Today we have a special treat with an interview with my friend Mark Young.  Mark’s a brilliant guy, who has done a great job translating his academic background and command of research into practical application for coaches and clinicians.

Enjoy!

1.  Mark, thank you for the interview, I very much appreciate it.  For those who do not know your work, tell us a little bit about your background in fitness and performance.

Going back as far as I remember I was always active.  I think I might’ve had undiagnosed ADD as a kid, but my parents put me in karate and swimming to burn off my energy.  Come to think of it, maybe they were hoping I’d get kicked in the head to slow me down.  No such luck for them.

Anyway, when I was in high school I remember wanting to be a gym teacher so my passion for fitness was high even after my guidance counselor told me that I should “try to get a real job”.  To her dismay, I went to university for kinesiology and graduated with distinction in 2000 (yeah, take that counselor lady) and stuck around for an additional three years in grad school studying biomechanics and exercise physiology.

In 2000 I also started working as a trainer in a large commercial gym and left to start my own business in 2002.  Since then I’ve been working with clients and refining my methods for fat loss, performance, and health based on experience and research.

2.  Many of your recent writings have discussed the qualities of good research.  What makes good research (Sample sizes, measures, etc)?

I think the single most important components of research are the study design and a good understanding of the statistical methods you’re going to use to assess your hypothesis.  For example, if you’re going to look at the effects of a training program on body composition, you’ll definitely need to control for diet or the study itself is missing a key element that can have a huge influence on the results.  Negating key factors like this can make a study quite questionable.

In terms of statistics, I don’t think most people know the difference between a between subject or within subject design, statistical power, and things like this are critical not only to performing, but interpreting research.  Knowing the assumptions, benefits, and limitations can dictate how you run your study and the usefulness of what you find.  For example, using a correlation to demonstrate a relationship only shows that there is (or is not) a relationship between two things.   This is not the same as showing that one thing actually causes another.  When people suggest that specific countries tend to eat certain foods and have less risk of heart disease this is a correlation.  This should not be taken to mean that those foods cause good heart health.

While study funding is often thought to influence the results, I would suggest that this occurs less often than people think.  Scientists often approach private companies or agencies for funding based on what they think the result will be.  If they suspect that the study will show the benefits of milk they’ll apply to the dairy board or something similar.  If the company approves, the funding is secured before the study is started so the researcher is usually not influenced by the need to achieve a certain outcome.  Whether the results are as expected or not, the money is already received.  On the other hand, if a researcher has a vested interest in a certain outcome (i.e., they are testing a product they created) I’d be a little more skeptical.

In the end, good research starts with good design and good stats.  Beyond that, it is on the readers of the research to understand the limitations of the methods chosen and to interpret the results for themselves.  If a reader is unfamiliar with either, they should get familiar before they attempt to make sense of a study or they’re likely to miss obvious errors.  Along the same lines, readers should be well versed in the methods used in the study and their limitations.  If you’re stating muscle protein requirements from studies using nitrogen balance you’re completely in the dark.

3.  You’ve been relatively outspoken and very informative about how we fitness professionals may not be as “evidence based” as we assume.  Make us angry.  What are some of the things we’re mistaking?

Don’t even get me started here.  Here are just a few things that are driving me frigging nuts lately.

- Meal frequency for fat loss and muscle gain is highly overrated.  In fact, research is clearly demonstrating now that the old mantra of “eat every 2-3 hours to stoke the metabolism and gain muscle” is no longer accurate.

- Cardiovascular exercise (in the amounts that most people will actually do) for fat loss produces remarkably dismal results.  On average most will burn between 5-10 calories per minute for a total of 300 to 600 calories per hour.  Although I’m oversimplifying, if a pound of fat is 3500 calories it would take approximately 6-12 hours of high intensity cardio to burn one pound of fat.  Most research would support these conclusions.  Only highly trained athletes can burn calories at amounts much higher than this.

- Interval training isn’t much better.  Despite the fact that intervals have been shown to be incredible effective for performance measures, very few studies have investigated the effects of intervals on body composition.  Of the have, the results do tend to lean towards intervals being better, but far from amazing.  And people should actually READ the Tremblay study before they cite it.  Intervals only produced something like a 1 pound weight loss over several weeks and calipers were the primary method for assessing body composition when much better methods were certainly available at the time.

- As I’ve written before, the Tabata studies did not include any measurements on weight or body composition at all.  If you’re just saying they’re a good way to do intervals or “metabolic resistance training” for fat loss, see the point above.

- I agree with cardiovascular training (including intervals) for performance and health, and as an adjunct for fat loss.  However, when it comes to losing fat diet is the single biggest factor.  I shouldn’t have to say this because I think most reading this would agree, but somehow products keep getting launched focusing on different types of “metabolic training” aimed at producing weight loss to disguise the fact that they have to be paired with a diet to be effective.

- EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) is not nearly as large as people think.  At best it amounts to around 15% of the total number of calories burned during exercise.  If you’re concerned with using exercise to assist with fat loss, focus on the number of calories actually burned during the bout.

- Many of the studies examining the Functional Movement Screen are conducted (at least in part) by creators or co-creators of the system.  Not a definite concern, but worthy of attention as the system becomes more and more popular.

Please consider that I am not immune to the same mistakes or assumptions as other fitness professionals.  I’ve just made a concerted effort to find the truth regarding some of our most widely accepted principles and have been surprised time and time again.

4.  Where can we find more from you, Mark?
Thanks for having me Carson.  Your readers can find more of my stuff by visiting my blog at www.markyoungtrainingsystems.com.