Science of Sport awards: Comeback of 2011

The best sports comeback of 2011

The third of our 2011 Awards is for the best comeback of the year.  We'll do this one in reverse order - winner first, and then a list of "honorable mentions".  

South Africa vs Australia, IRB Sevens World Series, Edinburgh

I admit, I am unashamedly biased on this one, but it's the one that I was part of, and it was the most amazing three minute stretch I've experienced.  The equivalent of three touchdowns, two with recovered onside kicks, in three minutes.  At half-time, just to give some background, we were 21-7 down, then fell 28-7 behind, but scored twice to make it 28-19 with 6 minutes to play.  At that point, the next score would win the game, and the momentum was with us.  But it was Australia who scored, and they went 35-19 ahead with 2:54 to go.  We also had a "skeleton" team with three players out to injury, and a few others playing despite injury.  We really had no business winning from the position we were in, but for the next 3 minutes, all the hard work of the players and the management paid off.  The video starts with Australia going 35-19 clear.  As for that dive at the end, we didn't see it from the sidelines, we were too busy celebrating, but that was a heart-stopping moment.  I asked him about it after the match, he said he had it "under control, no worries".  It was three minutes of being in the zone, and I suspect that Sibu Sithole was experiencing life in slow-motion by that point!

On that note, this is a great advertisement for Sevens, a game where anything can happen and the result is almost always unknown until the final play of the match.  That's the essence of valuable sport - compare this to some sports where only three or four teams can ever win, and the result is a ground out procession.  So if the world's rugby bodies would get out of their own way (IRB at the top, and all the national federations below), then this sport, which will make its debut in the Olympic Games in 2016 in Rio, can become one of the most popular in the world.  And most commercially lucrative.  We are in Las Vegas on February 11 and 12 next year, for those who fancy a weekend of great sport and entertainment.

Honorable mentions


First, the comebacks to the sport after retirements and injuries, followed by single match comebacks:

• Liu Xiang - as we approach London 2012, remember back to Beijing 2008.  Difficult to think of an athlete who carried as much expectation as Xiang did for China.  He was "spared" some pressure by virtue of the fact that China was collecting gold medals almost hourly, but as their only real medal chance for a track gold, the pressure on Xiang was enormous.  He was also the defending champion in the men's 110m hurdles, but failed to get out of the blocks, leaving the Bird's Nest stadium in tears and stunned silence.  The injury was an Achilles tendon one, and it forced a 13-month layoff before Liu Xiang returned in 2009.  Strictly speaking then, his "comeback" is not a 2011 event, but it was 2011 that saw his return to the medals in Daegu, when he won silver (upgraded from bronze after Robles' controversial disqualification).  But for Robles, people argue that Xiang may have won gold, signaling a return to the summit of the sport.  That may have to wait for London 2012, where Xiang will once again mark an Olympic cycle with expectation, and perhaps, delivery.  It will be one of the best races of the Games.
  
  
• Swimmers - it's probably inevitable that with the Olympic Games one year away, a number of athletes who had previously retired would return for one last 'dance'.  It seems most common in swimming, where perhaps the highest profile return was that of Ian Thorpe, Australia's swimming legend.  To a lesser extent, Michael Phelps is on something of a comeback trail, at least in terms of winning global medals, though he was slightly overshadowed by Ryan Lochte at the World Champs in Shanghai.  Their duels will be a highlight of London.  One most relevant to South African Olympic followers who are banking on a medal from Cameron van der Burgh, was that of Brendan Hansen.  The former world record holder retired in 2008, but returned to win the US Nationals in 2011, posting a time that would have placed him fifth in the World Championships.  It will be interesting to follow the progress of the comebacks in 2012.
  
  
• Novak Djokovic and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who came back from 2 sets down to win matches against Roger Federer.  Amazingly, the Swiss champion had never lost a professional match when leading 2-0, but then did it in consecutive Grand Slam tournaments.  The first, at Wimbledon, saw Tsonga's raw power and serving overwhelm Federer to win 6-4 in the fifth.  Then in the US Open, it was Djokovic who came back from the dead to win an epic, which featured a point that Federer would later label a "lucky shot".  It happened on match-point, with Federer serving, and Djokovic coiled and unwound a winning return with apparently no fear.  I guess a season like he was having would create a perception of being bullet-proof.  That point, and the comeback, helped Djokovic into the final, where he won his third Slam of the year, leaving Federer without one for the first time in many years.
  
  
• The St Louis Cardinals, 2011 MLB World Series champions.  Baseball is not a sport I follow much from SA, but the Cardinals completed a historic World Series triumph in 2011, twice facing down defeat to come from two runs down to beat the Texas Rangers in Game 6 of the 7-match series.  They went on to win Game 7 6-2, but it was the Game 6 comebacks that grabbed the attention.  The nature of baseball (much like tennis, in fact) is that a game is often one strike from being won, and that was the case in Game 6, where the Texas Rangers were a strike away from a first World Series on two occasions.  They couldn't close the deal, the Cardinals resisted and history records them as champions.  

In the last two comebacks, spare a thought for the loser, who by definition, has had victory snatched away at the last possible moment.  Having won the Edinburgh tournament in such a dramatic comeback fashion, for example, we found ourselves in the opposite position in Port Elizabeth only two weeks ago, when New Zealand came from behind to beat us in the World Series final.  It really is a dark place to be! So for Australia, Roger Federer and the Texas Rangers, a word of consolation - they're the unwilling participants in the drama of sport!

Next time, a collection of the best sports videos of 2011!

Ross

Science of Sport Awards: The Villain of 2011

The villain of the year

Let's jump right to it - sport tends to create heroes and villains, hence its appeal (or part of it).  But we're less interested in the parochial rivalries and specific players who fans love to hate simply because of rivalries (though we are not immune to these, of course), and more in the management of the sport, the behind the scenes action that affects play.

For that reason, most of the nominees in the category of villain of the year come from "outside the lines/ropes", and are administrators or sports officials of some kind.   We didn't get too many nominees for this category (a good sign, perhaps), but we'll narrow it down progressively.  There were nominations for Sepp Blatter (honestly, I don't even know what he was nominated for specifically, there seems to be a wide range of possibilities), for Jonathan Vaughters (for neutralizing Paris-Roubaix this year), and I'll throw in two of my own: 1)  The International Rugby Board, for their continued failure to manage and improve their referees properly, particularly in 7s, but also in 15s, which undermines the credibility of the sport.  2)  Jose Mourinho, for dragging the Barcelona vs Real Madrid matches down with 'trench warfare' tactics and snide behavior off-field, which is actually only fitting for a man who calls himself "the special one" (the most special people don't name themselves...).  Oh, and then there was the driver of the car that put Johnny Hoogerland into a barbed-wire fence during the Tour de France.

But the big nominees (total of three) are:

• Oscar Pistorius, South Africa's controversial blade runner.  I don't think I'd go so far as to say that Pistorius is the "villain", though my thoughts on his participation are very clear and I'm happy to repeat over and over why.  And there was the whole issue of a cover-up, the denial of the science etc.  But I am not sure that he is the "villain" in this piece.  What he is is a hugely controversial figure, if you believe in sports science and facts.  If you don't, then he's an inspiration (and I am the villain, thanks to what has been pushed by the PR machine who back him).  So I'm going to amend this slightly, and say that if I were to nominate anyone linked to this whole story, it would be Pistorius, plus his team of scientists who failed to present all the scientific evidence to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, plus the team of PR guys who attack anyone not buying the fairytale.  But, there'll be a lot more on this story later in our awards round-up, including first-time comments from the scientists who were actually involved in the case, so I'll pick up this discussion then.
  
  
• The IAAF for reaching the conclusion that women's world records set in mixed races should no longer be recognized as world records.  The result was that for a time, Paula Radcliffe's performance of 2:15:25 was suddenly "scratched" and replaced by her 2:17:42 from London in 2005, when the women started 45 minutes before the men.  The decision was roundly criticized, mostly because it showed up a double-standard when compared to men's races, where a herd of pacemakers usually accompanies the top three of four men to at least 32 km.  One photograph from Berlin this year showed about six pacemakers surrounding Makau and Gebrselassie.
  
  The other issue is that anyone who follows athletics even tangentially can see that women's records on the track, from 100m all the way to 10,000m are seriously tainted not by having male pace-makers, but by doping.  Nobody has come within 5% of some of the records since the 1980s, and if the IAAF are serious about "unfair advantages", I'd suggest they look there, rather than at marathons, for which there is certainly some advantage from pacing, but it's marginal when compared to the men, who get much the same benefit.
  
  Fortunately, the IAAF backtracked on the decision...sort of.  They now plan to enforce the rule in 2011, but will still allow Radcliffe's record to stand.  If that's confusing, then it introduces the other problem with this kind of unnecessary policy making - it sows confusion.  A big part of the appeal of running is its simplicity.  To those outside the sport (who should really be a target of the governing body's marketing plans), the introduction of "ifs" and "buts" to records does little to improve the appeal of the sport.  One can appreciate the desire of the IAAF to control records, because there does need to be some regulation (a 10,000m record of 25 minutes is possible if the whole route is 10% downhill), but this was clumsy, impossible to enforce and unfortunately detracted from the performances of great marathon runners (Radcliffe was not alone in seeing her efforts invalidated, for a time).  Backtracking (sort of) means the IAAF remain a nominee rather than the award winner!
  
  
• Bryce Lawrence, the New Zealand referee who was in charge of South Africa's Rugby World Cup Quarter-final loss to Australia.  If a poll were conducted in South Africa to wrap up 2011, and a "villain" category was included, Lawrence would win 80% of the votes.  He is reviled in South Africa, blamed for the fact that we did not defend our World title (despite the fact that we would have had to win two more matches after Aus), and is probably the least popular sportsperson in the country.  In fact, at every sporting event in SA since the World Cup, a banner or poster will mock either Lawrence, or throw out an insult that usually invokes his name.  All in all, he is the big South African villain.
  
  And make no mistake, he was poor.  It was a dreadful performance by a referee, and criticism is justified.  However, the reaction here in SA is neither justified nor constructive.  There were accusations of deliberate match-fixing, there were death threats, and there has been whining that has persisted long after it should have subsided.  The issue of match-fixing will come up again later in our Awards round-up, when we discuss the biggest controversies of 2011, but the reality is that in rugby, the problem is far more likely incompetence than corruption, and the problem for Lawrence is that his poor performance came in a match where one side was completely dominant, and he made "errors of omission".  That is, his mistakes tended to favor the defensive team, because he gave allowed too much to happen.  The result is that the dominant team (SA) seemed discriminated against.  I wrote a little on this back in October when the fallout began, for those who would like to read more.  Again, it was a poor performance, but the real villain in this whole story is the South African public, I'm afraid to say, for pointing the finger in the wrong direction.  It's just too easy to blame the referee and overlook your own failures.  And believe me, I've been there, done that, with a professional team at the international level of rugby.  The referee may have been poor, but did we do enough to win the match?  Answer is yes, and so the villain may not be where we are quick to point.

The winner is...The Contador case - all involved, though all are probably not guilty

But those three villains are no match for our winner.  In fact, our winner is so convoluted that I'm not even 100% sure who to give the award to.  But I'll bundle it all into one category and go with the UCI, the Spanish Anti-Doping Authorities, WADA, CAS and Alberto Contador's lawyers, for the prolonged drama that is the clenbuterol case of the 2010 Tour de France champion. 

I don't even recall where the case began and ended, and if I tried to sum it up, I'd misrepresent one or more of the parties involved.  Going all the way back to 2010, when the case first broke, it was clear that the UCI had known about the test result long before the German media eventually "forced" the announcement.  That prompted Contador's admission that the UCI had informed him that they'd "take care of it", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Carrying this into 2011, the confusion kicked off in January, when the Spanish federation "proposed" a one year ban for Contador.  A few weeks later, in mid-February, the same committee cleared Contador of doping, something that happened, it seems, as a result of a politician's pressure and turning the concept of "strict liability" inside out.  That is, rather than accepting the normal approach which says that the athlete is responsible for any substances in their body, the decision now seemed to be "Prove that it's NOT doping or he is innocent".  At the time, I wrote a post that inspired some good discussion on this issue, for those wishing to revisit it.

The case was always destined for the CAS, of course, except the Spanish Federation decision meant that the UCI and then WADA would be making the appeal, rather than Contador.  Meanwhile, Contador continued to race, his first big stage race being the Giro, because there was so much doubt as to whether he'd be able to compete in the Tour de France, given that the CAS hearing was set for before the race (it was supposed to be June 6 to 8).  The case was however postponed, this time to August 1st, soon after the Tour.

So Contador raced the Tour, finishing fifth after winning the Giro.  The CAS hearing was delayed again, this time because WADA requests more time to prepare its response, and it would take until November 21 for the case to finally be heard.  The hearing ended on the 24th, and then it was announced that a decision may be ready by "early next year".

Make no mistake, this is a complicated case.  The drug in question is clenbuterol, and the Contador defense is accidental ingestion from contaminated meat.  This is possible - there have been a few such cases.  There is also the matter of alleged plasticizers in Contador's blood, the result of blood doping but only detectable using a test that is not yet approved.  So that adds a dimension to the WADA case, but may not hold up legally.  And apparently Contador's lawyers have absolutely buried the case in paperwork and technical details, testimonies, lie detector tests, case studies and so forth, which was the reason for at least one of the delays in having the hearing (when WADA was forced to ask for more time).

All in all, it's a very, very messy legal situation.  And probably a little harsh to single out any one party for the lengthy delay.  After all, what are they to do?  Each acting independently is doing what they feel they need to in order to win a case, but their actions produce reactions that force delays.  

The end result however has dragged on, and of the dozens of responses to my call for nominations, this was almost ubiquitous.  There seems a universal frustration at the delay, understandably, and so while I apologize for not knowing exactly who the "villain" is (if he doped, then it's clearly Contador, of course), the award goes to all involved.

As for what happens next, I'd bet strongly that Contador will be cleared.  That's partly because I have zero faith in the CAS (who after all missed gaping holes in the Pistorius case) and I have only revulsion for lawyers who play the system from inside.  And those factors together, along with the mountain of technical information they have thrown at this, will, I strongly suspect, see the verdict go in favour of Contador.  That will in turn have ramifications for anti-doping.  For one thing, it will mean that they may as well take clenbuterol off the banned list, but it will also challenge the concept of strict liability.  Whether it would create a legal precedent, I don't know (the specific details of the case would determine this), but it certainly would leave a bad taste.  It already has, thanks to the delays.

Ross

Next time: Comeback of the year

Science of Sport Awards: Surprise of 2011

Science of Sport awards 2011: Biggest surprise of 2011

Thank you all for your suggestions/nominations for the Science of Sport awards.  I'm really glad I asked, because I'd completely overlooked some of the suggestions you made.  I'd have felt foolish leaving them out!  There was, as expected, quite a lot of overlap, but some "fringe" nominations as well, which is great because it is a useful way to get news out and introduce athletes and performances to people who might otherwise have missed them. 

So first up, biggest Surprise of 2011.

Let's begin with some of your nominees:

• The collapse of so many professional cycling teams.  While arguably true, the cynic in me says that this is more an indictment of the times than a huge surprise.  What is surprising perhaps is which teams have vanished (and which teams have replaced them).  But cycling's "carousel" was in overdrive this year as big names found themselves, temporarily, without rides.  The economic times, perhaps?  A reluctance to be associated with a potentially risky sport?  Certainly a few years ago, the latter was a big driving factor, but I suspect more global factors are in play now.
• The Kenyans taking the whole top 20 in marathon times this year.  This was a surprise only because of the extent of the Kenyan dominance.  I covered this in a post in November, shortly after the New York Marathon.  The Kenyan dominance didn't end at times, however.  They also won every single major marathon, the World Championship title (men and women), and generally moved marathon running into a new era.  But this is a topic for discussion when we give out another award later this week...
• The passing of Sammy Wanjiru.  On May 16 this year, the world woke to news that perhaps the greatest marathoner who ever lived, Kenya's Olympic champion Sammy Wanjiru, had died after a fall from his balcony after a domestic dispute.  Wanjiru, who was Kenya's first gold medalist in the Olympic marathon, was one of the great competitive marathon runners, and that winning performance from Beijing may well have been the catalyst for a new attitude towards the distance.  Wanjiru raced without fear, he was aggressive and courageous.  Sadly, his life off the roads was slowly unravelling, which made his death, while shocking, the saddest end to a sadly inevitable spiral.  An incident at the end of 2010 with an AK-47 machine gun and his wife was a precursor.  No one could have forecast the way it would end, of course, but the warning signs were there. Less of a surprise, perhaps, than a tragic shock.
• Cadel Evans winning the Tour de France.  Australians everywhere, rejoice.  Cadel Evans had long been a contender without being a serious challenger.  There had always been an air of inevitability about Evans' Tour de France - solid riding, competitive, stubborn, but unable to produce the five or six high quality climbs to win and then defend yellow.  This year was different.  Evans was the race's strongest man - he rode assertively, if not in the aggressive manner of Contador before him (though other factors may have influenced this), and he defended when he needed to, most notably when attacked by Andy Schleck on the Col d'Izoard and pulled everyone back on the final climb of the Galibier.  Evans consolidated the Tour that day, and then emphatically underlined it in the final time-trial.  Given the 2012 route, Evans looks a good bet to defend the title, and this time, it wouldn't be a surprise.
• Vernon Philander.  This is a South African-centric suggestion, but worth a mention.  Philander is South Africa's newest bowing Test cricketer, and has exploded onto the international cricket scene, taking 5 wickets in an innings in his first three matches (only the fifth player in history to do so).  He won Man of the Match twice (MVP equivalent), and Man of the Series in the Australia series.  Few would have predicted that success, and it'll be interesting to see how soon he regresses to the mean (as he must do, unless he's on route to becoming the greatest bowler in history)

And the winner is...Ibrahim Jeilan winning the 10,000m title in Daegu

There's been a lot that has surprised me in 2011.  Apart from the list above, even the "expected" can sometimes be surprising.  For example, I'm surprised that Novak Djokovic was as dominant as he was.  I was surprised by Chrissie Wellington's remarkable run performance in the Roth Ironman, though she has clearly been building to that for some time.  It's still a "surprise" of sorts.  I'm still surprised by how South Africans reacted to losing to Australia in the Rugby World Cup...

But my criteria for "surprise" is something that I absolutely could not have seen coming.  Something that even in hindsight is remarkable.

And no single moment has been as surprising as the final of the men's 10,000 m in the IAAF World Championships.  And not just because the winner, Ibrahim Jeilan of Ethiopia, was largely unheralded before the race.  Sure he was a talented youth/junior, but he hadn't even raced in Europe, training instead in Japan.

Rather, it's because of the way the final lap unfolded.  Mo Farah of Great Britain was the overwhelming favourite - he'd been outkicking rivals all year, over 5,000m and 10,000m, and so when the race was unspectacularly slow, it was all set up.

Farah then "took" the race on with 500m to go, and opened up what was a winning lead.  Or so I thought.  With 300m to go, it was going according to script.  No surprise at all.  Then, with 200m to go, a slight problem - the gap that had been opening suddenly held at about 5 or 6m.  With 150m to go, I was officially surprised.  The final 100m have to be seen, so watch it below:

So that was a race, or more specifically, a final 53 seconds, that had me saying "Wow, I could not have seen that coming".  And so for that reason, it's my surprise of the year.

Feel free to make more suggestions below!

Later today...Villain of the year and Comeback of the year.

Ross

And to wrap up this post, a moment to remember Sammy Wanjiru.  This is a clip of the final few minutes of the 2010 Chicago Marathon, where he raced head to head against Tsegay Kebede of Ethiopia.  It was classic Wanjiru - he didn't have his greatest form (his personal problems perhaps had begun to chip away at his quality), but he fought, attacked, surged, in what was one of the most brutal finishes to a marathon I've ever seen.  It was also the last we saw of Sammy Wanjiru.  Strictly, this clip belongs in 2010, but 2011 is the year that took Sammy Wanjiru, so worth remembering now.

Track and Field Videos on Flotrack

2011 Review: Science of Sport call for nominees

2011 Wrap-up: Your nominees for Science of Sport awards

2011 is winding its way down, or, as the case may be, plummeting to its death, which leaves us just enough time to wrap up 2011 with a look back on the year to hand out our now annual Science of Sport awards for 2011.

So I'm inviting your nominations for the following categories, in no particular order:

• Sportsman of the year
• Sportswoman of the year
• Team of the year
• Performance of the year
• Sports science story of the year (calling on all the academics among you - what sports science research has grabbed the headlines this year?)
• Controversy of the year (because controversy is never far from the science of sport...)
• Comeback of the year
• Best sports website
• Sports video of the year
• Villain of the year (this one depends entirely on your point of view)
• Biggest surprise of 2011

Remember to give them a sports science spin - it's not only about the athlete, team, or event, but the "hidden side", the "how" and "why" behind the news.  In most cases, I'll try to link back to an article I wrote during the year. 

I have a pretty good idea of who wins the awards - in that sense, giving awards out is merely an excuse to summarize the stories that struck me this year!  But would love to hear your suggestions and thoughts!  Feel free to add categories that I may have missed as well!  Use the comments section to the post below to give your nominees (or click here to go to the site to throw a name or two into the ring if you're reading this on email).

Bear in mind our focus here is on endurance sport, particularly running and cycling, so I do apologize, but the awards will reflect that bias.  

The first awards are made tomorrow!

Ross

Protein powders before fasted weight training? Here is a more natural and cheaper alternative

The idea that protein powders should be consumed prior to weight training has been around for a while, and is very popular among bodybuilders. Something like 10 grams or so of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) is frequently recommended. More recently, with the increase in popularity of intermittent fasting, it has been strongly recommended prior to “fasted weight training”. The quotation marks here are because, obviously, if you are consuming anything that contains calories prior to weight training, the weight training is NOT being done in a fasted state.

(Source: Ecopaper.com)

Most of the evidence available suggests that intermittent fasting is generally healthy. In fact, being able to fast for 16 hours or more, particularly without craving sweet foods, is actually a sign of a healthy glucose metabolism; which may complicate a cause-and-effect analysis between intermittent fasting and general health. The opposite, craving sweet foods every few hours, is generally a bad sign.

One key aspect of intermittent fasting that needs to be highlighted is that it is also arguably a form of liberation ().

Now, doing weight training in the fasted state may or may not lead to muscle loss. It probably doesn’t, even after a 24-hour fast, for those who fast and replenish their glycogen stores on a regular basis ().

However, weight training in a fasted state frequently induces an exaggerated epinephrine-norepinephrine (i.e., adrenaline-noradrenaline) response, likely due to depletion of liver glycogen beyond a certain threshold (the threshold varies for different people). The same is true for prolonged or particularly intense weight training sessions, even if they are not done in the fasted state. The body wants to crank up consumption of fat and ketones, so that liver glycogen is spared to ensure that it can provide the brain with its glucose needs.

Exaggerated epinephrine-norepinephrine responses tend to cause a few sensations that are not very pleasant. One of the first noticeable ones is orthostatic hypotension; i.e., feeling dizzy when going from a sitting to a standing position. Other related feelings are light-headedness, and a “pins and needles” sensation in the limbs (typically the arms and hands). Many believe that they are having a heart attack whey they have this “pins and needles” sensation, which can progress to a stage that makes it impossible to continue exercising.

Breaking the fast prior to weight training with dietary fat or carbohydrates is problematic, because those nutrients tend to blunt the dramatic rise in growth hormone that is typically experienced in response to weight training (). This is not good because the growth hormone response is probably one of the main reasons why weight training can be so healthy ().

Dietary protein, however, does not seem to significantly blunt the growth hormone response to weight training; even though it doesn't seem to increase it either (). Dietary protein seems to also suppress the exaggerated epinephrine-norepinephrine response to fasted weight training. And, on top of all that, it appears to suppress muscle loss, which may well be due to a moderate increase in circulating insulin ().

So everything points at the possibility that the ingestion of some protein, without carbohydrates or fat, is a good idea prior to fasted weight training. Not too much protein though, because insulin beyond a certain threshold is also likely to suppress the growth hormone response.

Does the protein have to be in the form of a protein powder? No.

Supplements are made from food, and this is true of protein powders as well. If you hard-boil a couple of large eggs, and eat only the whites prior to weight training, you will be getting about 8-10 grams of one of the highest quality protein "supplements" you can possibly get. Included are BCAAs. You will get a few extra nutrients with that too, but virtually no fat or carbohydrates.

Finding your sweet spot for muscle gain with HCE

In order to achieve muscle gain, one has to repeatedly hit the “supercompensation” window, which is a fleeting period of time occurring at some point in the muscle recovery phase after an intense anaerobic exercise session. The figure below, from Vladimir Zatsiorsky’s and William Kraemer’s outstanding book Science and Practice of Strength Training () provides an illustration of the supercompensation idea. Supercompensation is covered in more detail in a previous post ().

Trying to hit the supercompensation window is a common denominator among HealthCorrelator for Excel (HCE) users who employ the software () to maximize muscle gain. (That is, among those who know and subscribe to the theory of supercompensation.) This post outlines what I believe is a good way of doing that while avoiding some pitfalls. The data used in the example that follows has been created by me, and is based on a real case. I disguised the data, simplified it, added error etc. to make the underlying method relatively easy to understand, and so that the data cannot be traced back to its “real case” user (for privacy).

Let us assume that John Doe is an intermediate weight training practitioner. That is, he has already gone through the beginning stage where most gains come from neural adaptation. For him, new gains in strength are a reflection of gains in muscle mass. The table below summarizes the data John obtained when he decided to vary the following variables in order to see what effects they have on his ability to increase the weight with which he conducted the deadlift () in successive exercise sessions:
    - Number of rest days in between exercise sessions (“Days of rest”).
    - The amount of weight he used in each deadlift session (“Deadlift weight”).
    - The amount of weight he was able to add to the bar each session (“Delta weight”).
    - The number of deadlift sets and reps (“Deadlift sets” and “Deadlift reps”, respectively).
    - The total exercise volume in each session (“Deadlift volume”). This was calculated as follows: “Deadlift weight” x “Deadlift sets” x “Deadlift reps”.

John’s ability to increase the weight with which he conducted the deadlift in each session is measured as “Delta weight”. That was his main variable of interest. This may not look like an ideal choice at first glance, as arguably “Deadlift volume” is a better measure of total effort and thus actual muscle gain. The reality is that this does not matter much in his case, because: John had long rest periods within sets, of around 5 minutes; and he made sure to increase the weight in each successive session as soon as he felt he could, and by as much as he could, thus never doing more than 24 reps. If you think that the number of reps employed by John is too high, take a look at a post in which I talk about Doug Miller and his ideas on weight training ().

Below are three figures, with outputs from HCE: a table showing the coefficients of association between “Delta weight” and the other variables, and two graphs showing the variation of “Delta weight” against “Deadlift volume” and “Days of rest”. As you can see, nothing seems to be influencing “Delta weight” strongly enough to reach the 0.6 level that I recommend as the threshold for a “real effect” to be used in HCE analyses. There are two possibilities here: it is what it looks it is, that is, none of the variables influence “Delta weight”; or there are effects, but they do not show up in the associations table (as associations equal to or greater than 0.6) because of nonlinearity.

The graph of “Delta weight” against “Deadlift volume” is all over the place, suggesting a lack of association. This is true for the other variables as well, except “Days of rest”; the last graph above. That graph, of “Delta weight” against “Days of rest”, suggests the existence of a nonlinear association with the shape of an inverted J curve. This type of association is fairly common. In this case, it seems that “Delta weight” is maximized in the 6-7 range of “Days of rest”. Still, even varying things almost randomly, John achieved a solid gain over the time period. That was a 33 percent gain from the baseline “Deadlift weight”, a gain calculated as: (285-215)/215.

HCE, unlike WarpPLS (), does not take nonlinear relationships into consideration in the estimation of coefficients of association. In order to discover nonlinear associations, users have to inspect the graphs generated by HCE, as John did. Based on his inspection, John decided to changes things a bit, now working out on the right side of the J curve, with 6 or more “Days of rest”. That was difficult for John at first, as he was addicted to exercising at a much higher frequency; but after a while he became a “minimalist”, even trying very long rest periods.

Below are four figures. The first is a table summarizing the data John obtained for his second trial. The other three are outputs from HCE, analogous to those obtained in the first trial: a table showing the coefficients of association between “Delta weight” and the other variables, two graphs (side-by-side) showing “Delta weight” against “Deadlift sets” and “Deadlift reps”, and one graph of “Delta weight” against “Days of rest”. As you can see, “Days of rest” now influences “Delta weight” very strongly. The corresponding association is a very high -0.981! The negative sign means that “Delta weight” decreases as “Days of rest” increase. This does NOT mean that rest is not important; remember, John is now operating on the right side of the J curve, with 6 or more “Days of rest”.

The last graph above suggests that taking 12 or more “Days of rest” shifted things toward the end of the supercompensation window, in fact placing John almost outside of that window at 13 “Days of rest”. Even so, there was no loss of strength, and thus probably no muscle loss. Loss of strength would be suggested by a negative “Delta weight”, which did not occur (the “Delta weight” went down to zero, at 13 “Days of rest”). The two graphs shown side-by-side suggest that 2 “Deadlift sets” seem to work just as well for John as 3 or 4, and that “Deadlift reps” in the 18-24 range also work well for John.

In this second trial, John achieved a better gain over a similar time period than in the first trial. That was a 36 percent gain from the baseline “Deadlift weight”, a gain calculated as: (355-260)/260. John started with a lower baseline than in the end of the first trial period, probably due to detraining, but achieved a final “Deadlift weight” that was likely very close to his maximum potential (at the reps used). Because of this, the 36 percent gain in the period is a lot more impressive than it looks, as it happened toward the end of a saturation curve (e.g., the far right end of a logarithmic curve).

One important thing to keep in mind is that if an HCE user identifies a nonlinear relationship of the J-curve type by inspecting the graphs like John did, in further analyses the focus should be on the right or left side of the curve by either: splitting the dataset into two, and running a separate analysis for each new dataset; or running a new trial, now sticking with a range of variation on the right or left side of the curve, as John did. The reason is that nonlinear relationships tend to distort the linear coefficients calculated by HCE, hiding a real relationship between two variables.

This is a very simplified example. Most serious bodybuilders will measure variations in a number of variables at the same time, for a number of different exercise types and formats, and for longer periods. That is, their “HealthData” sheet in HCE will be a lot more complex. They will also have multiple instances of HCE running on their computer. HCE is a collection of sheets and code that can be copied, and saved with different names. The default is “HCE_1_0.xls” or “HCE_1_0.xlsm”, depending on which version you are using. Each new instance of HCE may contain a different dataset for analysis, stored in the “HealthData” sheet.

It is strongly recommended that you keep your data in a separate set of sheets, as a backup. That is, do not store all your data in the “HealthData” sheets in different HCE instances. Also, when you copy your data into the “HealthData” sheet in HCE, copy only the values and formats, and NOT the formulas. If you copy the formulas, you may end up having some problems, as some of the cells in the “HealthData” sheet will not be storing values. I also recommend storing values for other types variables, particularly perception-based variables.

Examples of perception-based variables are: “Perceived stress”, “Perceived delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS)”, and “Perceived non-DOMS pain”. These can be answered on Likert-type scales, such as scales going from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree) in response to self-prepared question-statements like “I feel stressed out” (for “Perceived stress”). If you find that a variable like “Perceived non-DOMS pain” is associated with working out at a particular volume range, that may help you avoid serious injury in the future, as non-DOMS pain is not a very good sign (). You also may find that working out in the volume range that is associated with non-DOMS pain adds nothing in terms of muscle gain.

Generally speaking, I think that many people will find out that their sweet spot for muscle gain involves less frequent exercise at lower volumes than they think. Still, each individual is unique; there is no one quite like John. The relationship between “Delta weight” and “Days of rest” varies from person to person based on age; older folks generally require more rest. It also varies based on whether the person is dieting or not; less food intake leads to longer recovery periods. Women will probably see visible lower-body muscle gain, but very little visible upper-body muscle gain (in the absence of steroid use), even as they experience upper-body strength gains. Other variables of interest for both men and women may be body weight, body fat percentage, and perceived muscle tone.

Want to make coffee less acidic? Add cream to it

The table below is from a 2008 article by Ehlen and colleagues (), showing the amount of erosion caused by various types of beverages, when teeth were exposed to them for 25 h in vitro. Erosion depth is measured in microns. The third row shows the chance probabilities (i.e., P values) associated with the differences in erosion of enamel and root.

As you can see, even diet drinks may cause tooth erosion. That is not to say that if you drink a diet soda occasionally you will destroy your teeth, but regular drinking may be a problem. I discussed this study in a previous post (). After that post was published here some folks asked me about coffee, so I decided to do some research.

Unfortunately coffee by itself can also cause some erosion, primarily because of its acidity. Generally speaking, you want a liquid substance that you are interested in drinking to have a pH as close to 7 as possible, as this pH is neutral (). Tap and mineral water have a pH that is very close to 7. Black coffee seems to have a pH of about 4.8.

Also problematic are drinks containing fermentable carbohydrates, such as sucrose, fructose, glucose, and lactose. These are fermented by acid-producing bacteria. Interestingly, when fermentable carbohydrates are consumed as part of foods that require chewing, such as fruits, acidity is either neutralized or significantly reduced by large amounts of saliva being secreted as a result of the chewing process.

So what to do about coffee?

One possible solution is to add heavy cream to it. A small amount, such as a teaspoon, appears to bring the pH in a cup of coffee to a little over 6. Another advantage of heavy cream is that it has no fermentable carbohydrates; it has no carbohydrates, period. You will have to get over the habit of drinking sweet beverages, including sweet coffee, if you were unfortunate enough to develop that habit (like so many people living in cities today).

It is not easy to find reliable pH values for various foods. I guess dentistry researchers are more interested in ways of repairing damage already done, and there doesn't seem to be much funding available for preventive dentistry research. Some pH testing results from a University of Cincinnati college biology page were available at the time of this writing; they appeared to be reasonably reliable the last time I checked them ().