Posted on

Can Hard Work Beat Talent: Part 2

In Part 1 I asked the question “Can hard work beat talent?” and took too long attempting to define what “talent” in an athletic sense might represent.    So now let me look at the other half of the issue, that of “hard work” and how to define it.  Surprisingly given how much I wrote in Part 1, I won’t have a lot to say here.

Defining Work/Hard Work: Part 1

Compared to what I wrote about talent, I don’t have that much to say here.  Hard work is, well, hard work.  In an athletic sense it would represent the often grinding, exhausting training that all ultimately successful athletes put in.  Depending on the sport this might eventually entail 20-40 hours of endurance training per week, 5+ sessions of Olympic lifting, hours in the weight room, etc.

And whether or not you buy into the idea of there being some type of innate talent, I don’t think most would deny that you still have to put in the work. … Keep Reading

Posted on

Can Hard Work Beat Talent?

Can hard work beat talent?  This is one of those questions and debates that has raged on for yers.  Usually I see it asserted that “work can beat talent” or perhaps “hard work can beat talent”.  This is meant to suggest that so long as you put in the work you can reach whatever goal you set.   That includes beating someone who might be more naturally talented than you.

The fitness industry runs on trite platitudes like this.

I’ve gotten into endless arguments over the years in various forums, etc.  When I try to point out that there are clear genetic limits, this will be met with the retort “You don’t know my work ethic.”  The implication, belief being that hard work can overcome anything.

It’s a mentality that tends to be held by those with less talent, who want to think that life works like a Rocky movie.  That heart can beat talent.… Keep Reading

Posted on

Fructose Intake During Low-Calorie Diets

For decades, dietary fructose has held an odd and controversial place in the realm of nutrition.    Some see it as a perfect sugar while others see it as the dietary devil incarnate.   Who’s correct?  To address the issue I want to examine the following paper.

Madero M et. al. The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial. Metabolism. 2011 May 27. 2011 Nov;60(11):1551-9.

Background on Dietary Fructose

Dietary fructose (“fruit sugar”) is one of three simple sugars that is found in the diet, the other two being glucose (“blood sugar”) and galactose (“milk sugar”).  As its name suggests, fructose is found primarily in fruit.  However, it also makes up one-half of sucrose (“table sugar”).  It is also roughly 50% of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), discussed below.

Throughout the decades, the attitude towards fructose has gone back and forth. … Keep Reading

Posted on

The 300 Pound Bench 400 Pound Squat and 500 Pound Deadlift

So at some point in the training game someone threw out the idea that a 300 pound bench, 400 pound squat and 500 pound deadlift would get most people fairly close to their genetic maximum in terms of muscle mass.   And while I can’t say who came up with this initially, I do know that Stuart McRobert of Hardgainer magazine certainly popularized it.

But whenever these values are thrown around, a number of questions tend to come up.  The first is that in powerlifting competition, it’s not uncommon to see people squat more than they deadlift.  Or, well, it was at one point.  Which I’ll come back to.  Of course everybody knows someone at their gym who benches more than they squat or deadlift but that’s a separate issue.  There are also a couple of dumb strawman argument ideas that show up.

What’s going on?  Let’s find out.

Defining the Specifics

So the idea here is that if the general trainee is able to get their bench press to 300 lbs, their squat to 400 lbs and their deadlift to 500 lbs, that will likely take them close to or to their genetic potential for muscle mass.… Keep Reading

Posted on

Mind Over Milkshakes and the Ghrelin Response

I’ve written a lot about the the physiology of appetite and bodyweight regulation over the years.    And while I tend to focus on the physiology of it, it’s important to realize that humans are not just a stomach and a nervous system (as is the case in many animal models).  Rather, our appetite and actual food intake can be modified by psychological factors.     So today I want to look at a paper that’s been getting some press dealing with the issue of mindset and how it impacts appetite.  The paper is:

Mind over milkshakes: Mindsets, not just nutrients, determine ghrelin response.  Crum AJ et. al.  Health Psychol. (2011) 30(4):424-9.

Human Appetite Regulation

As I’ve written about previously, human appetite regulation is incredibly complex, involving the complex interplay of hormones, the nervous system, nutrients and the bloodstream and more.  More here includes mental state, stress, environmental factors and many others.

The research on this dates back decades and early models focused on the presence of glucose, amino acids or fatty acids in the bloodstream.   … Keep Reading