Two vague studies say stuff that might not be true.

A study about beer and another about soda-pop hit the streets recently. If either of them had been remotely conclusive, they'd be really exciting. Alas...

• The soda study appears in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. It followed 60,524 men and women in the Singapore Chinese Health Study for 14 years. During that time, there were 140 pancreatic cancer cases. Those who consumed two or more soft drinks per week (averaging five per week) had an 87 percent increased risk compared with individuals who did not.

The only problem with this study is that the test subjects who guzzled pop tended to have overall bad nutritional habits, so there's no way of knowing if soda drinking was the issue. It could have been smoking or red meat consumption. (Sorry, Dave, the red meat thing comes from the researchers, not me.)

Another mystery to me is the age of the researchers. If you look at Dr. Mark and Dr. Susan's photos above, they look awfully young. The only thing I could imagine either of them following for 14 year would be The Simpsons, but what do I know?

•••

• The beer study is even dodgier. It appears in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. It claims that silicon affects bone density positively and since beer has lots of silicon in it, it should be good for bones. It's a logical assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Pam Anderson could not be reached for comment. She could not be reached at all, actually. I've been trying for years.

•••

In case you're wondering why I'm telling you about these two inconclusive studies, I just wanted to prepare you. In the upcoming months, sugar-hatin' health bloggers are going to conveniently forget to mention how thin the Singapore study is and beer-lovin' party bloggers will fail to mention the big gap in the silicon study.

Now, thanks to The Real Fitness Nerd, you'll know the real story, which is that no one knows the real story.

Except, perhaps, Pam Anderson. Tell her to call me.

Football-themed post, part deux.

Yesterday's post was intended to play into the whole Superbowl theme, so when Steve suggested it might have been a bit off topic of the Real Fitness Nerd, I said to him, I said, "What do you know, caveman? You don't even wear shoes!"

No, not really. In truth, I listen to Steve's criticism with all my heart and sole (yes, that's how I intended to spell it), so I'm going to try another football-themed post.

Here's a little tidbit from Health.com about former NFL lineman Jamie Dukes who, after battling his own weight problems, wants to help the rest of us through the Superbowl, a traditionally high-snack/low-exercise afternoon.

So click through to read his article and pick up a few good tips, which I'll sum up here as follows: Eat less and and get off the couch at halftime.

Have a great Superbowl Sunday. I hope the Seattle Mariners score a slam dunk! (That's football talk, right?)

Photo: NFL Networks

Sure, you can have my brain. I wasn't using it anyway.

At first, I was a little miffed to hear about today's House Judiciary Committee hearing "Legal Issues Relating to Football Head Injuries, Part II." First, because no one invited me to part I and second, because in this era of unemployment, healthcare snafus and overall economic cluster humps, why is the House of Representatives holding meetings to protect a bunch of pro athletes? And whole athletes! Just their heads! It's not like they're a bunch of slave laborers or Gary Colemans or anything; They knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed the contract. Seriously, what did they think the helmets were for, decoration? No.

Then I saw the above photo of former NFL football player Kyle Turley. I realized that, however ill-fitting his suit is, it probably cost more than my entire wardrobe and he probably hardly ever gets a chance to wear it, so maybe I should cut him some slack. Furthermore, he and several other NFLers are donating their brains and spinal cords for concussion research -- after they're done with them, of course. But still, it's a lovely gesture and deserves some kind of kudos. You give blood, you get a cookie and maybe an Aerosmith concert ticket. You give your brain, you get to put on a suit with zippered pockets, fly to Detroit, and answer questions for congressmen in room 1460 of the Wayne State School of Medicine Conference Center. It only seems fair.

As it turns out, footballers aren't the only ones joining in on the masochistic bonhommie at Wayne State. Scientists there are also doing research with mixed martial arts fighters to learn exactly how much punishment the human body is capably of dishing out and taking. Did you know that an expert kicker can generate up to 9,000 newtons, or roughly a ton, of force with one blow? That's a lot of figs.

So what's going on is that all these professional athletes are aware that what they do completely destroys their bodies, yet they do it anyway. But, thankfully, a bunch of Detroit researchers (who are far more badass than any ultimate fighter, I'm told) have talked them into giving back to the community. That way, we can use this knowledge to help people who might accidentally hurt their heads.

And as a side note, if you're ever in a bar within a mile of Wayne State School while this research is going on and some big fella picks a fight with you, run away as fast as you can. 9,000 fig newtons. That's all I'm sayin'.

Photo: AP Photo/Paul Sancya

Did his hair count in those 182 pounds?

Here's an interesting article in the New York Times about how athletes perform best when they figure out their natural weight. The bulk of the article is about runners, who generally run faster with less meat on their bones, but need to be careful not to lose too much weight, lest they burn their own muscle for fuel, thus compromising performance.

The article reminded me of this new study out of Australia showing that people over 70 who were 5-10 pounds overweight tended to live longer.

In a sentiment similar to one I often trumpet on The Real Fitness Nerd, I'm not sure if it was the weight keeping those oldies from keeling over. Maybe it was the fact that they didn't stress about it too much and thus appreciated that second glass of Pinot Gris on a hot summer night.

Either way, the article and the study make an important point. Instead of measuring inches and pounds, we'd be better off listening to our bodies and finding a weight that feels right. The NYT article discusses how Andre Agassi, at 5'11.5", played best at between 178 and 182 pounds, but he and his trainer, Gil Reyes, didn't make that the center of all things:

Mr. Reyes said that he and Mr. Agassi learned not to let the scale rule your life. “We had a little bit of a phrase,” he said. “The weight scale to most human beings can be like a Ouija board. It can start messing with your head.”

The trick is not to let it.

Push-ups are your friend.

“Drop and give me twenty.” If you made it through high school gym class, you probably broke into a cold sweat the moment you read those five words. To a gym teacher, nothing says “I own you” like push-ups. Because of this, most people think of these exercises as painful, demanding grunt work that serves no other purpose than humiliation.

But in all truth, they're a pretty good little way to work your pecs, delts and triceps, provided you don't have a fifty-year-old man with a whistle and an attitude looming over you. They're also a great way to gauge your fitness using the Push-up Fitness Test outlined here at About.com:Exercise.

At 39, I can easily do 30 push-ups, which bodes well for my fitness, but I'm a little put off by the massive drop in reps expected as you age. When I turn 40 in a few months, I'll only need to do 25 push-ups to earn an "excellent" rating. Really? Do we detriorate that fast? Frankly, I know more people in their 40s who can crank out 30 push-ups then I do 20-somethings who can do the same feat. Many youngsters are too busy drinking PBR and disco dancing (that's what you kids do nowadays, right?) to care about fitness.

It's age discrimination, I tell ya!

Still, it's a cool test. Do it and tell me how you go.

The battle against rat fat.

Researchers at the University of Cincinnati seem to think they've found yet another way to fight the growing obesity epidemic.

I had to read this press release three times before I understood it and even then, I'm fighting a nasty bug so my brain is a little foggy, but from what I ascertained, part of what regulates hunger is the brain's ability to look at the amount of fat we have and decide how much food we need to maintain that. It does this by measuring the amount of blood vessels in the fat. When you treat fat with a certain peptide, the blood vessels stop working and the brain thinks you have less fat, so it asks for less food.

"These experiments indicate that there is a novel system that informs our brains about the size of our fat tissue 'bathtubs' and can influence how much we eat," says Seeley. "The findings highlight the ability to provide new therapeutic strategies for obesity based on these dynamics of blood vessels in our fat tissue." The next step, Seeley says, is to figure out the important signals that come from fat that cause the weight loss.

I'm happy that they're doing these experiments -- and even happier that I think I understood them -- but there's a slight problem with the science. The test subjects were rats. If there was ever a situation where rodents and people were different, it's what led to their obesity. A lot of people who are overweight now used to be skinny and it wasn't any blood vessel mumbo jumbo that caused them to eat that one, fatal Big Mac that led to their downfall.

The brain can send all the signals it wants to your appetite, the signals from the television and all your personal physiological hang-ups are much louder. When a messy break-up and Häagen-Dazs come a callin', all the peptides in the world aren't going to stop them.

via Science Blog

Barefoot Running Strikes Back

If you’re a runner, to shod or not to shod is the question of the millennium. Or, at least, how to shod; high tech running shoes or something minimal? The January 28, 2010 edition of Nature provides some of the most compelling info yet. Two articles were published. The first:

Biomechanics: Barefoot running strikes back

Is the more laymen of the two, likely titled as such in response to Denis' post from a few months ago. Be warned, Nature is a science rag so it’s not like reading People. The second is more eggheadedly titled and gets down to the nitty gritty.

Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners

Both give in depth analysis to various forms of foot strike (RFS [rear foot strike, MFS [mid foot strike], FFS [front foot strike]) and its impact on the body. You’ll need a subscription to Nature to read them, but it’s worth the money if you run. You’ll save the price many times over the next time you don’t have to buy a $150 pair of shoes.

Here's a summary of the science:

Evidence that barefoot and minimally shod runners avoid RFS strikes with high-impact collisions may have public health implications. The average runner strikes the ground 600 times per kilometre, making runners prone to repetitive stress injuries6–8. The incidence of such injuries has remained considerable for 30 years despite technological advancements that provide more cushioning and motion control in shoes designed for heel–toe running27–29. Although cushioned, high-heeled running shoes are comfortable, they limit proprioception and make it easier for runners to land on their heels. Furthermore, many running shoes have arch supports and stiffened soles that may lead to weaker foot muscles, reducing arch strength. This weakness contributes to excessive pronation and places greater demands on the plantar fascia, which may cause plantar fasciitis. Although there are anecdotal reports of reduced injuries in barefoot populations30, controlled prospective studies are needed to test the hypothesis that individuals who do not predominantly RFS either barefoot or in minimal footwear, as the foot apparently evolved to do, have reduced injury rates.

pic: plus, you got to admit that the FFS looks far more graceful.