This week, the new movie Death Race opened. This film is based on an earlier film called Death Race 2000, that starred David Carridine. I haven’t seen the new version, but the older version was filmed in 1975. Why am I discussing this seemingly irrelevant blood bath film? For one, I had a bit part in the ‘75 original version. Here’s how that came about.

A call came into the gym requesting three bodybuilders for a bit part in a film being shot in an art museum in Pasadena. In those days, bit parts payed about $100 a day, which could provide a bodybuilder like me with about four months of liver tablets. I answered the call, and showed up on the set in Pasadena. Also showing up was a well-known bodybuilder at the time, Don Peters, and one other guy who I don’t recall. Peters was in great shape, since he was preparing to compete in a major contest. I knew Don from my days at Vince’s Gym, and I was glad to see him. He was always a nice guy. We were herded into a small room near the set, after being told that a “closed set” scene was being shot involving a love scene between Carridine and the female lead. it seemed that hours passed while we patiently waited in that room, and the lack of available food (movie sets are usually replete with food, but this was a low-budget cheapie) added to our collective discomfort. Finally, I rose and said, “I’m going to find out how much this gig is paying, because I’m getting tired of all this sitting around.” I was told that our pay was only $25.”That’s it, I’m out of here,” I told Peters. He then suggested that we first find out exactly what the job entailed. “You guys are going to play masseurs, giving massages to the female actresses,” said an assistant director. I then decided that since it wasn’t a training day, I had some time to kill. But my biggest surprise was yet to come.

Within a short time, the private scene ended, and David Carridine emerged from a back room. I had heard that he, too, trained at Vince’s gym, although you could never discern that from his physique. Wearing a black elastic costume when I first encountered him on the set, he appeared tall and skinny, with no evidence of any muscle on his lanky frame. I made some brief conversation with him to kill some time (anyone who has ever worked in movies knows that most of the time, you’re sitting around, waiting). I then noticed that there was another guy on the set, who, having seen Peters now wearing his costume of a tank top and shorts, was walking around with his lats flexed, sneaking an occasional furtive glance at Peter’s impressive muscularity. In case you’re wondering, I was not the object of any attention, since I was in what was politely called in those days, a “bulking phase,” meaning I had about the same level of muscle definition as the Michelin man, although I did have fewer rolls in my abs. The “lat man” looked pathetic, since he was clearly intimidated by Peters. I attempted to talk to lats, and quickly noticed that he seemed to have a speech impediment, since one side of his mouth seemed paralyzed. He provided terse answers to my questions about his previous acting work, and I took an immediate dislike to the guy.  Later, he unsuccessfully tried to pick up the actress I was massaging (between takes, of course). She seemed to be as put off to this guy as I was. Eventually, we were called to the set to commence filming our scene. At that point, several actresses appeared, wearing bathrobes. I assumed that they were wearing bathing suits underneath. But when the bell rang for the scene to begin, and the director yelled,”Action!”, the women doffed their robes to reveal that they were wearing… nothing. All the other guys now had nude women lying on their massage benches, with the exception of me. “You’re massaging the female lead, she’ll be out in a minute.” Sure enough, the female lead did show up, and promptly lay on my table, nude. She was gorgeous, and I could feel my face heat up as I deftly applied my version of Swedish massage. One of the other actors in the film, a local radio personality named “the real” Don Steele, later told me that he got a kick on the expression on my face when I first realized that our message subjects would be nude. It was tough work, but it had to be done. The actress I massaged that day, Simone Griffith, went on to do a TV series with a then unknown actor named Tom Hanks. David Carridine later gained some weight and played the title role in Kill Bill, parts one and two. Don Peters did well in his contest, but regrettably passed away a few years ago. When I saw him many years later, I reminded him of our mutual acting gig, and he jokingly told me to keep it down, since his wife was nearby. Oh, and that obnoxious actor who flexed his non-existent lats around the set? Around a year later, I was reading about a movie in production that starred this guy, and I was astounded that anyone would even hire him. His name was Sylvester Stallone, and the film was called Rocky.

I’m a big advocate of using various food supplements, especially those that supply nutrients that may be missing in the diet. Other supplements that I think are useful have enough preliminary research behind them to deem them advantageous for health purposes, rather than strictly helping to build muscle or lose bodyfat. On the other hand, bodybuilders and athletes are often the targeted consumers for a host of ineffectual, worthless supplements that do nothing other than enrich the bank accounts of the purveyors behind them. One example of this are the “myostatin blockers” sold a few years ago. These were based on a type of seaweed, and the science behind them consisted of a single in vitro study published in an obscure science journal. In truth, many of the current crop of sports supplements are backed up by little or no evidence whatsoever.

The same group that brought you the useless seaweed-based myostatin blockers now have another supplement. This new supplement is for topical use (sprayed on the skin), and will set you back a cool $125 for an 8 ounce bottle. It allegedly works by inhibiting an enzyme that activates cortisol. Cortisol is associated with muscle catabolism, lower levels of testosterone and growth hormone, and excess bodyfat, particularly in the trunk area. The site selling this stuff offers no evidence of efficacy, but asks consumers to take the word of an established liar. The active ingredient is something called “17-B hydroxyadrenosterone,” but don’t bother trying to look that up; there is no trace of the term in the existing world medical literature. This suggests either that the company in question formulated from scratch, or that they simply made up the name. The latter is the more likely explanation.

Another company has decided to resurrect the old myostatin blocker. They are selling a product based on follastatin, derived from “avian eggs.” Follistatin is a type of protein that does indeed inhibit myostatin. However, the research that showed this effect involved mice that were specifically bred to produce higher than normal levels of follastatin in their bodies. The site selling this stuff lists  a single study purporting to show that orally ingested follastatin is capable of being absorbed, and does lower myostatin levels. It isn’t disclosed who funded the study, but I’d guess that it was the same outfit selling this stuff. Even worse–the study used to prove this product doesn’t exist in the issue of the journal referenced on the site! I guess they thought no one would bother to check. They also don’t explain how an orally ingested protein source, in this case follastatin, is able to survive the initial digestive process that occurs with all orally ingested proteins. Indeed, if the stuff is so effective, where is the human evidence? I would expect at least that for a supplement that retails for $99 for a one month supply.

My advice is to stick with proven supplements, or those that have some record of success or evidence of efficacy. This doesn’t mean testimonials, since this type of anecdotal evidence is easily purchased. I have no doubt that many will purchase these items, and for them I feel nothing but pity.

There was a guy who used to exercise for years at Gold’s gym that I called “Mr. Sunshine.” I never, however, used this moniker to his face, since the guy was so upbeat and optimistic that he left no room for sarcasm. He seemed to see the bright side of everything in life. If a machine broke down in the gym, his response was something like,”Now they will get an even better machine!” Mr. Sunshine seemed to be incapable of being blue or moody in any way. I have to admit that he would sometimes grate on me with his unyielding optimism. Now it turns out that Mr. Sunshine may have been on to something.

A recent analysis of 30 previous studies related to health and happiness was recently published in the–and I’m not making this up–Journal of Happiness Studies, finding that while being happy doesn’t help you heal, it may ward off illness and even help maximize lifespan. The magnitude of the happiness effect on longevity was about the same as not smoking. For years, high strung, angry people, sometimes called “Type-A” individuals, have been known to be more prone to various stress-related illnesses, including heart disease and cancer. The mechanism is the release of higher level of various stress hormones, including cortisol. Cortisol depresses immune response, which explains the cancer connection, since some immune cells, such as killer T-cells, are known to destroy incipient tumors in the body before they can take hold. This is one reason why cancer is more prevalent in older people–the immune response is blunted with age. From a cardiovascular point of view, stress kills because some stress hormones place inordinate stress on the heart, such as through promoting higher blood pressure at rest.

The study found that being happy doesn’t help those who are already ill, but may offer protection to those who are still healthy. Then again, it’s hard to be happy when you are seriously ill. Those who are happy also veer toward adapting healthier lifestyles, such as following a good diet and exercising regularly. They also tend to avoid negative health behavior, such as smoking and excessive alcohol intake. Some studies suggest that having a pet can induce happiness, and I can attest to that. When life gets me down, all it takes is a walk with my best buddies, Bruno and Lily, to provide an immediate mood-boosting effect.

Attempting to cultivate the happiness habit isn’t as easy as it sounds in an era where gas costs over $4 a gallon and food prices are also rising exponentially, not to mention the cost of real estate and everything else. Then again, you could handle such realities by assuming a “Mr. Sunshine” attitude. He would respond by noting that gas costs $12 a gallon in Norway. Millions of people in the world don’t know where their next meal is coming from. And, heck, just not being homeless means that you’re doing better than a lot of other unfortunate people.

As for Mr. Sunshine himself, he died recently, and I bet he died with a huge smile on his face.

Bigger, Stronger,Faster (BSF) is a new documentary by Chris Bell. The film centers on Bell and his two brothers and their feelings about using anabolic steroid drugs, and the way the media and society tends to demonize steroid usage.  Besides the Bell Family (his mom and dad also make appearances), the film features several interviews with well-known personalities, as well as footage of other top athletes. If you’ve seen any of Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock’s work, you have a good idea of the style and pace of the film. The main message seems to be that while steroids are condemned, many other drugs and substances do not have the same stigma attached. Also, the proof that steroids are dangerous is specious at best based on existing evidence. In one example, Bell shows a list of drugs considered dangerous, with steroids placing 142 on the list. According to figures released by the Center for Disease Control, steroids caused exactly 3 fatilities during one year,although precisely how the drugs directly caused these deaths isn’t disclosed in the film. Several of the “experts” interviewed by Bell displayed a refreshingly honest position on steroid usage, notably Charles Yessalis, who edited a reference text about steroid usage in sports. Bell subtly points out that while many decry the vast use of steroids in sports, it’s also true that everyone loves a winner, and steroids do help in this respect. During one sequence, Bell explains to his mother that he used steroids because he “wanted to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.” His mom was wise enough to point out that Bell would never look like Arnold no matter how many drugs he used, which is certainly true. The film has already led to one significant effect. During an interview shown in the film, a model/bodybuilder named Christian Boeving openly admits to his use of steroids. Since he is was also featured in ads for certain food supplements, Bell inquires as the whether the ads are a bit misleading because they suggest that the products pushed by Christian are responsible for his physique. Christian responds by noting that he never denied using drugs, but that he also uses the advertised products. He then adds that if people think that he built his body solely by using the supplement, that’s their problem. This response didn’t sit well with the company that sells the product, who canceled Christian’s contract. Clearly, there must have been a “morals” clause in the contract. I find this interesting, because the company in question is one of the most deceptive in the entire business, and that’s saying a lot in the supplement business!

Speaking of supplements, at one point in the film, Bell shows how easy is is to make a fortune selling sports supplements. He simply sends away for bulk material for the supplement, then puts tiny amounts into the capsules, noting that he doesn’t have to list precise amounts, just list a general heading called “propriatary contents.” He hires two illegal aliens to package the supplement for him. I was happy to watch this particular sequence, since that “proprietary ingredients” listing on many supplements has always been a sore point with me. You have no idea of the precise level of active ingredients in such supplements, and as Bell shows in the film, you could be paying a lot for almost nothing. Ostensibly, the excuse for such overt deception on the part of supplement companies is to prevent competitors from copying their formulas. But any company can do so simply by analyzing the supplement. So the only true loser in this scenario is the consumer who paid a lot of cash for a supplement that cost almost nothing to market. The company that I alluded to earlier uses this deceptive process on most of their supplements, which provides them with a huge profit margin.

Congressman Henry Waxman, who chaired the recent House hearing about drug use in sports, is interviewed and shows that he doesn’t have a clue about the “drug problem.” Also sadly clueless is the father of teen “steroid victim”, Taylor Hooten, who testified before Waxman’s committee. Taylor was a high school baseball player who hung himself, allegedly after using anabolic steroids. But when confronted with the fact that Taylor also used various other drugs, including an antidepressant drug that has been linked to suicides, the father angrily replies.”this is not about those other drugs, it’s about steroids.” I suppose that steroids, being as demonized as they are, is a more convenient and acceptable pharmacological scapegoat for the senior Hooten.

At one point in the film, Bell, who says that he tried to interview Arnold for the film for over a year with no success, decides to stalk the governer at a Venice Beach bodybuilding contest. During that segment in the film, I saw a person talking to Arnold who looked familiar, and realized that it was me. So I have an uncredited, cameo appearance in the film. From what I understand, the critics loved this film, and I, too, thought that Bell did a superlative job, as good as or even better than anything Moore or Spurlock has done. Too bad he didn’t interview me;I could have provided some great info, and besides Bell was standing right next to me at the beach contest.

Many people believe in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors or “space aliens.” I do not for at least one good reason. Any civilization advanced enough to be capable of interstellar transport would have to be thousands of years ahead of us scientifically. No doubt they would be able to monitor our radio and television communications. If they were to judge us by our television programs, the inescapable conclusion would be that there is no intelligent life on Earth; at least, none worth communicating with.

The most egregious example of mindless TV is the so-called reality shows. Forget the fact that these “unscripted” revulsions are in fact staged and fake, but they also manage to feature the most insipid exhibitionists in this society. The pathetic souls that vie to appear on such programs must have one requirement: the ability to make an idiot out of yourself on national TV. I avoid such programming with the same level of zeal that I apply to avoiding those with known communicable diseases. I made one exception recently, however. I was intrigued with the title of a new show called The Greatest American Dog, because I am what is known as an “animal lover,” not in the sense of bestiality, but in the sense of having affection for animals. I generally view all animals, from dogs to great white sharks, as being infinitely superior to most human beings in terms of honesty and integrity. While I may be accused of anthropomorphizing my animal friends, it’s also true that I’ve never been stabbed in the back by any dog or even shark for that matter. The same can’t be said for many homo sapiens that I’ve had the displeasure of encountering over the years. Animals are clear in letting you know how they feel about you, humans are considerably more evasive in this respect.

In any case, I temporarily released my usual skepticism about TV to view the Greatest American Dog. I should have known better. While the title would indicate that the show centers on its canine participants, in fact, the focus is entirely on the neurotic and frankly boring dog owners or should I say “companions.” As is the usual case with reality shows, these people think they are much more entertaining and interesting than they are, and that is the true reality of such shows. As the show went on, I found myself cringing, as I watched such drivel as “doggie disco.” I got the feeling that the dogs on the show wanted a way out; their discomfort was palpable. At one point, one of the human contestants was admonished that this “isn’t about you, it’s about your dog.” But the truth is, this show is all about humans and has little or nothing to do with dogs, who are merely four-legged props on this abomination of a TV show. Where is the Humane Society when you need them, or better yet, the ASPCA? Surely something must be done to relieve the innocent animals on this show of the psychic pain being inflicted by their “companions” and the sadistic producers of this execrable  waste of time.  After one viewing, I felt like reaching for a giant doggie bag and tossing this crap in the nearest garbage can, which it so eminently deserves. I guess the best way to sum it all up is to paraphrase Triumph, the insult dog from the David Letterman show, who likely would describe the Greatest American Dog as “A great show–TO POOP ON!

It’s a common observation that those under high stress conditions get sick more often. High stress conditions promote higher levels of the adrenal hormone, cortisol. Cortisol, in turn, is known to lower immune function. But precisely how does it do this? Recent research has linked the cortisol effect on immune response to a cortisol-induced interference with immune cell telomerase. Telomerase is an enzyme required for telomere function, Telomeres are the ends of chromosomes, and are required for cellular division. When the chromosomes run out of telomeres, the cell no longer divides, and dies. This is one theory of the aging process; that is, some people have prematurely shortened telomeres in some organs, leading to the more rapid aging of those particular organs. As far as the relationship between cortisol and immune telomeres, by interfering with telomerase activity, immune response is blunted, leading to stress-related diseases. However, now that cortisol has been identified as the villain in this process, appropriate measures can be developed to prevent stress-related diseases in those who must function under high-stress conditions.

A current controversy relates to the superiority of organic-based foods. It seems that we are awash in a sea of various chemicals, the full health extent of many aren’t fully known. This is especially pertinent to what we consume. Attaching an “organic” label to any particular food imparts the notion that the food is closer to nature, and may even be healthier. In fact, there are many natural food elements that can impart toxic reactions. But can organic food processing change the nutrient content of foods? One recent study, published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 2008;56:5788-5794, compared the fruit quality, antioxidant level, and flavonoid content of organic versus conventional blueberries. Blueberries happen to be one of the best berries to consume, but this study showed that growing them using organic techniques led to a significant increase in antioxidant activity compared to conventional techniques.

One theory of aging, first proposed in 1957, suggests that substances called free radicals, or reactive oxygen species, gradually damage cells, resulting in an acceleration of the aging process. Free radicals are strongly implicated in the onset of many diseases linked to early mortality, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and degenerative brain diseases.

You may remember from Chemistry 101 that electrons come in pairs. Free radicals are unpaired electrons and are constantly seeking to combine with electron pairs. When that biochemical menage à trois does occur, it wreaks havoc on cellular structures—for example, cell membranes—and lead to cell destruction.

Some scientists claim that cells are bombarded by some 10,000 free radicals per minute. Fortunately, we’re not defenseless against cellular terrorism. The body has a built-in system of antioxidant enzymes—including superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione peroxidase—that can neutralize the attacks. The sheer magnitude and relentlessness of free radicals are nevertheless capable of overwhelming the body’s defenses. Additionally, many of the body’s defenses diminish with age, which may play a role in diseases that are more prevalent among older people, such as cancer and heart disease.

Dietary antioxidants, mainly from fruits and vegetables, back up the body’s antioxidant defenses. You’re probably familiar with many of them: vitamins C, E, B-complex and A, plus various minerals, as well as plant compounds called bioflavonoids and polyphenols. The latter are especially plentiful in green tea, red wine and dark chocolate.

Oddly enough, free radicals offer a few significant health benefits. For one thing, they’re produced by immune cells as a means of destroying invading toxic organisms, such as bacteria. They’re required for the production of thyroid hormones. One dietary antioxidant mineral, selenium, is essential for activating the enzymes that help generate thyroid hormones. Because of its antioxidant properties, however, too much selenium doubles back and inhibits thyroid hormone.

A lesser-known benefit of exercise is that it offers antioxidant protection, and some researchers say that the major health benefit of exercise is that it upgrades antioxidants, a process known as hormesis. The term refers to how exposure to small doses of a toxic substance results in compensatory beneficial effects. [Editor’s note: For more information  on hormesis, see page 300 of the July '08 issue of IRON MAN.]

The increased oxygen intake that exercise generates also creates oxidative stress, which  in turn generates free radicals. When that happens, several negative conditions can result. One is excessive muscle damage, which can delay training recovery. That’s the reason athletes are often advised to get a generous amount of dietary antioxidants—and most don’t rely on food but supplement with vitamins C and E and minerals.

The research is contradictory on whether the dietary antioxidant boost is necessary. Studies show that merely continuing to exercise automatically bolsters the body’s antioxidant system via hormesis. What’s more, while some studies have found that elite athletes generate higher-than-normal free radicals when training, others have found the opposite.

A recent controversial study, which used both animal and human subjects, suggests that adding vitamin C to your supplement regimen may actually hamper endurance gains from training. Fourteen sedentary men underwent eight weeks of endurance training, during which five of the subjects took one gram (1,000 milligrams) of vitamin C daily. Meanwhile, 24 rats went through three- and six-week training routines; half the rats were given a dose of vitamin C species-equivalent to the human dose. The men who didn’t take vitamin C showed a 22 percent increase in their body’s ability to take up and use oxygen during training, while those who supplemented with C showed only a 10.8 percent increase. Similar results occurred in the rats.

Exercise tests revealed that when forced to run to exhaustion after six weeks of training, the rats not given vitamin C ran almost twice as far as they had before training, amounting to a 186.7 percent increase in endurance capacity. Those that got vitamin C, however, increased their distance by only 25 percent, or a 26.5 percent increase in endurance. The rats not given vitamin C showed higher counts of mitochondria, the portions of cells where energy is produced as ATP and where fat is oxidized. The amount of mitochondria determines endurance, and aerobics increases endurance by generating the production of additional mitochondria.

What gives with those results? It turns out that the production of free radicals from exercise stimulates the production of new mitochondria. Taking vitamin C short-circuits the process. Taking vitamin C prior to exercise also prevented the exercise-induced stimulation of built-in antioxidant enzymes, such as superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase.

Several previous studies have reported unfavorable effects on endurance development due to dietary antioxidants, such as vitamin E and coenzyme Q10. One study published seven years ago found that taking a combination of vitamin E and alpha lipoic acid reduced muscle contractile activity, which would translate into reduced exercise strength.

Another recent study, however, had very different findings. Thirty-six students supplemented their diets with 400 milligrams a day of vitamin E, 1,000 milligrams of vitamin C or a combination of both nutrients for three weeks. Another group got a placebo. The subjects underwent various tests that measure aerobic and anaerobic exercise performance. Those who got the antioxidant nutrients performed significantly better on the aerobic tests than the placebo group. The anaerobic tests showed no differences in ether group. The study concluded, “These test results suggest that daily supplementation with vitamin E (400 units), vitamin C (1,000 milligrams) or vitamin E plus vitamin C for a period of three weeks may significantly improve aerobic power.”

References

Gomez-Cabrera, M.C., et al. (2008). Oral administration of vitamin C decreases muscle mitochondrial biogenesis and hampers training-induced adaptations in endurance performance.Am J Clin Nutr. 87:142-149.

Coombes, J.S., et al. (2001). Effects of vitamin E and alpha lipoic acid on skeletal muscle contractile properties. J Appl Physiol. 90:1424-30.

Jourkesh, M., et al. (2007). The effects of vitamins E and C supplementation on bioenergetics index. Res Sports Med. 15:249-56.

Another carotenoid found naturally in foods such as watermelon and cooked tomatoes. Lycopene is similar to astaxanthin in some respects, such as its red color. Research shows that it offers superior antioxidant protection against a type of free radical called singlet oxygen, beating even vitamin E in that respect. Lycopene may help prevent CVD by limiting oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), the “bad” kind of blood cholesterol. It may also help prevent prostate cancer, a concern of many men over age 40, by preventing fat oxidation produced by years of testosterone stimulation. I take 20 milligrams daily with fat.

Not to be confused with L-carnitine, which I also use. Carnosine is a dipeptide, or linkage of two amino acids, histidine and alanine. In muscle it acts as a primary intramuscular buffer, reducing the acid that leads to muscle fatigue. Carnosine also blunts glycation, so culpable in the aging process. I take 1,000 milligrams daily on an empty stomach, usually in the morning.