Podcast 23

The Science of Strength: Brian Cygan Interviews James Fisher, PhD – Part 2

. . .

SHOW NOTES

Brian Cygan and Dr. James Fisher break down the science of strength and discuss what the proper level of resistance during training is, the threshold for the effort that you need to achieve to see results, and why some exercises are best avoided if you want to see optimal fitness benefits.

• Fisher is an exercise scientist in the UK and was a personal trainer for a number of years before becoming a researcher. His area of research was mainly lower back pain and lower back strength and has recently been looking into the perceptual responses to resistance training.
• He advocates a framework of evidence-based resistance training. One of the first papers published was focused on guiding trainers and trainees on what the research supports and how to exercise the most effectively.
• In total, Dr. Fisher, in collaboration with researchers from around the world, has published over 100 papers. The part he enjoys the most is the fact that once one paper is published, the research always raises new questions to explore.
• There is a mountain of evidence that supports the health benefits of resistance training. Ultimately, all the benefits combine and stronger people have a reduced risk of all-cause mortality. In layman’s terms, the stronger you are, the harder you are to kill.
• The goal of most people with resistance exercise is to have a biological age that is lower than your chronological age. We want to live longer and be able to function as if we were much younger.
• Resistance training resets the biological clock, sometimes by decades. Studies on older males using resistance training showed they had similar cellular characteristics as men in their 20’s.
• The first thing you need to understand is that the key is the tension of the muscle doing the work, not just moving an external load. The evidence supports the finding that effort is key, which is where most people go wrong as they fear the hard work. Whole effort is one of the guiding principles of the Exercise Coach.
• The intensity of effort really matters to trigger the results we are looking for from exercise. There is also a threshold of a near maximal effort to trigger a response from the body.
• If people are working at a lower intensity, the volume becomes a key factor. If we train to a higher level of effort, the volume becomes unnecessary.
• For the average person, optimal results can be achieved with two 30 minute-or-less workouts per week. For bodybuilders, there are some questions around doing more training in order to maximize muscle growth, but for most people, they want the functionality of strength and not an increase in size.
• To get a whole body benefit, the minimum dose of training performed is only three exercises: an upper body pressing exercise (bench press), an upper body pulling exercise (seated row), and a lower body pressing exercise (leg press). Those can be complemented with additional multi-joint movements for other areas of the body that need work.
• Even under lockdown, people can see positive benefits from doing simple exercises like pushups and lunges.
• Squats are a unique exercise because it has a high degree of coordination and skill. You can become “stronger” at the squat without really seeing results in other areas because you are just becoming better at moving the weight up and down. This is why the leg press is a more beneficial lower body pressing exercise.

I don’t have an hour and a half to two hours once a week to do a full workout, but if I can get 30 minutes two or three times a week, then that works for me. I also wonder if you try and do it all in one workout, if the quality of what you’re doing starts to deteriorate.

Welcome to the Strength Changes Everything podcast. I am Amy Hudson, and today we are going to continue an interview that we played part one of in our last episode entitled The Science of Strength. This interview was between Brian Sagan, CEO and co -founder of The Exercise Coach, and Dr. James Fisher, one of the leading researchers on exercise science out of the UK. This interview is full of helpful information and nuggets of understanding to inform the way we think about exercise. There are a lot of myths when it comes to what people believe is necessary in order to enjoy the benefits of exercise and Brian and James cover quite a few of these in this interview. The more we learn and understand about how exercise works and how to do it effectively, the more we can participate in exercise that really moves the needle forward for our health, for our strength, and for our longevity.

Again, if you missed part one of this interview, I encourage you to go back and listen to that episode. Then tune in to today’s part two of the science of strength. Let’s roll that interview.

So a few other things that I’m thinking of in terms of the how, what does it take to get these results, maybe speak to, well, first of all, I guess I’d say you talked about three exercises being effective, sort of the minimal effective approach. We generally at the exercise coach generally use roughly eight exercises per workout. So how does that fit in? Do you feel like that’s going to be in the ballpark of what would make sense for the average person?

Yeah, absolutely. And when I say three, I do genuinely mean a minimum effective dose of stimulating all the major muscles of the body. I think as you build beyond that, you can add really as many exercises you see fit. You know, 12, 15 exercises is not unrealistic if a client can cope with that kind of continued work and has the time to do that. But of course, as we add more volume to a workout, more exercises to a workout, we might then start to impact the frequency at which we can train.

So if I go in the gym or if I do a workout on a Monday and I do three or four exercises, then I might be okay to train again Wednesday or Thursday. So, even just a couple of days rest. Whereas if I go, if I train on a Monday and I do 12 or 15 exercises and I do everything from multi -joint, chest press, shoulder press, pec fly, knee extension, leg curl, leg press, calf raises, lateral raises, rear delt fly, and I add in and add in and add in, then I’m probably going to be pretty beat up for a few days.

You’re making me tired.

I probably wouldn’t want to train again. If I did that on a Monday until maybe Friday or Saturday, my body simply wouldn’t be in a good state.

So you literally can’t work out as often and that you just said was close to even needing a week of recovery close to it before you could even apply another workout. So as you increase the amount of exercise in one workout, you spread out the, you lengthen the time Needed to recover so you can’t work out even as often and so maybe there’s a trade -off So we’re trying to sort of control how much we do in a workout how often we work out To balance those things in a way that are delivering the optimal package the optimal Program for an individual to make the progress that they want to make.

Yeah, absolutely and the studies more recently by some colleagues of mine have even shown that frequency is potentially less important than volume. So you could train three times a week and do a third of the volume, or if you cram it all into one workout, then you only need to train once a week. Well, this comes down to time, right? So personally, I don’t have an hour and a half to two hours once a week to do a full workout, but if I can get 30 minutes two or three times a week, then that works for me. I also wonder if you try and do it all in one workout, if the quality of what you’re doing starts to deteriorate as the workout goes on, and certainly the effort level would have to deteriorate. last exercise you do, you’ve got to question whether you’re really bringing this full effort.

So yeah, that really resonates that resonates with me. I’ve been in the industry for 20 years and have been applying principles that would be in line with those principles that you see, you know, coming out of the evidence. And in we’ve landed on sort of that 20 minute range and about eight exercises, exactly because of what you just touched on. There’s this inverse relationship we discovered between someone’s ability to work hard and the length of the workout, the duration of the workout. And it seems that we’re so good at prediction that when we say, okay, we’re going to do a 40 -minute workout and we’re going to do 20 exercises, if we took it to an extreme for us, instantly people are predicting in order for me to complete that, I need to manage and modulate my effort level, but then we’ve brought that effort level down under the threshold necessary to trigger the results we’re looking for. So we ended up landing on 20 minutes, eight exercises being about right for our clients to be able to make sure they can give whole effort for as long as they can, for as many exercises as they can to make sure it’s a fair amount.

but it’s totally effective as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think that sounds great.

Well, cool. So one of the variables we haven’t talked about that’s a pretty measurable variable is what we call time under load? And can you just share your perspective in general on time under load? How does that fit into what we’re talking about in terms of these variables? Do we have to do like a five -minute exercise set or a 10 -second exercise set?

I mean, what’s your perspective on optimal time under load ranges? Yeah, this is a really interesting area actually, Brian. We’ve just published a paper, myself and some colleagues, where we challenge an existing paradigm, which is called the strength and endurance continuum. Okay.

Just to clarify what that is, it’s the, it’s this kind of, it’s what I would call the accepted wisdom in strength and conditioning.

That if you lift a heavy, for maximal strength, you only have to lift a few repetitions, but use a very heavy load. Okay. To maximize muscle growth, you use a more moderate load and a more moderate number of repetitions, and therefore, a slightly higher time under load. For endurance adaptations, you use a lighter load for a higher number of repetitions for a longer time under load. The paper we’ve just published and a lot of our research leading up to this has really challenged this and said actually it doesn’t really matter if you use a very heavy load or a very light load. You’re still going to improve your strength to a similar degree.

You’re still going to improve your muscular hypertrophy or your muscle size to a similar degree. And your endurance, your muscular endurance is probably more aligned to your strength anyway. So if your strength improves, your muscular endurance improves as well. So we’ve really challenged this over a few years. And the key with all this I would say is as long as you’re working to that height, of effort.

So you can use a light load if that’s all you have, but you need to get to that high degree of effort. Now, if you use a very light load and to get to a high degree of effort, you’re going to have a longer time under load. So you’re going to be under tension for maybe, you know, like you said, your example was five minutes. Five minutes is not very nice to be under muscular tension for. But the key is we don’t need to go super heavy either. We don’t need to do like single maximal effort repetitions.

We can kind of work somewhere in between. Now, historically, the research has suggested somewhere around 60 to 90 seconds. But I would even come a little bit lower than that and say, once you’re crossing that probably that 40, 45 second mark, you’ve probably maximized recruitment, motor unit and muscle fiber recruitment, as long as you’re at that high effort, and therefore there’s no need to keep going with this. I think a lot of it might depend on the way the loading is applied. So I know, for example, that you guys use isokinetics. So the initial repetitions I know are not maximal, but they could be maximal from the offset.

And with that in mind, I wouldn’t suggest going for a long time, I think 90 seconds of maximal effort is probably way more than is necessary. But I think the idea of beginning with some movements that are submaximal, and try to then build it up to a higher effort level, which is more akin to traditional style training, then anywhere around the 45 to 90 second mark based on kind of personal preference and maybe the exercise being performed. Some people might do well with lower body exercises for a longer time under load or shorter and vice versa for upper body muscles. But the key factor within this as well, which I just touched on and I’ll elaborate on if that’s okay. is the perceptual response. So one of the key things that we’ve found in our most recent research is that a longer time under load leads to a far more negative perception of that exercise.

So when I say perception, I mean discomfort. When our participants are asked to dissociate, to differentiate between the amount of effort they’re applying and the amount of discomfort or pain they feel, They can give maximal effort, but they don’t want the maximal pain in return. Well, if you do a single maximal contraction, then it’s an effort of 10, but it’s very, very low on discomfort. If I now asked you to do 50 more of them, well, your effort doesn’t change.

It’s still maximal, but trust me, your discomfort starts to go up and up and up. the longer time under load is definitely associated with higher degrees of discomfort and negative perceptual responses. And that’s got to have, I would think that just if we looked across a population, a broad population, you’ve got to think that that is going to have an impact on compliance. That’s going to have an impact on motivation. I know in my own personal experience it does. As I play with these variables for myself and try to find what’s optimal, It certainly factors in that performing a long set can just become so grueling that I’m going to back away a little bit from effort before I might reach maximal effort.

So this is, I think, not an area that, like when I was in school, we talked about, or even over the last 20 years, I don’t feel like it’s an area that people who really look at the science of resistance training have looked much at, but it seems like sort of the next

frontier. How do we, in order to really optimize strength training, we even have to look at the individual, you’re calling it the perceptual response, which is the comfort or discomfort of the exercise and the impact on motivation and continuation of the solution that we’re providing. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. And to put that in a practical context, I mean, if we think about what our recommendations have been for older adults, we’ve always said, well, let’s use a lighter weight. Let’s use a lighter weight. The problem is that they then manage that light weight, so they do more reps or more sets or a higher volume in some form, but they potentially stimulate a greater degree of muscle soreness, a slower rate of recovery.

So we talked about a number of days between workouts. We had a study where we compared not just the response to the trained limb, but a response to an untrained limb. Most research in the university environment is with male collegiate participants, so 18 to 25. And I had a number of them perform single leg knee extension exercise with a heavy load or a light load on different days. And then for the next three days, I had them come back in and I tested their strength. But I tested them on both the legs that they had exercised and the untrained leg, so the non -exercise leg.

And after the lighter load exercise, Both the legs that had done the exercise and the untrained limb showed high degrees of fatigue for up to 72 hours afterwards. So we take our older adults and we say, let’s give them the pink dumbbells, right? We give them a really light weight, get them to do a bunch of reps, a bunch of sets, and then send them off home knowing that they did a great workout. And then they’re sore for days. Their function has really deteriorated from that. this exercise.

They have a lot of pain or discomfort from the workout itself. And then we question why they don’t want to come back and do it again.

Wow, sure. That’s a great point. And the same really with endurance athletes. We take our triathletes and we give them a light weight and we tell them, yeah, keep going for five minutes with this. And it’s not good advice. It’s really not good advice.

We should be working with a far more moderate load to enhance strength, muscle mass and muscular endurance and functionality around that. Wow. As well as, and this is one of the only, one of the only other caveats around this, as well as bone mineral density. So bone mineral density is a key variable, especially in females and in older adults. And we know that bone mineral density only really improves either with impact or with relatively heavy loads. So if we give people a very, very light weight, then we run the risk that they’re simply not stressing.

They’re not putting enough stress through the skeletal system to improve the bone mineral density. So this is my big issue with things like aqua aerobics. Aquaeurobics is great for the older adult, for the social element and the fun element, all those good things. But to improve bone mineral density, this is like the worst thing that can be done.

We’re reducing their body weight.

We’re not increasing the stress on their skeletal system. So I think more moderate loads are almost essential for that variable as well. Wow. Well, it sounds like there are a lot of things out there that are a little bit upside down when we look at the evidence in fitness that are really kind of upside down. And everything that you’re saying here, it’s supported by or flowing from, it’s sort of a fully orbed framework that you have for thinking about how we exercise optimally that’s based on, you’ve said, more than 100 studies.

that you’ve participated in. So you’re not, these aren’t based on your opinion or your preferences, you’re kind of just going where hundreds of studies have led you. Is that right? Brian, it’s more than just my research. There’s a ton of other great researchers that have led to this. John Schoenfeld and Stu Phillips and Wayne Westcott, Mark Konopolsky.

There are just a ton of great exercise scientists in the world who have shown a lot of this data. It’s really not just me. From that sense, I’m fortunate to have some great colleagues out there. Yeah, thanks for that.

Well, man, this has been a lot today, Dr. Fisher.

I still have three or four questions I’d love to get to if we have time.

I want to respect your time, but… No, let’s do it. Let’s go. Okay. I’ve honed it down to just a few more that I really want to make sure we touch on. And then, man, I’ve got some as well.

I think we’re going to need to set up another time.

I’d love to really talk more about the back, the spine, the lower back, maybe in another call. But for today, let’s see. So what about supervision? Is there anything in the literature that gives us any idea of the… the value of supervision or the necessity of supervision or any insight about supervision as it relates to strength training? Yeah, absolutely. It’s certainly not a large volume of research around this area, but there are a number of studies and they’ve all really shown the same thing.

That’s that supervision basically enhances results. That’s going from non -supervised to supervised or even large group supervised. So it was a coach to, I think, 25 athletes compared to a coach supervising a smaller group of five athletes. And again, it’s repeatedly shown that supervision, the better the supervision ratio, the better the results. And a lot of that really lends itself back to the effort that people either increase the weight that they’re using and they progress more or they simply work harder because of the motivation and encouragement by the coach.

Now, something that hasn’t been reported, but I would say is also a key factor in this is exercise technique. The students that I work with learning about personal training, one of the key factors is that they promote and reinforce good technique, which of course serves to keep the correct muscles under tension, but also prevents injury from the other muscles. I mentioned about going to a commercial gym before, and one of the big problems that I see is people reporting getting injured. And when they say they got hurt in the gym, I often ask the question, what’s an acceptable injury risk? in a strength facility? Well, the answer is zero.

People are coming there to enhance the quality of their life, not to negatively impact it by getting injured. So if they’re doing something that’s causing an injury, there has to be a question mark over either what they’re doing or the technique they’re using to do it. And I think that’s where supervision comes in.

Even if it’s simple things like, I did a press exercise and felt this pain in my neck, well, what were you doing wrong? And I think that’s where we can avoid anything like that with supervision. So I think it’s a key factor. I think that most colleagues I know would work with a training partner or work in a supervised environment where possible. Great, great. Thanks for that.

What about And I’ll just say at the outset with this question, I’ve got a little bit of perspective on this, but I think there’s going to be some intersection between our perspectives. I think there’s going to be some overlap. And in fact, I think that because part of my perspective is really, I think, influenced by some of your work looking at lower back strengthening. So the question is around range of motion.

and how much range of motion is necessary and what really I’ve got some thoughts on whether or not there is such thing as full range of motion as it relates to a muscle in strength training. But you’ve done some research, I think, and it’s your research, so make sure I get it right. But it seems to indicate that we could do what you’ve called limited range of motion exercise and gain fuller range of motion benefits. Is this the case? Yeah, yeah. I think there’s a lot of evidence that supports this and I’m not going to say that it’s the same for every muscle and every joint for every movement and every exercise.

Okay. And certainly it might not be the same for things like muscle growth. I think certainly for muscle strength we can certainly shave the end off each end of range of motion and still see strength increases at those extremes. And this is really interesting, but the question would be, why would we look to do that? If somebody is likely to get injured performing an exercise, they’re probably most likely to get injured at the extreme range of motion, at one extreme end of an exercise. So if, for example, I take a pec fly or a chest press exercise, then when my shoulder is abducted or extended as far as possible, that’s going to be the point where it’s going to get injured.

It’s not going to get injured here at midpoint. So if we take it to a point where it maybe comes to parallel to our body, then do we still get the same adaptations? And I think that’s a really good question around exercise technique. I know builder Simone has looked a lot at this area and exercise biomechanics. And I think that the key thing with all of this is that we are looking down the line we’re looking at longevity.

So, there are some studies that show that a limited range of motion can improve strength throughout the full range of motion, you know, throughout. So, and they’re good studies to sort of lean on for this. Other academics might challenge that and I think they might have a fair argument, but I think that the key point around this is If we choose to limit range of motion, there might be greater longevity in performing that exercise. We might be taking just enough stress off a joint to allow us to continue doing that movement for 30, 40, 50 years. And the reality is that with most exercises, if we are going to get injured, it’s not an acute injury. It’s not something that I do today that gets me injured.

It’s the constant wear and tear of doing that same thing over and over again.

And that’s where exercise technique is so important.

People might say, well, I do this technique and I’ve never got injured doing it. And I look at them, you know, my students say that to me a lot. And I say, you know what, you’re 20 years old. You’re 18. You can do anything. Yeah, you can do anything, you can do anything and not get injured.

But trust me, when you get to 40, or you get to 50, or you get to 60, you’re gonna wish you’d done it slightly differently for every one of those workouts twice a week for the last 20 or 30 years. What a great point.

a bit less strain on the knee or a bit less strain on the elbow or the shoulder or the neck. And so longevity becomes really important. And especially when we think about, I’m going to say a more mature client base, an adult client base, rather than our young 18 to 25 year olds. I think when we look at an adult client base, we don’t need to push the same extreme ranges of motion. It’s just not necessary. Yeah, it’s probably necessary not to.

Like you’re saying, that’s great. Super helpful. Well, you’re in and by the way, James, you’re still coming in loud and clear there. might have been a little bit of lag visually. I don’t know if you noticed that, but I’m hearing you perfectly. So don’t be distracted by that.

If you do notice that you’re coming in loud and clear. So, all right. So this has been great. I really appreciate it. I’ve got one more question and then I’m just going to give you a chance to maybe sum it all up and give our listeners kind of a. call to action, what you would suggest that they really become motivated to do or keep doing.

But before that, just one last question. This might be the hard one, but I think you’re up to it.

And it’s in this area of, you know, sometimes this is the way it’s posed to me. What about cardio?

There’s so much emphasis on strength and on muscle. What about cardio?

Are there actually cardiovascular benefits to strength training?

Yeah, and that’s a great question.

And this is another area of research that we’ve had ongoing for a while.

I feel like James, I feel like you’re looking at me saying, Brian, you just asked a question that I would love to have an hour to answer. But yeah, I’m sorry.

I would. And we could do it again. We’ll do that. We could do we could do a cardio interview sometime. But so sorry about that. But if you could just try to give us at least a summary response, man, it’d be beneficial.

Yeah, absolutely. Okay, so the first thing I would say is if somebody is not currently performing any exercise, then the best thing they can do is strength training and they will get an improvement in their cardiorespiratory adaptations. There’s no question about it. There was a big review that was published a few years back that showed that what they called resistance circuit training, they called it. And basically, they referred to as resistance training where you move between exercises relatively quickly and where the resistance was taken to a higher degree of effort. So, it aligns quite nicely with high intensity training.

In my head, I perceive that to be kind of high intensity training. And they showed an improvement of about 10 % of the cardiorespiratory performance from, you know, a matter of weeks of exercise. So certainly there are definitely adaptations to the cardiorespiratory system. Ultimately, all this is about moving oxygen around the body, but some of the intricacies of that is how efficiently we do that. And strength training can stimulate those adaptations.

So that’s the key part of this. If somebody is already what I would term a cardio athlete, a cyclist, a runner, a triathlete, so forth, they might not see big improvements in their performance by adding strength training, but they shouldn’t see any detrimental effects. And as a cyclist, the key thing I would say is that cyclists should do more strength training because they don’t get any impact or any weight -bearing exercise any other way. A runner, does have that impact, so they may improve their bone mineral density through that, but a cyclist doesn’t. So I think that strength training is for all, whether it’s looking to improve your cardiovascular benefits or whether you’re looking to supplement other exercise with strength training.

Now, this flies against a little bit the idea that you have to do cardio to improve your cardio benefits, and you have to do strength training to get stronger.

We’ve published a number of papers challenging that concept, and ultimately what we came back with is that, again, it comes down to effort. If you work hard, then you will stimulate adaptations, whether they’re cardiorespiratory or muscular. If you work to a low effort level but do a higher volume, you probably don’t get the same positive adaptations. And we found with strength training, that we see similar acute and chronic so short -term immediate and long -term adaptations as you would do with cycling in between a leg press exercise and a recumbent bike with the exact modalities that we use. Wow. So yeah, so it’s almost like that’s not, wow.

So it’s not that, so, wow.

So the bike isn’t a cardio tool and the leg press isn’t just a strength tool.

They’re tools that allow us to use our muscles how we choose according to some protocol to achieve a level of effort that can deliver strength and cardiovascular adaptations in the short term and the long term, I think is what you just said. Right, absolutely, absolutely, yeah. And there’s a guy, I think he’s Finnish, a colleague called Tommy Lundberg, who’s published some great studies showing that sprint cycling can improve strength and hypertrophy to a similar degree to just strength training alone. So we can show that even cycling, when it’s taken to that high degree of effort, that maximal all -out effort, can stimulate similar adaptations to what you would normally expect from lifting weights. Sure. And anecdotally, if we look at the Olympic Games and you look at sprint cyclists, they have pretty big quads.

I know that they go in the gym and they lift weights as well, but certainly they definitely have some positive adaptation by their short -term, high -effort cycling.

And this is where I say modality almost doesn’t matter, as long as we’re at that high degree of effort. Now, the thing around that is that cycling or running or anything like that might have other potentially negative impacts based on the modality that you’re performing where strength training, in my opinion, doesn’t have those those negatives around it. So somebody might say, Well, that’s great. I can go off and do sprinting instead.

And I would say, Hey, watch out for your knees. So yeah, what’s the what’s the trade off? And we’re trying to find the sweet spot of again, like we started at the top. Optimal means it is safe as possible immediately, but also it makes it sustainable. You talked about longevity, safe, maximum results, minimum time. And that’s why many of us have landed on the modality of strength training.

I’m going to use that to transition into – you said that I could kind of give a bit of a summary at the end. I’m going to transition into that and I’m going to say one of the key things about strength training is its lifestyle. It’s not a diet that you pick up and put down for 12 weeks. It’s easy to ingrain into your life.

become a habit in the same way we brush our teeth.

I don’t know anybody who brushes their teeth because they just love to brush their teeth. They do it because they want to keep their teeth, and they want their teeth to function. Well, strength training is the same thing, but think of it now as a whole body. We don’t do it because we love to lift weights or go to the gym or anything. Oh, we might do. Some motivations might be around the social element or the affiliation element.

There’s definitely a factor in that. But I think as we get older, we realize, as we become more aware of our own mortality, we look at strength training and exercise as a weight loss method, as an ill health avoidance. You know, that’s one of my main motivations. I don’t want to get sick. I don’t want to get injured. I want to stay fit and strong and healthy and function.

And strength training helps me do that. And I think once we look at it from that perspective, twice a week for, like I said, I mean, the example I gave was 30 minutes and you said 20 minutes, Brian, but we’re on the same kind of page with this.

It just becomes a lifestyle. It just becomes something that we kind of make time for because we know all these are the benefits that we’re going to reap from it, not just today or tomorrow. but in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years time. Yep. Wow. Wow.

I’m motivated. Thanks, Dr. Fisher. I’m motivated to go get my workout in. So I think you’ve hit the target here today. Well, thank you so much. We covered a lot.

I really, I feel like I kind of peppered you with a lot and you really were able to cram a lot of really good meaty responses in. So super helpful for us.

Thank you so much for your willingness to do this. I’d really love to set up time to maybe we can spend more time talking about cardiovascular or weight loss.

I’d love to talk about low back. health as well, because we do some pretty unique things in that area that have even been impacted by some of your research. So I’d really love to have that conversation at some point.

So I’d love to have you back in the future if you were willing.

Absolutely, Brian. Yeah, let’s set something up.

Sounds good. Well, you enjoy strength and be well. Stay well, Dr. Fisher, and we will talk to you soon. You too. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

We hope you enjoyed this interview called the Science of Strength between Brian Sagan and Dr. James Fisher. We always enjoy having health experts as guests on this podcast. And we hope that you found this information helpful and motivating to continue the journey that you’re on with your own personal strength, health and wellness. We hope you’ll tune in next week. And remember, strength changes everything.