By Charles Bausman
Effect of Energy Beverage Consumption on Pistol Aiming Steadiness in Law Enforcement Officers
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research . 31(9):2557-2561, September 2017.
“Oklahmoa State University and the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine worked together to study the implications of commercially available Energy Shots and Energy Drinks on pistol marksmanship. Previous studies have “shown that caffeine may provide enhancements in both anaerobic and aerobic exercises. Also, consumption of caffeine may increase cognitive performance in sleep-deprived individuals and in tactical situations, caffeine reduces friend-foe identification errors and decreases time in target detection exercises.
According to the article, previous studies have “shown that caffeine may provide enhancements in both anaerobic and aerobic exercises. Also, consumption of caffeine may increase cognitive performance in sleep-deprived individuals and in tactical situations, caffeine reduces friend-foe identification errors and decreases time in target detection exercises.”
However, other studies showed that caffeine consumption can reduce fine motor skills, a critical component of pistol marksmanship. The study analyzed 10 police officers with laser-practice pistols (no live fire) in order to ascertain marksmanship, comparing those who had consumed energy shots against the control group.”
“The ES group demonstrated significant (p ≤ 0.05) within group pre-to-posttest detrimental effect in the arm-hand aim steadiness after consumption of the ES. In addition, the ES group was significantly less stable in the arm-hand aim steadiness than the placebo group after ES consumption, illustrating the detrimental effect on steadiness resulting from ED consumption.
Energy shots may reduce marksmanship. It is not stated if this is due to the caffeine consumption, the “energy mix” found in energy shots, or the combination of both.
A Review of the Biomechanical Differences Between the High-Bar and Low-Bar Back-Squat
Glassbrook, Daniel J.1; Helms, Eric R.1; Brown, Scott R.1; Storey, Adam G.1,2
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: September 2017 – Volume 31 – Issue 9 – p 2618–2634
Researchers at the Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand examined the mechanical and practical differences and applications of the High Bar Back Squat (HBBS), and the Low Bar Back Squat (LBBS).
“During the traditional HBBS, the bar is placed across the top of the trapezius just below the spinous process of the C7 vertebra. Conversely, during the LBBS, the bar is placed on the lower trapezius just over the posterior deltoid, along the spine of the scapula…the LBBS may result in an ability to lift greater loads in comparison to the High Bar Back Squat. Differences in bar position between the HBBS and LBBS result in an altered center of mass. Therefore, different movement strategies are used to ensure that the center of mass remains within the base of support to maintain balance during the execution of these lifts, which will be covered in this review. These movement strategies manifest as differences in joint angles of the lower-body kinetic chain, vertical ground reaction forces (Fv), and the activity of key muscles.
The LBBS is presented with a greater forward lean and reduced knee flexion (i.e., reduced depth). This results in greater posterior displacement of the hip, and a maximization of the associated force-producing ability. Such displacement of the hip engages the stronger posterior hip musculature (i.e., gluteal, hamstring and spinal erector muscle groups), as supported in this review though analysis of muscle activity studies on each back-squat variation. By contrast, the HBBS presents with greater activation of the anterior thigh musculature (i.e., quadriceps)”
Training to improve Olympic lifts? Use the High Bar Back Squat. Training to improve maximal strength and/or field related performance? Use the Low Bar Back Squat.
Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study
Dehghan, MahshidDiaz, R et al. The Lancet
“The relationship between macronutrients and cardiovascular disease and mortality is controversial. Most available data are from European and North American populations where nutrition excess is more likely, so their applicability to other populations is unclear.
Dietary intake of 135 335 individuals (from across 18 nations, age ranging 35-70 years) was recorded using validated food frequency questionnaires. The primary outcomes were total mortality and major cardiovascular events (fatal cardiovascular disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure). Secondary outcomes were all myocardial infarctions, stroke, cardiovascular disease mortality, and non-cardiovascular disease mortality. Participants were categorised into quintiles of nutrient intake (carbohydrate, fats, and protein) based on percentage of energy provided by nutrients. We assessed the associations between consumption of carbohydrate, total fat, and each type of fat with cardiovascular disease and total mortality. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) using a multivariable Cox frailty model with random intercepts to account for centre clustering.”
“High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.”
Dietary guidelines often prescribe a higher carb intake with low fats. This would appear to be less effective for long term health and life span in comparison to higher fat diets.