Fish:  Boys’ Brain Booster, Say Swedish Researchers

Consumption of fish has brain boosting benefits.

When I was a young tike, I used to watch a pretty good amount of Sesame Street.  Unlike today’s crop of shows geared for children, Sesame Street had—and has—some redeeming qualities, as various segments in their hour programs taught young kids how to read, write, and eat healthy (except for maybe those “C is for Cookie” bits performed by the Cookie Monster).

For whatever reason, I remember one particular segment that showed a young boy out with his father on an ice fishing expedition.  I think I remember the segment because, being a pre-schooler at the time, it’d never dawned on me that people actually went out fishing in the dead of winter.

At any rate, by the end of the segment, the boy says something that I’ve always remembered: 

…And boy, do I like fish!

Weird thing to remember, huh?  To this day, I don’t know why I’ve remembered this innocuous comment, but it segues nicely into a new study that was recently released in the March issue of the journal Acta Paediatrica.

According to the study, teenage boys that eat fish once a week or more perform better on cognitive tests than infrequent fish finaglers. 

But the positive effects on brain function aren’t relegated to short-term improvements in spatial and factual knowledge, as previous studies have demonstrated.  These scientists tested how, or if, the brain improved three years down the road.  In other words, how did the boys’ brain function fare by their 18th birthdays?

The results?  Brain boosting benefits of fish last (too bad the same can’t be said for fish freshness).  The Swedish researchers found that boys who ate fish more than twice a week averaged a score that was 12 percent higher than boys who ate fish less than once a week.  That was on overall intelligence scores, though.  When the results were broken down to verbal and visuospatial skills (for example, the skills we use to decipher what puzzle piece fits with another), fish fans scored 9 percent higher on the former and 11 percent higher on the latter (again, as compared to those who ate fish less than once a week).

And before you go off thinking this was a small scale study that didn’t take into account contributing factors, well, factor this:  the study involved approximately 4,000 15-year-old boys, 58 percent of whom ate fish, 20 percent  on a regular basis (by “regular basis” I mean more than once a week).  And to make sure as few things as possible skewed the results, the researchers’ took into account possible contributing factors among all the volunteers, like the parents’ education level, how often they exercised, and where they lived (presumably because certain locales have better educational systems than others).

The results were so convincing to the researchers, it caused the study’s head honcho, Dr. Maria Aberg, to say something rarely heard among the scientific elite:  that there was a “very clear association” between regular fish consumption and improved cognition in boys’ late teen years (If you’re a regular reader of my columns, you know how often scientists hedge their bets with words like “may” and “possible,” so as not to put themselves in a corner should  their results turn out to be flawed.  Not the case here).

This is not to say that the good researchers from the University of Gothenburg have all the answers, though.  For instance, while salmon and mackerel are loaded with omega-3s – the long chain of fatty acids presumed to be the catalyst in turning fish food into brain food – they’re not convinced the leaner side of fish doesn’t provide the same brain benefit.

If your teenage boy hasn’t loved fish since pre-pubescence, chances are he’s not much of a fan of it today.  My advice is to have at it for dinner anyway.  He may not be a fan of salmon, but perhaps he’s a nut for halibut.  He may not crave crab, but perhaps he’s in love with lobster.  He may hate haddock, but he may adore albacore.

The point is, the more fish he’s exposed to, the greater the chances he’ll like one of them. 

Whatever that fish happens to be, his brain will eat it up!      

Source:
ScienceDaily

Study:  What You Drink Has More Impact on Weight than What You Eat

Consuming sugar-laden beverages contributes to weight gain.

A younger friend of mine said to me the other day, “If I have to consume calories, I’d much rather get them by eating them than by drinking them.”

This was my friend’s own way of saying that if he has to put on weight, he’d rather do it chomping than sipping. 

While the instance in which my friend said this was one of mindless small talk, his seemingly innocuous statement revealed wisdom beyond his years.  Because new research suggests that people are much more likely to put on weight when guzzling calories than when devouring them.

Researchers discovered this after performing a series of tests and follow-ups on a group of randomly selected participants – 810 in all – that took part in another randomized study called the PREMIER trial. 

The participants ranged in age from 25 to 79 and involved lots of follow-ups to see where the participants’ weights were at over an 18 month period.  To gauge what they were eating and drinking, researchers would call the participants at random times and on random days to ask what and how much they’d eaten and drank over the past 24 hours.

In the instances where the participants put on or lost weight, both food and drink factored into their overall weight gain.  But with regards to which contributed more, researchers say drinks had the most impact, as the fewer sugar-sweetened drinks they consumed, the more precipitous their weight loss (or weight gain) was.

For instance, when participants reduced their consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by one serving per day (one serving usually amounts to 8 fluid ounces), it resulted in about a pound of decreased weight loss in the shorter follow-up periods (six months) and about a pound a half of weight loss in the longer follow-ups (18 months).

Now, again, the researchers note that both food and beverage consumption factored into weight change, but when they broke down the numbers piecemeal, sugar-sweetened drinks was the only variable that had a “significant” impact one way or the other.

And this wasn’t hard to determine, for sugar-sweetened drinks were the leading variety of beverage consumed by the participants (37 percent).  Sugar-sweetened drinks were defined as non-diet sodas, fruit punch, fruit drinks and high calorie, sugar-sweetened drinks like Kool-Aid).

The researchers involved in the 18-month study came from a mélange of prestigious institutions, such as Duke University, the University of Alabama, Pennsylvania State University, and was financially supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health and a several other fine institutions. 

The full findings are published in this month’s issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Granted, this finding won’t register high on the “Wow!” factor, but it bespeaks of the terrible toll sugar-saturated drinks have on the body.  And it’s an important find, because while we always hear about “mindless eating” I find drinking to be far more mindless.  In other words, because of the quickness with which someone can drink as opposed to chew to gain sustenance, it’s easier to fluff off liquid calories than solid calories.  This study confirms the fact that fluffing off liquid calories is a great way to gain weight.

Avoid mindlessness and embrace mindfulness; avoid calorie-laden soda and embrace nutrient-laden agua.

Source:
ScienceDaily

Drinking Steaming Hot Tea Triggers Increased Throat Cancer Risk

Excessively hot cup of tea

To really rest and relax, what’s more soothing than a nice, piping hot cup of tea?  I drink tea every day, and I can tell you it’s one of my favorite beverages not only for its good taste and smell, but it because it relaxes me. 

And these days, I can get all the relaxation I can get.

But according to a new study, just how piping hot a cup of tea is can do just the opposite for one’s vocal pipes – in short, the intensity of its hotness increases the risk of throat cancer.

According to Iranian researchers who published their study in the British Medical Journal, there appears to be a significant link between hot tea, consumers of hot tea, and throat cancer. 

For instance, among the nearly 900 men and women they followed – a third of whom had some form of esophageal cancer already – there was an eight-fold increase in cancer among those who drank their tea when the temperature of their tea was 158 degrees Fahrenheit, as opposed to others who drank their tea when it was much cooler, around 149 degrees Fahrenheit.

There was also a link with regards to how long the participants waited before wetting their black tea-loving whistles (the participants drank an average of one liter of black tea per day).  For example, similar to that guy everyone knows who wants to sink his teeth into a pizza that’s cheese is still simmering, many participants preferred to drink their tea straight from their stove top to tea cup (less than two minutes after tea was done cooking).  Their lack of patience was rewarded with a risk of cancer five times higher than those who waited four or five minutes before imbibing.

The research was performed by doctors from Tehran University of Medical Sciences, and was published in the British Medical Journal.

Researchers can’t be sure what the link is between excessive heat and cancer.  Whatever it is, it jibes with past research regarding the link between consuming food heated to an excessive degree and cancer (burned or scorched meat, for instance).  Unlike the tea, though, they know what causes that risk (it’s the chemicals that are produced – chemicals called heterocyclic amines – which form on the meat due to the excessive heat caused by overcooking).

This study focused solely on tea and what effect excessively hot tea had on the throat, yet I’m thinking that ALL hot beverages have just as destructive an effect on the lining of the throat, if for no other reason than tea is one of the more nutritious beverages one can drink (the natural ones, anyway), yet still poses a health risk when overheated.

Anyway, food, er, drink for thought:  Keep those pipes as perfect as can be and blow on your tea before tossing (or sipping) back your next brew.

Sources:
MSNBC
Discovery Health

Study:  Specific Gene Produces Excess Fat with HFCS Consumption

Soda contains high fructose corn syrup

A talk radio program addressed something the other day that I’ve seldom heard anyone outside of health professionals on television or in print mention:  the ubiquity of high fructose corn syrup in every day foods.

Certainly you’ve noticed this.  Read any food label – even foods that are considered to be healthy, like l bran flakes or wheat flakes – and one of the top ingredients is the stuff most have shortened to four letters (HFCS). 

Is it really any wonder, then, why obesity levels are as high as they are?  Or why diabetes diagnoses have jumped an astounding 90 percent in the past 10 years? 

As I’ve documented here and as has been documented elsewhere, high fructose corn syrup is one of the more toxic sweeteners known to man because of the way in which the body metabolizes it.  It’s converted to fat very, very quickly, and when consumed regularly over the course of days, weeks, months and years, it takes a significant toll on the body, leading to obesity and insulin resistance, a precursor to type II diabetes and all that it entails.

The question, of course, is why high fructose corn syrup is so quick to turn to fat than, say, glucose?  Well, researchers believe they may have found the answer to that question after putting a group of insulin-resistant rats through a series of tests. 

As reported in the medical journal Cell Metabolism this month, more than two dozen researchers from some of the country’s finest medical institutions and universities took part in a study that honed in on how HFCS affected the chemical processes of insulin-resistant rats.  They came away with many findings, but the main one was that HFCS appear to influence a specific gene – called PPARg co-activator 1b, if you’re curious. This gene produces an excessive amount of fat that the liver stores when HFCS are consumed.  But when researchers manipulated the gene so that it wouldn’t be affected by HFCS consumption – essentially blocking the gene from producing fat – fat stores declined and the rats’ insulin resistance subsided significantly.

Certainly this is a breakthrough find, but all it really does is satiate chemically-minded brains on why certain things affect the body the way they do.  In other words, it doesn’t get us any closer to becoming resistant to insulin resistance.

Insulin resistance may indeed be an inherited trait, but in an increasing number of cases (I would argue in the majority of cases, but I have no numbers to back that up), it’s inherited due to one’s diet. 

Because of HFCS prevalence, you really need to be careful of what you’re eating at all times and scan the labels whenever you’re not reaching for an organic product.  Because the organic seal is the only thing that assures what you’re buying doesn’t have a trace of high fructose corn syrup.

Each American consumed an estimated 60 pounds worth of high fructose corn syrup in 2005!   The only way to decrease that total for 2009 and beyond is by scanning the labels for each and every thing you buy.  If that sounds like a pain – and it sure does to me – the time is now to go organic.    

Sources:
Chicago Tribune
ScienceDaily

Report:  Red Meat Consumption Contributes to All Forms of Death

Consumption of red meat should be limited.

It may not be game, set and match, but this latest finding on the dangers of red meat certainly gives its avoiders the advantage.

A 10-year study conducted by researchers from the National Cancer Institute seems to confirm what many of us suspected, but few of us readily acknowledged:  Red meat eaters are more likely to die than white meat eaters are. 

The study involved men and women who were between the ages of 50 and 71.  Approximately 500,000 was the grand total of participants, and the researchers followed up on their health and the types of foods they were eating regularly throughout the decade-long period

Over that 10-year period, a number of men and women died, about 48,000 of them men and 24,000 of them women.  When the researchers went back over their food frequency questionnaires that asked the participants how often they ate red meat and other meat sources (i.e. chicken, turkey, pork), then compared that to what they died of, they came away with a number of take-away findings.  Among them:

• The men and women who ate the most red meat were the most likely to die from all causes, but specifically heart disease and cancer 

• 11 percent of men and 16 percent of women could have decreased their overall mortality rate had they consumed fewer grams of red meat at each meal 

• High white meat consumers had a slightly lower rate of overall mortality than those who ate the lowest amounts of white meat

Now, this study may not tell us a whole lot – again, most of us already knew that red meat is heavy on the saturated fat, which clogs the arteries and all too often leads to heart disease and other cardiovascular-related deaths.  Even those unrelated to cardiovascular health, as this study found. 

But I bring this up because it re-ignites the debate of whether or not one should avoid red meat entirely.  After all, if saturated fat consumption from red meat contributes to all forms of death and even some forms of cancers like colorectal and breast, why wouldn’t you?  Who wants to hasten their death?

Despite this finding, I stand behind what I’ve always said and that is to eat red meat sparingly.  I say this because red meat is one of the best places to go to for iron and it’s very easy to become iron deficient, even if you’re eating lean cuts of chicken and turkey regularly.

Another reason why is because bison falls under the umbrella of red meat.  Bison is one of the healthier cuts of beef anyone can have, and depending on the cut, it has fewer calories, fat, and cholesterol than a skinless piece of chicken.  And if the bison is grass-fed, its nutrition facts are even more impressive.

This latest finding may be a point in the vegetarians’ column, but I still believe you can boast a winning nutritional profile and a long, healthy lifestyle by eating red meat sparingly and lean cuts of it.  There are many examples why, but I’ll point you here as just one reason why.

Sources:
New Grass Bison
ScienceDaily

Researchers:  Vitamin C a ‘Useful Option’ in Gout Avoidance
  

Vitamin C supplement

Late last summer I wrote about gout.  For those unfamiliar with the condition, gout is a type of chronic arthritis that causes severe pain in and around the joints, all thanks to the overproduction of uric acid.  Uric acid is something that all bodies produce, but they primarily form when purines break down.  Purines come from foods – meats, in particular – but they are also the natural by-product of the body’s cells.

Anyway, last summer I wrote about a drink that increased one’s chances of getting gout – soda pop.  Today I’m doing just the opposite – writing about something that decreases one’s chances of getting gout.

What does this something happen to be?  Vitamin C.

According to researchers from the University of British Columbia, men who take 500 milligrams of vitamin C a day decrease their risk of getting gout by about 17 percent.

Published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers looked at approximately 47,000 men to see what health and disease traits they had in common based on their age and their lifestyle habits.  The 20-year study found that those men who consumed large doses of vitamin C daily decreased their risk of vitamin C precipitously.  For instance, those men who consumed over 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily were almost 50 percent less likely to develop gout than those men who consumed less than 250 mg per day! 

Researchers estimate the risk of developing gout drops by about 17 percent for every 500 milligrams consumed daily.    

Because vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin, large daily doses of vitamin C can be handled by the body without posing any short or long term risk.  However, you should always play it safe and consult your doctor before making any significant changes to your dietary regimen.

In the meantime, large doses of vitamin C are best acquired through supplementation.  I never discourage someone from getting their vitamins primarily from food, but to get 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily, you’d have to eat around 14 oranges (granted, oranges aren’t the world’s best source of vitamin C – peppers are – but you get my drift)!  And considering the fact that 1,500 mg really isn’t all that much, you’re better off supplementing with vitamin C to get its full array of benefits.

I don’t pretend to know what gout feels like, and quite frankly, I don’t want to know.  People compare the pain to giving childbirth (another thing I’ve never experienced, and happily, will never have to) or a bone fracture.  And from what I understand, the painful flare-ups can last anywhere from three to 10 days.

Ouch!

Do yourself and your joints a favor:  Eat more vegetables (most vegetables are low in purines), eat less meat (meats and cheeses are high in purines, especially organ meats) and start supplementing with vitamin C (a purine defeater). 

Sources:
MSNBC
gout.com
WHFoods

Study: Park Populated Places Breed Active Kids

Kids walking home from school

Fans of Eva Gabor, I have news for you:  It turns out Green Acres really is “the place to be.”

The eponymous 1965 television sitcom aired a wee bit before my time, but as I understand it, “Green Acres” centered on the life of two city slickers who move from the hustle and bustle of urban dwellings to the idyllic country side.

There are pluses and minuses to urban and rural living; Gabor’s character Lisa Douglas and Eddie Albert’s character Oliver illustrated this throughout the series’ six-year run, I’m sure. But from the standpoint of physical activity, one thing’s certain:  living in the countryside breeds more active lifestyles than urban settings, according to a study reported by the American Heart Association.

Now, this might come off as sounding obvious.  After all, if there’s more room to move around, then there’s obviously more opportunity to take advantage of all those “wide open spaces,” as the Dixie Chicks might say (sorry, I’m doing my best to channel a country-livin’ lifestyle despite my urban dwelling background).  But more and more parks and recreational activities are being built in cities.  In fact, in Boston, officials have dedicated millions of dollars to building more bicycle pathways to curb the prevalence of traffic jams.  And as I can attest, New York City streets are always loaded with people walking to and from their destinations – whether it’s in the dead of winter or in the life of spring.

Nevertheless, farm livin’ is best for healthy, active lifestyles – at least according to researchers from the University of Montreal and their study that looked into the itinerancy rates of children born to at least one obese parent. 

The cleverly titled “QUALITY” study – an acronym for the Quebec Adipose and Lifestyle Investigation in Youth – followed 600 kids from 300 families.  The aim was to identify what biological and environmental factors contributed to excess weight in children (the rate of childhood obesity has increased three fold since the late 1980s).

One of the environmental factors they looked into was park availability and if availability (availability meaning how many parks there were, how close they were to the kids’ schools and homes) translated into more active lifestyles. 

What they found was that for every park that was located within one half-mile of kids’ homes, they were that much more likely to walk to and from school.

(This is a classic example of environment influencing behavior – for all you nature vs. nurture buffs!).

For example, among girls, park availability made them 60 percent more likely to engage in what the researchers call “purpose driven” walking; among boys, they were 50 percent more likely to “leisure walk.”

Again, this is a classic case of environment influencing behavior.  Kids typically aren’t as concerned with health, particularly today with the “rise of the machines” (iPods, video games, PCs, and Segways).  But given the opportunity, they’ll take advantage.

Of course, not everyone has this opportunity; responsibilities and job limitations often, well, limit the ability to move to rural locales.  If this is the case, do your best to look for areas in the city that are near to parks and recreational facilities.  More and more cities are dedicating funds to sidewalks and bike pathway construction to curb pollution and untie traffic back-ups. 

Perhaps these University of Montreal researchers will conduct a future study on city dwelling to see if cities’ recent renovations have borne fruit.

In the meantime, I guess the old cliché of “location, location, location,” really does matter, particularly when it comes to physical activity.

Source:
Science Daily

Study:  Fat Tummies Tied to Low Vitamin D Levels in Adolescents
 

Could a Vitamin D deficiency be the cause of obesity in children?

It’s hard for me to recall a time in which there was more attention paid to a specific vitamin.  It reminds me of those Sesame Street skits, where throughout the episode, the voiceover announcer would say “This has been brought to you by the letter D.” 

From avoiding colds to avoiding heart attacks, propping up skin health to propping up bone health, there’s a deluge of “D” news.  Not enough kids are getting enough of it, so health professionals have upped the ante on how much the average child ought to be getting.

So what’s the latest dealy-o on D?  Well according to researchers, adolescents’ deficiencies in D may help explain why obesity is so prevalent a problem.

A study from the Medical College of Georgia has found an interesting correlation with vitamin D and fat percentages of study participants who ranged in age from 14 to 19.  They found that those boys and girls who had the lowest levels of vitamin D in their bloodstream also had the lowest amounts of visceral fat on their body, or fat that’s found around the abdomen.  This was particularly true for young women of African-American descent.  The fact that this was true among black teenagers isn’t too surprising, though, because the high degree of melanin found in black (or tanned) skin significantly hampers the body’s ability to absorb vitamin D, which is chiefly accumulated through the sun’s rays. 

Meanwhile, those who had the highest vitamin D levels – white and fair-skinned males – had the highest vitamin D levels and lower visceral and overall body fat levels.

Because correlation does not imply causation, researchers are now looking into whether taking a daily vitamin D supplement will translate into lower overall fat levels. 

While I don’t doubt the researchers’ findings, there are a lot of questions that need ironing out before drawing any broad-based conclusions.  For instance, while black males’ blood concentration of vitamin D was below what’s recommended – 400 units per day – they were the group who had the lowest overall body fat levels.  Further, the study only looked into what the 650+ teens ate from day to day, not their exercise regimen.

As aforementioned, the best source from which to get vitamin D is the sun; just 20 minutes a day is about all one needs for an adequate vitamin D supply.  I’d be interested to know if the kids involved in the study spent any amount of time outdoors when they exercised (if they exercised at all) as compared to when they exercised indoors.  That might give the researchers a better idea of whether or not vitamin D does really play a role in visceral fat production.

This is a study that is in its initial stages, but it is certainly fodder for people to give consideration to with regards to why this vitamin is so important.

I will keep you posted on any further adolescent fat ‘D’-scoveries.

Source:
Science Daily

Wake Forest Researchers Link Diabetes to Dementia Risk

Genomic mapping of APOE, which is one of the markers for Alzheimer's

The ongoing financial crisis the country is embroiled in has opened my eyes to how intricate a web our economic structure is.  The so-called domino effect of the economic collapse – starting with the housing bubble bursting,  leading to a chorus of bursting bubbles up and down Main Street and Wall Street – is a very real thing, and its effects can be seen everywhere, from the tumbling stock market, skyrocketing jobless claims, nixed newspapers, and bailout bonanzas.

But the domino effect is not solely a function of the economy; it’s also found in health matters.

For a number of weeks now, story after story I’ve written has talked about the linkage of one disease to another, how having one disease exacerbates the risk of having another.

This time, it’s with regards to Alzheimer’s risk. 

More than five million people in the country have Alzheimer’s, one of the most painful diseases to watch anyone experience because its effects mentally rob Alzheimer’s victims of everything they once were at a slow but sure pace. 

Thankfully, tireless researchers uncover more and more about it and what habits, diseases and lifestyles serve as it’s precursor, or alternatively, as it’s preventer (my section on Alzheimer’s is a testament to that).  To this point, research suggests lifestyle and environmental factors do play a role, but the chief contributor is one that none of us can change:  genetics.

I suppose it depends on the person as to whether this brings a sense of coolness or fearfulness – the knowledge that since it’s out of your hands, why worry, or since it’s out of your hands, that’s exactly why you worry.

I tend to side with the former, because all we can control is our actions and our behaviors.  That said, I bring to you the latest on what researchers say exacerbates the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

According to a study conducted by researchers from Wake Forest University and published in the journal DiabetesCare, people with diabetes are more at risk for developing Alzheimer’s because of the way insulin resistance affects the brain.  They discovered this link after conducting what the Associated Press referred to as a “battery” of tests on 3,000 people with Type 2 diabetes.  These tests measured the participants’ cognitive function, or their ability to think, reason, and remember certain cues. 

Another test they performed measured their A1C score, which gives an indication of the participants’ blood glucose levels as they rise and fall.  These scores were tracked and conducted over several months.

When comparing the A1C scores to the diabetics’ cognitive function tests, they found that whenever glucose levels rose, cognition testing scores declined.  While the drops in scores were small from month to month, they were nonetheless “meaningful,” or so the Demon Deacons’ researchers consider them, because they provide a clearer picture of how insulin resistance adversely affects brain cells.  

Obviously, this news can’t sit well with the estimated 24 million Americans suffering from Alzheimer’s.  But researchers stress that diabetics’ ought not panic, for there are many Alzheimer’s sufferers (I would suggest the lion’s share) who don’t have diabetes.  Further, as aforementioned, genetics still plays the largest role in the risk of developing Alzheimer’s.  Plus, there are other diseases diabetics are more at risk in developing, like heart disease and high blood pressure.

Not exactly a calming rest assurance, is it?

I hate to conclude articles with bad news, especially in times like these where gloom and doom seems so pervasive.  All one can do is their very best.  As you’ll find in my Alzheimer’s section, there’s a wealth of studies showing how lifestyle factors play a huge role in preventing, or hastening, Alzheimer’s onset.  I encourage you to read them and apply them in your life – whether you have diabetes or not.

All we can do is our very best to stay healthy and avoid Alzheimer’s.  By staying informed on Alzheimer’s, how to beat it, and then applying those teachings to your life, you’re doing exactly that.

Sources:
Associated Press
The Washington Post

Part 2:  What’s the Best Form of Stretching:  Static or Dynamic?

Example of static stretching

Unlike man, all stretches are not created equal.  Not equal because stretches stretch different muscle groups (the lunge stretch stretches the hip flexors; the squat stretch stretches the quadriceps) and some stretches are more effective in stretching out one muscle group than another that stretches the same muscle group (in my opinion, stretching the inner thigh muscles are best done sitting down, not standing up).

But there’s another reason why stretches aren’t created equal, and the answer goes back to terms you probably first heard in your junior high science class.

If you remember your junior high science class, then you probably recall the terms “dynamic” and “static,” and their referring to energy.  For instance, when energy is static, it’s motionless, or potential; when energy is dynamic, it’s moving, or kinetic.

The same definitions apply to stretching.  When most of us think of stretching, we think of the static kind – the kind where you sit on the floor or stand and hold something to stretch those quadriceps, hamstrings and calf muscles.  Traditionally, these exercises have been done before hitting the pavement for a run, or pounding the pedals for a ride. 

But based on my own experience and my own independent research, static stretching is best left for AFTER exercise, not before.  Why?  Because it can actually diminish performance.  In fact, in no less than eight studies I found – published in such well-respected journals as Sports Medicine, the Journal of Sports Sciences, and Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport – each of them showed how static stretching ailed athletic performance, decreasing muscle strength by 10 percent, reducing force production in the Achilles tendon (i.e. the space between the heel and the base of the calf muscle) by eight percent, and reducing one’s vertical leaping ability, respectively.

And these numbers might be TOO generous.  In other analyses, muscle strength was reduced by as much as 30 percent!

The best kind of stretching to do prior to rigorous exercise is dynamic stretching.  When you stop and think about it, it makes sense.  Static stretching is stretching muscles groups while at rest and remaining at rest throughout; dynamic stretching stretches muscles and moves them at the same time.  And that’s really the point to stretching before exercise:  to increase range of motion and improve performance before “heading into battle.” 

My favorite kind of dynamic stretch is called the straight-leg march.  This is where you lift your leg straight out in front of you while trying to touch that foot with your opposite hand.  You then repeat with the opposite leg and opposite hand, “marching” as you go.  You shouldn’t force the stretch, though; that’s known as ballistic stretching.  Just gently reach out in front of you and slowly (but forcefully) march six to 10 steps, raising and reaching just enough so you can feel the stretch.

There are lots of other forms of dynamic stretches, some of which can be found here.  Try them out and see if you feel or notice any difference in your athletic endeavors.

Note:  This should not suggest that there’s no place for static stretching.  As I said, static stretching is best left for post-workout.  The muscles tend to tense up after a 30 to 40 minute run or bike ride, and there’s no better way to relax them than with some static stretches; they increase flexibility and are a great, relaxing way to cool down.

Sources:
EliteSoccerConditioning.com
The New York Times