Should You Ever Do Exercises On an Unstable Surface?

Exercises performed on stability ball:

Chest: single arm dumbbell bench press
Back: seated cable rows
Shoulders: dumbbell press
Triceps: French press
Biceps: dumbbell hammer curl
Trapezius: seated mid row retraction
Abdominals: crunches holding medicine ball
Rotator cuff: seated dumbbell horizontal external rotation
Legs: dumbbell Bulgarian split squat with rear foot on stability ball

I was not able to do as much weight with the exercises on the stability ball as I could without the stability ball. Although I came close in some (the Bulgarian squat, French press, and hammer curl), others were much more difficult to perform on the ball (single arm dumbbell bench press, dumbbell rows).

In general, the two-arm exercises I attempted on the ball were much easier than the single-arm exercises. Sitting on a stability ball while doing a cable row was a challenge for my balance and brought my legs into the movement to stabilize my body. Attempting to do a single-arm dumbbell bench press on the stability ball was close to impossible, however, with any weight close to what I would be able to do on a solid surface.

The reason that the difficulty level of each exercise was increased was probably due to a number of reasons. First of all, without having done a lot of stability ball weightlifting in the past, my body has simply not yet adapted to this type of movement.

The SAID principle would suggest that, by utilizing exercises on the stability ball on an ongoing basis, I will have neurological and muscular adaptations to the exercise. Because I was doing these exercises on a ball for the first time, they may have been more difficult due to the lack of nervous system adaptation to the movements.

Also, muscles that used to put force into the ground or stabilize my body for some exercises were now actively working against the instability of the ball. My movements were slower and I was using less weight because the surface felt so precarious compared to solid ground.

The use of weight training while using an unstable surface seems to be a growing trend in gyms that I have been to. But what types of exercises should be performed on stability balls, medicine balls, bosu balls, wobble boards, and other similar equipment?

For upper body exercises, I can see some value in using an unstable surface. The upper body is not always in contact with solid ground during athletic movements. In fact, in many sports, instability is the rule much more than the exception. From playing basketball or football, or MMA fighting or wrestling, athletes often interact with other athletes in physical activities where it is difficult to predict what the next person will do. For these types of activities, some unstable upper body training could be useful.

However, the lower body is rarely off of a solid surface in many sports and in most periods of daily life. An unstable surface is not necessary to work the stabilizer muscles of the legs, as well. Single-leg exercises such as lunges, step-ups, or Bulgarian squats can strengthen an athlete’s balance while remaining on the stable ground.

If a client is coming in for training to perform better at a sport such as skateboarding or surfing or another activity that is routinely done on unstable surfaces, then some leg exercises using a stability ball or wobble board may be appropriate to simulate the stability needed for that sport. In general, though, lower body training should primarily be done with at least one leg connected to a solid surface.

The use of unstable surfaces for lower body exercises may be appropriate for rehabilitation from an ankle injury. This is a joint that may be able to benefit from instability training with lighter weights. Clients with weak ankle strength or prior injuries may also find these exercises appropriate for building strength and improving balance.

Thus, instability training should only be used in certain circumstances. For athletes engaged in competitive sports with a large amount of unpredictable movement and contact with others, upper body exercises may be prescribed. Unstable surface exercises for the lower body may be used for people who engage in sports that are not done on solid ground (skateboarding, surfing). This type of exercise can also be beneficial for those with prior ankle injuries as a rehabilitation for the joint.

For most other people, it would be difficult to think of an opportunity when lower body weight training on an unstable surface would be recommended. Most people spend their athletic and non-athletic lives in contact with solid ground, so it does not seem to make sense to have them train against resistance with increased instability. If balance or muscle imbalances are to be addressed, single-leg exercises may be more effective and safer.

A Comparison of Two Multivitamins for the Elderly

The two multivitamin supplements that I chose to evaluate were the “Walgreen’s Advanced Formula A Thru Z” and the “Bronson Vitamins Mature Formula.” Because the two supplements had different target markets, the ingredients, for the most part, were remarkably similar.

Walgreen’s product was specifically targeted to “Adults 50+” and was marketed as providing a full range of vitamins and minerals. The Bronson product, as well, was specifically targeted for individuals over 50 years of age, according to the company’s website.

The two vitamins are remarkably alike in many aspects, with virtually the same ingredient list. These similarities seem to reflect the desire of the companies to provide their customers with some of the basic supplements necessary for immune system health, as well as some important antioxidants.

Vitamin A is probably included due to its support for proper visual functioning and immune system health. The fact that twice as much is present in the Mature Formula probably reflects the manufacturer’s desire to supplement the immune systems of the elderly with higher amounts of Vitamin A.

Vitamin C is important as an antioxidant and in manufacturing collagen, which plays a role in the health of cartilage, tendons, gums, and connective tissues, among other roles. Both vitamins had roughly the same amount of Vitamin C.

Both multivitamins also contain a similar amount of Vitamin K, although in amounts far under the recommended Daily Value. This may be because Vitamin K can be produced in sufficient quantities in the human body. The amounts present in the vitamin may be intended to support bone health.

As a final comparison, both supplements contain the exact same amount of iodine, a substance that is important in the health of the thyroid. Although iodine is present in normal table salt, the health conscious person over 50 years of age or those suffering from hypertension may reduce their salt intake, necessitating supplementation.

It seems that both supplements are intended to provide the basics of immune system health, as well as supporting various systems and organs of the body in the most effective manner possible. The fact that the ingredient list is so similar between the two points to the conclusion that there are no “miracles” to be found in one vitamin or another – only established, well regarded opinions as to which substances are necessary for proper human functioning.

It is in the differences between the two multivitamins that more questions inevitably present themselves. If a substance was added to the Mature Formula, why did the manufacturer deem it important for the health of the elderly? If it was not added to the Mature Formula, but was present in the Advanced Formula, what was the manufacturer’s reason for doing so?

For instance, lutein is a substance that may aid in preventing age-related macular degeneration, a leading cause of vision loss. It is present in the Advanced Formula, but not the Mature Formula, which is curious considering the fact that vision can deteriorate later in life.

Similarly, lycopene is a carotene that has been studied for its effectiveness against prostate cancer and risk of heart disease. The Advanced Formula contains the substance, while the Mature Formula does not contain any amount of it.

Instead, the Mature Formula from Bronson seems to focus on providing various bioflavonoids as supplements, while failing to include some of the substances found in the Walgreen’s product.

Hesperidin and rutin, for example, are types of citrus bioflavonoids found in the Mature Formula but not the Advanced Formula. Citrus bioflavonoids act as antioxidants, as well as increasing the level of Vitamin C inside cells. The manufacturers of the supplement may have intended to help support joint and connective tissue health, considering Vitamin C’s role in manufacturing collagen.

While a discussion of every similarity and difference between the two supplements is beyond the scope of this essay, the few examples examined above lead to a number of conclusions about these vitamins in particular and multivitamins in general.

First, it is important for anyone taking nutritional supplements of any kind to learn to read labels. These two supplements were intended for the same audiences, and were far more similar than different, but the differences indicate possible different approaches to health.

Second, especially with such products as multivitamins, the intentions of the company which manufactures such supplements can point to the underlying health philosophies of those creating the ingredients list. Different approaches were taken between the two companies for the same goal – health of those over fifty years of age.

Third, one supplement can not “do it all” and should not be solely relied upon to meet all of the conditions of a healthy body and mind. Individuals with certain health issues may need more supplementation in one area or another. Taking one small pill a day is not a panacea, although multivitamins can play an important role in a fuller, more individualized nutrition plan.

How Steady State Cardio Can Help Keep You Fat

Although there are many benefits to aerobic training, including fat burning, improved recovery capabilities, and improved health of one’s cardiovascular system, it is not the only way one can burn fat. Despite popular opinion, the belief that only aerobic activity will burn fat is a myth.

This belief would seem to come from the fact that endurance activities primarily use the burning of fatty acids for energy, while anaerobic activities rely mainly on muscle glycogen. The so-called “fat-burning zone” is where the body uses primarily fatty acids for energy. Thus, conventional wisdom would have us believe that, because aerobic exercise uses fat as its main fuel, it is the most effective way to burn fat and keep it off.

However, there are a number of problems with relying solely on aerobic exercises. The approach used for aerobic training can reduce its effectiveness as the sole means to burn fat. Exercising at a steady state for a period of time (30-45 minutes, for example) is the most common recommendation for aerobic training. This type of training, though, violates at least two “Granddaddy” laws — the SAID principle and the overload principle.

The SAID principle also states that the body will adapt to the specific demands placed on it. With aerobic exercise, the body’s oxidative energy pathway will be developed and adapt to the stress placed on the energy system. The overload principle states that, in order to make gains from exercise, the resistance must be increased in order for more adaptation to occur.

These two principles work together to ensure that the body will adapt to aerobic exercise and its fat-burning capabilities will be reduced. The oxidative energy pathway will be used more efficiently as it is trained, according to the SAID principle, resulting in fewer calories burned as the body adapts. Also, aerobic exercise can lead to a violation of the overload principle by not increasing the resistance or number of reps (time spent exercising).

If aerobic training is increased in regards to the time spent exercising (via running, cycling, rowing, stair-climbing, etc.), there is a risk of overtraining. It is also difficult to imagine the average athlete wishing to burn fat being willing to keep increasing time spent exercising. As the body adapts to 30 minutes, more time will have to be added to overcome the specific adaptation and increased strength in order to keep making gains. In practical terms, not every athlete has the time or will to spend several hours a day engaged in steady state aerobics.

A final violation of the SAID principle with one relying only on exercises utilizing the fat-burning abilities of aerobic exercise is that, as the body becomes more efficient at burning fat for fuel, it will also become more efficient at storing fat for later use during aerobic exercise. If fatty acids become the primary source of fuel for exercise, the body adapts to that specific demand by becoming better at storing fat – not quite the goal people have when attempting to lose fat through steady state activities.

Therefore, relying solely on aerobic exercise to burn fat is not the most appropriate method to do so. Exercises using the anaerobic energy pathways of the body, such as interval or weight training, would be more effective for athletes.

For instance, interval training utilizing sprints or weight-lifting circuits would target more of the muscle. Whereas steady state aerobics uses many Type-I muscle fibers, anaerobic workouts can target the larger fast-twitch muscles as well. Another reason to consider intervals or weight training is that the athlete’s metabolism can stay elevated for hours after the workout is completed, a phenomenon referred to as excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC).