So it seems that the fitness industry is kind of over-run with all sorts of products and supplements, some with dubious claims of providing everything from a six-pack to better sleep to multiple orgasms. Sure, there may be a few of them out there that actually provide some kind of benefit, and would have the scientific evidence behind them to give an extra level of credibility, but then there are things that are, how we say, not so based in science. While i could go on an obvious rant about a lot of these products, I’ve decided to try to take the high road and point out a few trends that I’m just not 100% behind at this point in time.

Now before I get some angry emails from any readers who may not agree with me on a few points, I’m going to outline the scientific literature that shows some of the reasons why I’m not behind these specific trends. I can attest to how amazing it is if you or a client of yours has seen some amazing results with a specific type of training or piece of equipment, but if the logical explanation of why something works is full of holes that I can pull apart, or if there is no research to show the efficacy of the training or equipment (or if the research shows no benefit or a negative benefit), I’m not really going to pay much attention to it. Sure, it may work for a couple of your clients or for yourself, and that’s great, but if I put 100 of my clients through the same protocol, how many of them will see similar results? Statistics matter, as does reproducibility.

However, I’m more than happy to have new evidence potentially sway my stance, so if you have copies of research that can point to an actual intervention effect, I’ll definitely check it out and consider it, because I’m here to learn as well. If I can use information to help train my clients in a better way I’m all for it.

1. Unstable Training for Core Function

Unstable training tends to increase the demands on the lower limbs as well as the vestibular (inner ear) senses to a much higher degree than the hip and core, which is always evident when someone standing on a bosu complains of the first part of their body getting the over-worked burning sensation being the bottoms of their feet or their ankles. I’ve never had a client say their rectus or TvA was really going crazy while using any unstable apparatus, and if I’m looking to get hip activation, a 1-leg squat on solid ground will tend to work it a lot harder.

As Daniel Hubbard’s article in The Strength and Conditioning Journal points out, most studies that show an increased core activation were using beginners with relatively light weights. The big downside to unstable surface training is that the amount of resistance that can be used is greatly reduced, sometimes dramatically, resulting in a lower than necessary level of stress to reach the threshold for adaptation. The cardiopulmonary response is less than that of a stable surface using a larger resistance, the range of motion and motor pattern becomes altered (in many instances in a negative way), and improvements in measurable outcomes is not nearly as good as when using a stable surface. Plus, once the neural engram is laid down, the demand of the activity is dramatically reduced (sometimes within a matter of minutes or even seconds), meaning you have to continuously use novel unstable surfaces to stay in any type of adaptation phase.

Now there are some benefits to using a stable surface, including development of proprioception in injured legs and shoulders, as well as balance training for individuals who require a large degree of balance in their activities, as well as in the elderly in order to prevent falls.

Eric Cressey wrote a great e-book on the topic after completing his masters degree with a thesis on the impact of unstable surfaces on performance, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is interested in more of the research on the topic. You can pick up a copy by clicking HERE.

2. Infared Heat for Fat Loss

Okay, using a light to increase your core temperature to make you sweat is one thing, but using it to “melt away fat?” This doesn’t take into account the three major pathways to see fat loss, namely caloric deficit caused by reduced caloric intake and increased caloric expenditure, increased production and upregulation of lipolytic enzymes, and alteration of hormonal balance affecting basal metabolic rate. Those three pathways are most affected through diet and exercise.

Infrared heat was initially used in medical treatment facilities for the treatment of skin disturbances like psoriasis and severe burns in order to increase cellular metabolism to help the damaged cells absorb nutrients and heal at a faster rate with less chance of infection, but an interesting correlation was discovered when they noticed that people also lost a few pounds in the process. Correlation meaning causation? What the hell, let’s throw it in there.

It was then picked up by dermatologists and plastic surgeons and medi-spa physicians as a means of reducing cellulite, and is actually effective in therapeutic dosages, as shown by Goldberg et al in their article in Dermatologic Surgery. I’m still not sure how it made it’s way into fitness, or whether the devices used are the same intensity and frequency to stimulate fat loss of any kind.

Some of the claims made by the companies who make these devices include the ability to burn about 1500 calories in half an hour, development of a passive cardiovascular conditioning effect, and increased joint function with reduced pain. I can buy the reduced joint pain component, because heat will typically always make degenerated or irritated tissues reduce their pain response, but the first two seem somewhat dubious. There is evidence to suggest that low-heat saunas can benefit people with endothelial dysfunction, such as in cardiac failure,  due to the vasodilation effect of heat application. A comparison paper that looked at studies involving different types of therapies included near-infrared therapy, and showed a small benefit of the treatment, which returned to baseline after 18 months and was attributed more to effects of swelling than the effects of fat loss.

Add to the fact that there have been no long-term studies on exposure to this wavelength over a prolonged period of time on your retinas, and I have to be skeptical of any potential benefit.

3. Whole-Body Vibration Training

I wrote an article on this one a few months ago, and wanted to share some new research that came out on the impact of WBVT and strength as shown in the current Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

They compared the effects of a strength raining program on collegiate softball players in the off-season, putting all participants on identical strength training programs, and involving half of them in WBVT in between sets (typically 30 second exposures each set). They trained for 3 weeks and were re-tested on their 1RM and 3RM back squat, vertical jump and standing long jump. All participants saw improvements in performance in the timeframe, but there wasn’t a statistical difference between the two groups. The researchers then did a cross-over for the next four weeks, giving the opposite group exposure to the WBVT, and again saw no difference in improvements with the non-vibrated group.

Now some research has shown an acute increase in vertical jump performance immediately after WBVT training, but it doesn’t seem to provide much benefit in long-term adaptation when used with resistance training programs.

4. Barefoot Running

I wrote an article on this last year, and even gave a biomechanical analysis of one of my clients running in both barefoot (Vibrams) and neutral strike shoes. To sum up the article, barefoot isn’t for everyone.

The premise behind barefoot running is that it allows you to hit the ground and mimic the surface you’re running on more effectively, which causes muscles in your foot to work harder and to increase the stabilizer muscles of the foot and ankle. There are also beliefs that running barefoot can actually help correct muscle imbalances from running, based on the article published by Robbins and Hanna in 1987, and also reduce injury rates, improve immune function, save the endangered white rhinos (okay, I made the last one up), all while running for distance.

You may already know my belief when it comes to distance running, but I’ll reiterate: If you have to get somewhere that far away, drive. There’s air conditioning and a cup holder.

The premise that running barefoot can correct imbalances is a bit of a stretch. Its like pulling on a broken link in a chain and expecting it to weld back together. Sure, there is the possibility that the weak muscles can get working again, but odds are you’re going to run into more instances of tendonitis and shin splints, plus knee issues and hip and back issues. Interestingly, it was shown that a pronating foot during the foot strike accounts for 66% of all injuries to the foot, mid-foot, shin and knee.

Now before I get hate mail from a lot of barefooters out there, I have no problem with running in barefoot shoes on grass, trails, rocky surfaces, or other types of varies terrain, and in actuality running in sand is one of the best types of running you could do for your feet, legs, and lungs (amazing how many training facilities have turf or track surfaces, but none have sand pits). If you’re running on concrete, a level and flat surface, the barefoot shoes will probably beat the hell out of your feet, regardless of whether you rear-foot strike or forefoot strike. In my own experience running in both barefoot and “normal” runners, I can’t get the same speed, heart rate response, or feeling of being “in the groove” with my run when in barefoots, and I also suffer for about 3 days afterwards, whereas normal shoes leave me pain-free afterwards.

Now this is by no means an exhaustive outline of all the research available on these three different topics, but they outline some of the main concepts I wanted to lay out. Again, if you disagree, you are more than welcome to, and we can open a discussion with any research you may have to sway my opinion otherwise.