you rather press or pull?

Mark: Tricky. Would rather press (ego), but I opt for pull (necessary).

me: 6. Vodka, Rum or Scotch?

Mark: Vodka for sure.

me: 7. Top guilty pleasure?

Mark: Diet Pepsi. That’s about the worst I’ve got these days. Damn I’m getting old.

me: ew.. 8. Favourite movie of all time?

Mark: Fight Club or Scent of a Woman. Too tough to call. Pacino is priceless in this one.

me: 9. We already know what makes you awesome, what are 3 things people can start doing TODAY to make themselves more awesome?

Mark: Set goals. Stop eating crap. Treat other people as you want to be treated.

me: Nice. This is why I spank hotties all the time. Good advice. Mark, wanted to say thanks for doing this interview, this has been educational and sexy all at the same time. If people want to reach you, where can they do so?

Mark: Thanks for thinking of me man. People can check me out at my blog (www.markyoungtrainingsystems.com). Or if they’re interested in becoming an uber fitness nerd capable of dismantling BS with a single wave of their pocket protector they can check out my product How to Read Fitness Research.

me: Solid sauce. I don’t recommend things often, but that is a solid product you’ve put together. I’ll be going through it again. And that raid on Brad’s house, give me a shout sometime in the future.

Mark: Will do brother. I’ll keep it on the down low.

me: fo sho. later buddy.

Mark: Later.

The End

If you got a lot out of this interview (and I don’t see how you couldn’t have) then be sure to give Mark’s site a visit. If you’ve got questions, post them in the comments below. Or if you want to stay quiet, at least show the man some love by giving the interview some shareable love VIA Twitter/Facebook etc.

Cheers.

———–
© 2011, By FitJerk. FitJerk.com is a division of Flawless Fitness Media – All Rights Reserved – No part of this post is to be republished without author consent under any forms of media (including print, internet, video or audio transcription). Doing so is a violation against copyright law and should be punishable by a punch to the face. All images are copyright of their respective owners.

Tired Of Looking Ordinary? Click Here And Get FJ To Design A Fitness Plan Just For You! FREE Initial Consultation.