Share
Sign In
Home
Blog
Food Recipes
Summaries
About
Subscribe
Science
Will Squatting with Bands Make Your Glutes Bigger?
Shane
👍
Summary
Squatting with bands is neither effective for reducing knee valgus nor for developing glutes, and may even worsen the problem.
Key Points
1.
Band use can actually increase knee valgus rather than reduce it.
2.
Evidence linking knee valgus to injury is theoretical.
3.
Knee valgus can occur in elite lifters and doesn’t necessarily indicate poor technique.
4.
Knee valgus might be a biomechanical response for efficient force transmission.
5.
Stronger bands can result in greater knee valgus.
6.
Using bands for glute development is ineffective.
7.
Squats already provide sufficient glute stimulation; bands may reduce this effect.
8.
For better glute development, separate hip abduction exercises are more effective.
9.
Bands may interfere with the development of other muscles.
10.
To avoid knee valgus, don’t forcefully pull knees inward with bands.
Conclusion
1.
Knee valgus does not necessarily increase injury risk.
2.
Using bands is inefficient for reducing knee valgus.
3.
Bands are unlikely to significantly impact glute development.
4.
Squats alone provide adequate glute stimulation.
5.
Separate hip abduction exercises are more effective than using bands.
Terms
Knee Valgus: A condition where the knees cave inward during movements like squats, often due to muscle imbalances in the hips and legs.
Glutes: Large muscles located in the buttocks that primarily help lift the hips and move the legs.
Subscribe to 'ixtj-dev'
Are you passionate about SaaS innovations, health science breakthroughs, or looking for delicious and nutritious diet recipes? Subscribe to my blog today!
Subscribe
👍
Other posts in 'Science'See all
Shane
Does Higher Protein Intake Boost Satiety in Resistance Training?
Research Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30597865/ Summary: In a short-term energy deficit, high protein intake does not provide additional satiety for resistance-trained individuals Key Findings: High protein intake did not provide additional satiety during a short-term energy deficit. There were no significant differences in satiety, hunger, or desire to eat between the two protein levels. Absolute ghrelin levels significantly decreased post-meal with the PROMOD diet. PYY levels increased after high-protein meals in both PROMOD and PROHIGH. The desire to eat was more suppressed after meals in the PROMOD diet. PROHIGH did not offer additional satiety benefits compared to PROMOD. High-protein diets do not increase satiety over the long term. Changes in ghrelin and PYY were more pronounced with the PROMOD diet. Once protein needs are met, extra intake does not significantly increase satiety. Fiber-rich carbohydrates may maintain satiety better than additional protein. Conclusion: 1.8g/kg of protein intake is sufficient to maintain satiety. High-protein diets offer no additional satiety benefits. Ghrelin and PYY responses were more favorable with the PROMOD diet. Excessively high protein intake is not effective. Fiber-rich carbohydrates are more beneficial for satiety.
Shane
Fasting vs. Calorie Restriction: Which is More Effective for Weight Loss and Health?
Research link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34135111/ Summary: Fasting offers no additional benefits over calorie restriction in terms of weight loss, fat reduction, or autophagy. Key Points: Comparison of the effects of 24-hour fasting and calorie restriction on metabolism and body composition. The fasting group showed weight loss but less fat reduction. The calorie restriction group showed greater reductions in both weight and fat. The group that fasted without calorie restriction had minimal weight and fat loss. No significant difference in autophagy-related gene expression between groups. No noticeable difference in cardiovascular health or metabolic regulation markers. Continuous calorie restriction is more effective for fat loss than fasting. Fasting shows no additional metabolic or cardiovascular health advantages. Fasting is not superior to calorie restriction in inducing autophagy. Evidence suggests fasting is not a magical weight loss tool. Conclusion: Fasting leads to less fat loss compared to calorie restriction. No difference in autophagy induction between the two methods. Calorie restriction is more effective for weight loss. No major differences in cardiovascular and metabolic health markers between the two. There is insufficient evidence that fasting is superior to calorie restriction.
Shane
Correlation Between Step Count and Health: At Least 2,600 Steps a Day!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37676198/ Summary Walking at least 2,600 steps a day benefits heart health and reduces mortality, with gains increasing up to 8,800 steps. Key points Walking 2,600 steps per day significantly reduces mortality. 2,800 steps lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. Mortality benefits increase up to 8,800 steps. Cardiovascular risk reduction peaks at 7,200 steps. Moderate or fast walking pace benefits mortality reduction more than slow pace. Step counts positively impact health regardless of gender. Hip-worn accelerometers provide more accurate health predictions than wrist-worn ones. Significant health improvements are observed starting at 2,600 steps compared to 2,000. Step count is a simple activity measure, but the direct causal link to health improvement isn't certain. Breaking up sedentary time by walking may be more important than a high step count. Conclusion Walking more than 2,600 steps daily reduces mortality and cardiovascular disease risk. Health benefits increase as step count rises, up to 8,800 steps. Hip-worn accelerometers provide the most accurate health risk predictions. Faster walking pace offers additional mortality reduction benefits. Consistent physical activity is more important than just aiming for a high step count.