Book Review: Stuart McRoberts Brawn Series Book 1

If you want to gain strength and muscle mass, have not had success with conventional training approaches, don’t have a lot of time for training, and want to use the simplest, least expensive, most widely available progressive resistance training equipment––barbells, dumbbells, squat rack, chin up bar, parallel bars, and a flat bench––without getting injured in the process, Stuart McRobert has produced an excellent new guidebook for you: BRAWN Series, Book 1: How to Build up to 50 Pounds of Muscle the Natural Way.

This detailed guide to successful strength training and muscle gaining for the average trainee discusses in detail McRobert’s updated application of one of the most effective training routines in history, the high rep squat program once championed by Peary Rader, the founder of Iron Man Magazine.

McRobert himself used a version of this routine to add 60 pounds of mass to his own frame and deadlift 400 pounds for 20 consecutive repetitions.  McRobert apparently learned about the routine from Rader, who used a very simple version of the high-rep squat routine to gain about 50 pounds and become a mid-western U.S.A. heavyweight lifting champion eight years in a row, after spending more than 12 years trying many other approaches to gain strength and mass with no success.

The Brawn Book 1 (hereafter BB1) will introduce you to the history of this effective program, and show you how to apply it sustainably and successfully.  A key benefit of this book lies in McRobert's recognition that some people need an alternative to the barbell squat because of body proportions or previous injuries.  He provides valuable guidance to help you decide whether you can use the squat or need an alternative to the barbell squat. 

He explains why and how to prepare for the routine, how to select the lynch-pin movements that will work best for you, how long to apply it, how to enhance recovery from training sessions and a period of applying the routine, how often to implement it, and how to train when you aren’t doing the high-rep squat routine. 

This book also has 93 pages explaining stretching and resistance exercise technique in great detail, so that you don’t make mistakes that will cost you time and money recovering from injuries.  In this vein, BB1 differs from Rippetoe’s Starting Strength in some laudable ways.  Rippetoe recommends explosive power cleans and full-range straight-bar deadlifts, two exercises that present an unreasonable injury risk for many people of average natural build.  Although McRobert himself succeeded in deadlifting 400 pounds for 20 consecutive repetitions, he suffered a significant injury from this effort, and because of his own experience, along with other considerations, he doesn’t recommend full-range straight-bar powerlifting deadlifts.  Instead, he recommends the trap-bar deadlift, or deadlifts from knee level, both much safer variations, to people of the appropriate build.

I do have some reservations about BB1.  One regards one aspect of the training advice.  For all routines, McRobert recommends just one set of the lynchpin exercise––the barbell squat or an individually appropriate alternative––but for almost all other exercises in the routines he recommends at least two sets.  If one set is adequate for the lynchpin exercise, why do we need multiple sets for the others?  Doing multiple sets increases the time required to do a routine, and I don't think we have really good evidence that this extra time investment is worthwhile.  As explained at ExRx.net:

"Many scientific studies demonstrate one set is almost effective as multiple sets, if not just as effective in strength and muscle hypertrophy (Starkey, Pollock, et. al. 1996). These studies have been criticized for using untrained subjects. Hass et. al. (2000) compared the effects of one set verses three sets in experienced recreational weightlifters. Both groups significantly improved muscular fitness and body composition during the 13 week study. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between groups for any of the test variables, including muscular strength, muscular endurance, and body composition...

"By performing an additional set (50% to 100% more sets) only 0 to 5% more progress will be observed. Each additional set yields even less progress to a point of diminishing return. The time saved with an abbreviated weight training program can often be used more wisely elsewhere in a program. More aerobics should be performed if fat loss, toning, or cardiovascular conditioning is a goal. Duration is a more important component with aerobics exercise. Alternatively, more sports-specific training can be performed if improvement of athletic ability is a goal. In addition, more rest can be take between sets if strength is a goal. Finally, more time can be spent recuperating after workouts, decreasing the stagnant or injurious effects of overtraining."

Fisher et al (full text pdf) reviewed the evidence to produce evidence-based resistance training guidelines. and found "that appreciably the same muscular strength and endurance adaptations can be attained by performing a single set of ~8-12 repetitions to momentary muscular failure, at a repetition duration that maintains muscular tension throughout the entire range of motion, for most major muscle groups once or twice each week."  Thus, while I agree with the general outline of the BB1 routines, I would suggest performing only one set of each exercise in any session, and only one session per week.

Also, before undertaking this type of intensive training, especially if you are older or have had previous injuries, I recommend that you make sure that you have a well-aligned musculoskeletal system.  For this purpose I suggest start by reading The Egoscue Method of Health Through Motion: Revolutionary Program That Lets You Rediscover the Body's Power to Rejuvenate It.  This book will help you identify and correct postural imbalances that will predispose you to injuries in training.  I have learned the hard way––through repeated injury–– that you must correct these imbalances, and achieve what Egoscue calls "D-Lux" musculoskeletal alignment, before engaging in intensive training. 

I disagree with the some of the nutritional advice McRobert offers, as it centers around consuming one to 1.25 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight, mostly from animal products, and using fermented milk products.  Following this recommendation, a 150 pound (68 kg) trainee would consume 150 to 190 g of protein per day. McRobert claims that “Too much protein is better than not enough­­––excess isn’t a problem provided you’re healthy.”

I don’t agree with this prescription, because I am aware of no evidence indicating that any healthy human requires a protein intake of that magnitude to support resistance training, and sufficient evidence to indicate that excess animal protein does cause health problems. 

A careful metabolic study by Lemon et al found that novice bodybuilders had a protein requirement of 1.4 to 1.5 gram per kilogram bodyweight daily during intensive training.  This means that a 150 pound novice trainee in intensive training would require about 102 grams of protein daily (only about 0.7 g per pound), which would be about 14% of total energy.

This is remarkably similar to the protein requirement of a human infant.  A  human infant will double its body mass in its first six months of life.  The protein RDA for an infant aged 0 to 0.5 years is 1.5 grams per kilo (0.7 grams per pound) of body mass per day. Human breast milk provides only five to six percent of calories as protein, yet easily supplies the required amount of protein, which for an infant is only about 10 grams of total protein per day.  Human milk illustrates that the main requirement for growth is a high calorie diet; and when you eat a high calorie diet, you will naturally ingest a larger amount of protein.

However, I have previously blogged  about a study by Moore et al  which showed that 12 weeks of resistance training increases the efficiency of protein utilization, thus probably reducing protein requirements.  Also, Castaneda et al reported that 55 to 75 year old kidney disease patients eating a low protein diet of 0.6 g/kg bodyweight/day increased muscle cross-sectional area by 23% in 12 weeks. 

As I wrote in that blog:

“Human muscle consists of ~70% water, ~30% protein by weight.  The Moore et al subjects added ~33 g of lean mass daily, equating to adding ~10 g of protein to their musculature daily.

The Moore et al subjects averaged 62 kg of lean mass at the start of the study and 65 kg at the end. [4]

Using the estimated protein requirement of 0.83 g/kg/d [3], ninety-eight percent of individuals starting this program at 62 kg (136 lb) of lean mass would require not more than 50 g of protein per day.  After gaining 2.8 kg (6 pounds) of lean mass, the individual would have 65 kg (143 lb) of lean mass and a protein requirement of not more than 52 g per day.  During the training period, he would require an additional 10 g of protein per day (to accrue 33 g of lean mass daily).  Thus, from start to end, I would estimate his protein requirement as no higher than 60-62 g per day.

Using the median protein requirement of 0.65 g/kg/d, possibly fifty percent of individuals in the Moore study would require no more than 50 g of protein per day to achieve the results reported.

Since Moore et al report the habitual and controlled protein intake of these subjects as falling between 109 and 125 g per day, by my calculations, the people in this study may have consumed 40 to 60 g excess protein every day, beyond the requirement for building 6 pounds of lean mass in 12 weeks.

According to Moore et al, their 12 subjects required and consumed about 3000 kcal per day. Sixty-two grams of protein provides 248 kcal, which constitutes eight percent of total energy intake.  It would seem possible then that adult physically active humans are adapted to food sources that provide about 8 percent of calories as protein, assuming carbohydrate requirements are met directly rather than through gluconeogenesis.”

In How Much Protein?, Brad Pilon reviewed dozens of studies of the influence of protein intake on strength and muscle development, and found that the research suggests an intake of 70 to 120 grams of protein daily is adequate, with no discernible difference between animal and vegetable sources of proteinz.  

Thus, McRobert is recommending an intake of protein at least 50 to 90 percent greater than necessary.  Considering the high cost of animal products, this unnecessarily increases the cost of the diet, and if composed of animal protein, presents a health risk.

Over the short term, several studies have shown that intake of a diet rich in animal protein increases calcium excretion to produce a negative calcium balance, even when calcium intake amounted to about 1400 mg per day [1, 2, both full text]. 

Thus, diets high in animal protein probably deplete bone mineral, an effect contrary to the goal of body-building.  Many people bone mass loss is a concern only for women, but according to the National Osteoporosis Foundation:

• Up to one in four men over age 50 will break a bone due to osteoporosis.
• Approximately two million American men already have osteoporosis. About 12 million more are at risk.
• Men older than 50 are more likely to break a bone due to osteoporosis than they are to get prostate cancer.
• Each year, about 80,000 men will break a hip.
• Men are more likely than women to die within a year after breaking a hip. This is due to
  problems related to the break.

Few men realize that they are more likely to have a bone fracture due to osteoporosis than they are to get prostate cancer.

A diet high in animal protein will also tend to be high in arachidonic acid, which promotes various cancers, including breast, prostate, and colon.

Regarding cow milk products, numerous investigators have linked it to breast and prostate cancer.

Tate et al report that “Cows' milk stimulated the growth of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in each of 14 separate experiments, producing an average increase in growth rate of over 30%. In contrast, almond milk suppressed the growth of these cells by over 30%.”

This year, Torfadottir et al reported that “Daily milk consumption in adolescence (vs. less than daily), but not in midlife or currently, was associated with a 3.2-fold risk of advanced prostate cancer.”

Raimondi et al reported “We found a twofold increased risk of prostate cancer associated with an increased intake of dairy products.”

Milk may also promote breast cancer.  Su et alreported finding that “Adolescent total milk intake was positively associated with proliferative BBD [benign breast disease]” which is a precursor to breast cancer.

Qin et al found “the consumption of milk promoted the development of DMBA-induced mammary tumors in rats independent of the fat level.” i.e. both low and high fat milk promoted breast cancer growth.

In another study of low fat milk and cancer, Qin et al found that “commercially available low-fat milk promotes the development of DMBA-induced mammary tumors in rats. The degree of the promotion is almost comparable to that of 0.1 microg/ml estrone sulfate. The high estrogen content in the milk may be responsible for the promotional effects, acting in concert with other hormones such as IGF-I.”

Milk is naturally high in estrogens, removing fat from milk doesn't remove the estrogens, and modern dairy practices increase the estrogen contents of milk to unprecedented levels. 

Since a mammal only lactates after a pregnancy, to maximize continuous milk production, dairy producers subject cows to mechanical rape (that’s what we call involuntarily insemination when it is done to humans) often enough to keep them almost continually pregnant.  This results in them lactating while pregnant, when hormones are particularly high.  This raises the true mammalian estrogen and progesterone contents of the milk.  

Maruyama, Oshima, and Ohyama reported that humans consuming modern cow milk from pregnant cows have significant and disturbing elevations in estrogen levels and declines in testosterone levels that affect ovarian function and sexual maturation:

“After the intake of cow milk, serum estrone (E1) and progesterone concentrations significantly increased, and serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone significantly decreased in men. Urine concentrations of E1, estradiol, estriol and pregnanediol significantly increased in all adults and children. In four out of five women, ovulation occurred during the milk intake, and the timing of ovulation was similar among the three menstrual cycles.

"CONCLUSIONS:

"The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk.”

Get that:  Men drinking milk or eating milk products (yoghurt, cheese, etc.) can expect an increase in estrogen levels and a decrease in testosterone levels. 

Milk may also promote colon cancer.  Van der pols et al found that “High childhood total dairy intake was associated with a near-tripling in the odds of colorectal cancer”

Besides putting your own health at risk, a diet high in animal products causes death, injury, and suffering to the animals eaten, and also to numerous workers in slaughterhouses and meat-packing plants, who have The Most Dangerous Job In America. 

Also, the intensive animal farming necessary for providing modern nations a diet high in animal products is a main driver of water shortages, soil erosion, intensive monocropping of corn and soybeans, and accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  According to David Pimental, Ph.D., professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences:

• Livestock eat more grain than humans. "The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population."
• Feeding grains to livestock wastes protein. "Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption. For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein."
• Livestock production wastes fossil fuels. "On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. Beef and lamb are the most costly, in terms of fossil fuel energy input to protein output at 54:1 and 50:1, respectively. Turkey and chicken meat production are the most efficient (13:1 and 4:1, respectively). Grain production, on average, requires 3.3 kcal of fossil fuel for every kcal of protein produced. The U.S. now imports about 54 percent of its oil; by the year 2015, that import figure is expected to rise to 100 percent."
• Livestock systems drive water shortages.  "U.S. agriculture accounts for 87 percent of all the fresh water consumed each year. Livestock directly use only 1.3 percent of that water. But when the water required for forage and grain production is included, livestock's water usage rises dramatically. Every kilogram of beef produced takes 100,000 liters of water. Some 900 liters of water go into producing a kilogram of wheat. Potatoes are even less "thirsty," at 500 liters per kilogram." "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture."
• Livestock production increases land use. "More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains." [These lands could be returned to wild if we stopped raising livestock.]
• Livestock product drives soil erosion. "About 90 percent of U.S. cropland is losing soil -- to wind and water erosion -- at 13 times above the sustainable rate. Soil loss is most severe in some of the richest farming areas; Iowa loses topsoil at 30 times the rate of soil formation. Iowa has lost one-half its topsoil in only 150 years of farming -- soil that took thousands of years to form."
• "If all the U.S. grain now fed to livestock were exported and if cattlemen switched to grass-fed production systems, less beef would be available and animal protein in the average American diet would drop from 75 grams to 29 grams per day. That, plus current levels of plant-protein consumption, would still yield more than the RDA for protein."

When attempting to gain muscle, one requires more calories than one expends, and slightly more protein than a person not training, but you don’t have to drink milk or eat animals to accomplish this. Foods providing at least 10 percent of calories as protein include:

Oatmeal, 15%

Whole wheat, 15%

Cornmeal, 9%

Beans, 27%

Peas, 28%

Asparagus, 42%

Broccoli, 42%

Mushrooms, 32%

Spinach, 51%

Yeast, 53%

Most young males need to ingest at least 3000 kcal per day to gain lean mass.  Here’s an example of a 3200 kcalorie vegan diet that supplies 133 g of protein without any special emphasis on protein-rich foods.  If we assume that people need 1.4 g/kg/d protein to build muscle mass, this is adequate for a 95 kg (209 lb) individual.

Here’s the macronutrient analysis: 

And here is the micronutrient analysis; it is low only in vitamin D, which we get from sun exposure (the vitamin B12 in this diet comes from fortified soy milk).

Hence it is clear that one can obtain plenty of protein for muscle growth from a diet containing no animal products, so long as one eats adequate calories.

In summary, I recommend Stuart McRobert's  new BRAWN Series, Book 1: How to Build up to 50 Pounds of Muscle the Natural Way as source of general training guidance, with a few modifications, but I don’t recommend following his nutrition guidance. 

Strength Training Equipment: Homemade Dip and Chin Belt

Chin ups are the king of upper body exercises.  They activate the muscles of the hands and forearms, triceps, biceps, deltoids, pectorals, upper back, and abdomen.  No other upper body movement taxes this much muscle mass.

By the way, Drew Baye has a great article on how and why to perform chin ups instead of kipping pull ups.

Parallel bar dips have similar utility.  They activate the muscles of the forearms, triceps, deltoids, pectorals, latissimus dorsi, and abdomen.

Men who train these exercises regularly will soon develop the ability to use more than body weight for multiple repetitions.  To add weight one can use a so-called dipping belt.

You can purchase a belt from numerous sources, spending anywhere from $20 to $100.  However, I use one I made myself for less than $10 using materials I purchased at a hardware store:  150 pound test chain, pipe insulation, 2 carabiners, and duct tape.

I followed the procedure in this video (BTW I did not make this video).  Do it yourself and save.

Study: Strength Training Lowers Blood Pressure Equal to Medication or Aerobics

A study published in the Oct 2010 issue of the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research by Collier et al [1] reports that resistance training (3 sets, 10 reps; upper and lower body at 65% 1 repetition maximum) produces greater increases in limb blood flow and a greater reduction of blood pressure  at (40 minutes postexercise) when compared to aerobic exercise.

According to Kathleen Blanchard writing for EmaxHealth.com,  the study found a 20 percent reduction in blood pressure at 45 minutes after a resistance training session.  This reduction persisted for 24 hours and is equal to or greater than what can occur after use of blood pressure medication, but without side effects.

1. Collier, SR, Diggle, MD, Heffernan, KS, Kelly, EE, Tobin, MM, and Fernhall, B.  Changes in Arterial Distensibility and Flow-Mediated Dilation After Acute Resistance vs. Aerobic Exercise. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: October 2010 - Volume 24 - Issue 10 - pp 2846-2852

Study: Strength Training Improves Flexibility, Equal To Or Better Than Stretching

Conventional wisdom maintains that stretching improves flexibility and that strength training makes people "muscle bound"--i.e. less flexible.   I have known for years through self-experimentation that this is hogwash, and have often maintained that properly performed strength training improves flexibility on par with stretching. 

Yesterday I learned that a pilot study presented at the American College of Sports Medicine’s 57^th Annual Meeting on June 4, 2010 has confirmed my observations.  The report states:

Researchers compared the two techniques’ effect on flexibility of the same muscle/joint complexes in a five-week intervention.
 
“The results suggest that carefully constructed, full-range resistance training regimens can improve flexibility as well as—or perhaps better than—typical static stretching regimens,” said James R. Whitehead, Ed.D., FACSM, presenting author of the study.

Twenty-five college-age volunteers were randomly assigned to groups performing either resistance training or static stretching. A 12-person control group remained inactive. All were pre-tested on hamstring extension, hip flexion and extension, and shoulder extension flexibility, as well as peak torque of quadriceps and hamstring muscles. The resistance training and stretching programs focused on the same muscle-joint complexes over similar movements and ranges. Post-tests measured flexibility and strength.

The results—which may surprise advocates of stretching to improve flexibility—showed no statistically significant advantage of stretching over resistance training. Resistance training, in fact, produced greater improvements in flexibility in some cases, while also improving strength. [Italics added]

Although this was a "preliminary" study, I have no doubt that the larger study planned will have the same outcome.  Properly performed, strength training can give you strength, flexibility, and cardiovascular fitness as well. 

Weekly Strength Training Provides Long-Term Cognitive and Economic Benefits

Joyce Mar works on her strength training at the Langara Family YMCA in Vancouver on Tuesday.

Photograph by: Steve Bosch, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Sun

Today the Archives of Internal Medicine published results of a study that found that women aged 65 to 75 years who engaged in progressive strength training once or twice weekly over 12 months had improved executive cognitive functions and lower medical care costs than control women when evaluated again one year later.

Today's publication provides a follow-up on the Brain Power study which the Archives of Internal Medicine published inpublished in its January 2010 issue.  The original study demonstrated that 12 months of once-weekly or twice-weekly progressive strength training improved executive cognitive function in women aged 65- to 75- years- old.  

 One report of the the study results released today states:

Both studies were led by Teresa Liu-Ambrose, principal investigator at the Centre for Hip Health and Mobility and Brain Research Centre at Vancouver Coastal Health and UBC, and assistant professor in the Department of Physical Therapy at UBC's Faculty of Medicine. The one year follow-up study found the cognitive benefits of strength training persisted, and with two critical findings.

"We were very surprised to discover the group that sustained cognitive benefits was the once-weekly strength training group rather than the twice-weekly training group," says Liu-Ambrose, who's also a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research scholar. "What we realized was that this group was more successful at being able to maintain the same level of physical activity achieved in the original study."

In this study, one group did once-weekly strength training, another did twice-weekly strength training, and a third group "control" group did something the authors refer to as "balance and tone" which according to a Vancouver Sun article featured "stretching, range of motion, core strength, balance and relaxation exercises." 

According to the report, only the once-weekly group maintained the cognitive benefits at the follow-up.  Strength training may keep you smarter than doing "balance and tone" training.

 Regarding economic benefits:

The second important finding relates to the economic benefits of once-weekly strength training. Using the data from the Brain Power Study and the one-year follow-up study, health economists Jennifer Davis and Carlo Marra, research scientists with the Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation at St. Paul's Hospital and UBC Faculty of Medicine, were able to show that the economic benefits of once-weekly strength training were sustained 12 months after its formal cessation. Specifically, the researchers found the once-weekly strength group incurred fewer health care resource utilization costs and had fewer falls than the twice-weekly balance and tone group.

"This suggests that once-weekly resistance training is cost saving, and the right type of exercise for seniors to achieve maximum economic and health benefits," says Davis.

The study found that the once-weekly strength training group had the fewest fall and lowest medical care utilization costs. 

Thus,  this study shows that standard strength training helps seniors maintain balance more effectively than exercises supposedly dedicated to "core" strength, balance, and range of motion.  That's partly because maintaining balance requires muscular strength.  If your inner ear detects that you are off balance, but you lack the strength required to correct the movement, you will fall.  Moreover, a properly designed strength training routine will itself provide so-called "core" strength, balance training, and movement through full ranges of motion.  

In other words, strength training does it all in just one session per week.

Stay strong, stay smart, stay healthy.