Originally posted by Symbolic:
[To add a new dimension to this thread, let me contribute an insight from my area of expertise. The issue of body image seems to play an important role in this discussion of modes of exercise. We have debated health outcomes and now the issue of body image. Interesting how aesthetic ideals about the human body change over time. We're all familiar with the Rubenesque ideal that is no longer considered attractive. Lean and muscular is the current standard of beauty. Meanwhile, body type ideals are not necessarily reflective of optimal health. While being ripped and muscular is certainly in vogue, we should ponder the extent to which health is sacrificed in order to achieve this look. For some, it probably entails more compromise than for others. Obviously, a mesomorph will appear more muscular than an endomorph or ectomorph, all things being equal. The basic point I'm making, and have in all of my threads, is that health doesn't seem to be the prevailing and motivating factor in the fitness industry. Exercise and diet behavior seem to be motivated by an almost pathological need to achieve an aesthetic ideal.
I think it's important to question the motivations for our practices. When we do, it often turns out that there's more to it than otherwise meets the eye. [/QB]
Originally when I first started lifting weights it was purely for aesthetic reasons. I believed that I was making my self healthier to. When I started this several years ago I was 5'6" and 115lbs (bone rack). As I have become older and wiser I am more interested in the health benefits than I am the aesthetic reasons. I'm not saying that that I have ditched the aesthetic goals all together, health goals are a higher priority for me. I have no interest in trying to get down to 5% body fat. I'm not interested in gaining so much lean mass that I leave my target BMI level. My weight of 147 pounds makes my BMI index number a 23.7. Anything after 25 is considered over weight. Approaching the threshold of which I would be considered overweight on the BMI index. I think my body fat is between 12% and 14%. What is considered a healthy level of body fat? How low can it be before it is considered un healthy?
Based on the quote above indicates that having the perfect body doesn’t mean that a person is in the best shape when it comes to health. Other than what I have mentioned above what are the unhealthy side affects of trying to attain the perfect body? Are the lengths people go through to get to the perfect body the unhealthy aspect and not so much being there? Is there any unhealthy side affects to weight lifting assuming that proper technique and form are used?
Sorry for the elementary questions, but this thread peaked my interest.
I swear, the first person to bring up muscle dysmorphia, or the so-called Adonis complex, I will hunt down like an animal, so help me God.
On the other hand, obsessive compulsive behaviours have been noted in some individuals looking to get the 'perfect' body (which _they_ define. Not Harrison Pope, thank you very much.)
I don't have a chip on my shoulder. No way. Not me.
Maybe I am in the minority, but I never worked out to lose weight. I ran alot in high school, then I was introduced to weightlifting in my early twenties. Over the years I have come to value weightlifting more for its functionality. I don't care if an Ethiopian distance runner is the leanest person in the world and will outlive me by twenty years. If I need to move a piece of furniture and need someone to help, I think I'll choose the sprinter. Strength has it's uses far beyond mere aesthetics and as I age strength will be important for me to simply continue to function in a normal life.
It's interesting that your resting pulse has gone up. I'd bet your blood pressure has too. While it may not be to an extent that puts you at risk, it certainly has moved in that direction. That's anecdotal evidence of the difference between endurance and resistance training. Moreover, there's some emerging evidence that body fat percentage (within certain parameters) isn't always a predictor of health. In fact, some of the populations with the longest lifespans do not have particularly low body fat levels. And it doesn't seem to be due to genetics per se. As I pointed out once before, the key to their longevity seems to be a very active lifestyle and social bonds. These are farming communities in which people do a lot of physical work their entire lives and have close ties to their communities.
Without divulging your trade secrets, would you mind describing, in general, your weekly training schedule. I'm curious what kind of routine produces your results. What role has diet played? Any new supplementation as well?
By the way, Lou Schuler cited this research and his interpretation in the last thread on this topic.
It's worth a read. The upshot is that scientists found that a single genetic alteration gave mice not only increased endurance, but also more slow-twitch muscle fibers, at the expense of fast-twitch fibers. It made them invulnerable to weight gain.
Here's what I think that means:
People who're genetically predisposed to have a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers will not only be better at endurance activities, they'll be leaner, since the slow-twitch fibers are better at using fat for energy than the fast-twitch fibers.
People who're fast-twitch-dominant probably pack on fat more easily. So if you want to help people like that take fat off, you have to trick their metabolisms into speeding up and burning more calories at rest.
There are two good ways to do that: One is to build more muscle mass, which fast-twitch people can do more easily than slow-twitchers, and thus increase resting metabolism.
The second is to do exactly what Alwyn said: Burn a lot of glycogen during high-intensity exercise, and then let your body burn more fat afterwards, when your metabolism is revved and your body is desperately trying to restore the burned-off carbohydrate energy.
I've probably mangled the science here (and I know the muscle-fiber argument is very hard to prove, especially when you consider that most people are closer to 50-50 than unbalanced in one direction or the other), but I think my point holds, at least anecdotally:
People who're good at endurance exercise tend to get the most benefit from it, including fat loss. But these are the people least likely to put on a lot of fat in the first place.
People who aren't good at endurance exercise are generally handicapped when they try to use it for fat loss--they can't go long enough or hard enough to make it work for them.
For those people (a group that includes me--I have no endurance at all), it makes a lot more sense to approach fat loss as a metabolic issue, rather than simply trying to burn off more calories than you consume.
Finally, for those of you who think I'm beating a dead horse, I'm trying to contribute to the debate by highlighting a potentially important aspect that hasn't been discussed very much. In other words, we don't have to rehash the issues already presented. I'd like to focus on this particular dimension. And I look forward to the insights you all might have. [/quote]
It's interesting that your resting pulse has gone up. I'd bet your blood pressure has too. While it may not be to an extent that puts you at risk, it certainly has moved in that direction. That's anecdotal evidence of the difference between endurance and resistance training. Moreover, there's some emerging evidence that body fat percentage (within certain parameters) isn't always a predictor of health. In fact, some of the populations with the longest lifespans do not have particularly low body fat levels. And it doesn't seem to be due to genetics per se. As I pointed out once before, the key to their longevity seems to be a very active lifestyle and social bonds. These are farming communities in which people do a lot of physical work their entire lives and have close ties to their communities.
Without divulging your trade secrets, would you mind describing, in general, your weekly training schedule. I'm curious what kind of routine produces your results. What role has diet played? Any new supplementation as well?
By the way, Lou Schuler cited this research and his interpretation in the last thread on this topic.
It's worth a read. The upshot is that scientists found that a single genetic alteration gave mice not only increased endurance, but also more slow-twitch muscle fibers, at the expense of fast-twitch fibers. It made them invulnerable to weight gain.
Here's what I think that means:
People who're genetically predisposed to have a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers will not only be better at endurance activities, they'll be leaner, since the slow-twitch fibers are better at using fat for energy than the fast-twitch fibers.
People who're fast-twitch-dominant probably pack on fat more easily. So if you want to help people like that take fat off, you have to trick their metabolisms into speeding up and burning more calories at rest.
There are two good ways to do that: One is to build more muscle mass, which fast-twitch people can do more easily than slow-twitchers, and thus increase resting metabolism.
The second is to do exactly what Alwyn said: Burn a lot of glycogen during high-intensity exercise, and then let your body burn more fat afterwards, when your metabolism is revved and your body is desperately trying to restore the burned-off carbohydrate energy.
I've probably mangled the science here (and I know the muscle-fiber argument is very hard to prove, especially when you consider that most people are closer to 50-50 than unbalanced in one direction or the other), but I think my point holds, at least anecdotally:
People who're good at endurance exercise tend to get the most benefit from it, including fat loss. But these are the people least likely to put on a lot of fat in the first place.
People who aren't good at endurance exercise are generally handicapped when they try to use it for fat loss--they can't go long enough or hard enough to make it work for them.
For those people (a group that includes me--I have no endurance at all), it makes a lot more sense to approach fat loss as a metabolic issue, rather than simply trying to burn off more calories than you consume.
Finally, for those of you who think I'm beating a dead horse, I'm trying to contribute to the debate by highlighting a potentially important aspect that hasn't been discussed very much. In other words, we don't have to rehash the issues already presented. I'd like to focus on this particular dimension. And I look forward to the insights you all might have. [/quote]Aerobic Activity does not use oxygen, or fat, for fuel.
Anaerobic activity causes the athlete to use more total calories, and at the same instance replenishes the energy deficit with triglycerides, which is not so with long distance, steadily paced aerobic activities. On top of this, the muscle tissue is adapting to use fat more efficiently. Point being, the muscle tissue will not be given the heads up to catabolize or shift fiber types as would be the case with distance anaerobic activity.
In conclusion, aerobic activity is NOT the best choice of activity for fat loss. The dead horse has been beaten once again. It's dead, why won't everyone just let the damn thing to R.I.P?
P.S: It does not matter how seasoned of an athlete you are, the aerobic activity still performs relatively the same function.
um...yeah it does. that's kinda what "aerobic" means..."with oxygen". I would refer to well...any link about aerobic activity, here's a handy one after doing a yahoo search. The horse may be dead but apparantly we all didn't know
IMO I tend to agree with more of the studies that says HIIT is better for fat loss. Not so much because it just inately is, but for the amount of effort that the "average" person is going to do it for. The intensity levels are two different beasts. If you go at a leasurely jog you might be only going at 50% of your capability for a half hour (just enough time to mabey start burning fat). If you do HIIT you'll be going at 80-90% for a small amount of time but you're still hitting it in addition to that 50% rest period, so you end up getting a more intense working in a shorter period of time...as all of our weightlifting gods have told us intensity=results.
That said can steady state be an effective weight loss tool...of course. It burns calories. If you like it do it. After all enjoying what you do is #1 and the main goal is to get a calorie deficit, it might not be the most effective way possible but it'll still work.
[quote]Originally posted by Mr Himalaya:
[QB] I believe the sport an individual may excel in is pre-determined at birth. You are born with your slow/fast twitch make-up and though you can improve the efficiency of these you cannot convert one to the other and as far as I have read increase the number of either (naturally).
I agree with Himalaya. I believe it is largely based on genetics. Can hardwork overcome some of this predetermined physical makeup? Yes, but probably to a limited degree.
Originally posted by Symbolic: Distance runners are among the very leanest athletes. They are just as lean as sprinters.
Which COMPLETELY validates the entire point about steady state training being unnecessary for fat loss. The SPRINTERS do NO aerobics are not compromised at all in the body fat dept.
I've already pointed out that research DOES show that middle and short distance athletes carry less fat than marathon runners. We can go back and forth on "who's the leanest" but we CAN'T ignore fat loss can occur without long distance steady state work.
The research for FAT LOSS is overwhelmingly in favor of higher intensity work. Adam printed a dozen studies the last time this EXACT SAME argument came up.
In the REAL WORLD - where Dos and I make a living - results count. And I can tell you 100% of the time across the board - people dont' carry too much fat because they are working too hard. Once your income is on the line to provide real people with real results - a study on slow twich rates is pretty irrelevant.
Look at Jp's pictures (I could post over 100 myself from the "wall of fame section" of my gym wall). He's leaner in the second picture with no aerobic work.
This type of thing has been a major problem in the NSCA for a while -- the organisation has been taken over by researchers and academics - who DON'T work with real people to get real results. I'd much rather talk to Dos, or Bill or Craig, or JP -- guys who have to get people in better shape as fast as possible. We're all using the WELL DOCUMENTED, high intensity anerobic methods to do so.
Research is great but most of it supports in this case higher intensity work for fat loss. Publishing ONE study showing that slow twitch rats can get leaner will not change what I need to do in the real world.
Symboloic - I appreciate your passion for this subject. But you are beating a dead horse. You DON'T do this for a living - and when everyone who does shares with you what they do - you seem to ignore it. At this point you'll go to the health argument AGAIN.
When you read Ian King's work, Dos, Jim Liston, Peter Twist, Lorne Goldenberg, Don Alessi, Poliquin, Verstegen, Carlos Santana, Francis, Boyle, Paul Chek, etc etc etc (believe me i could go on and on)- REAL PRACTITIONERS- and they ALL say the same as what we do - higher intensity anaerobic work is a greater FAT LOSS tool than steady state aerobic work - then you really need to start paying attention. We didn't invent this.
Let's forget about ATHLETES for a second. Is Oprah Winfrey lean ? She ran a couple of marathons. Watch how many REGULAR people who are carrying too much fat are able to develop the aerobic conditioning to finish a marathon yet are unable to lose enough body fat (also a HEALTH risk) in the process.
Anecdotally - people who work at higher levels of intensity are almost always leaner. Just look around the gym.
As for athletes: Sprinters, pole vaulters, long jumpers, high jumpers - all VERY lean. I have NEVER suggested that long distance runners are fat -- I've ALWAYS suggested that the long distance training was not necessary for fat loss, and in my opinion it is INFERIOR to higher intensity methods.
Symbolic this appearsw to be your favorite topic -you ask us for our opinion - and when everyone who does this for a living shares with you what they do - you seem to ignore it. It's blatantly clear that you don't want to hear what we do or have found to work over time - you just want us to validate your opinion.
So STOP bringing it up - let's move on. This has truly been beaten to death and is extremely repetitive.
NONE of the coaches I mentioned above use steady state training for fat loss. They use what works the best and has been PROVEN in the real world.
I will happily discuss ANY training methods you want on this board but I am done with this. You have been bringing this up since last year on the MH board.
Originally posted by dos: You might have forgotten, however, that your original post gave 'proof' that slow twitch fibers were the key to fat loss.
Just picked up a new client - judo athlete. Very strong - very explosive - in a "fast twitch" sport.
Needs to lose 10lbs (of fat) to make his weight class and be competitive.
Whatever shall I do ? His lack of slow twitch fibers means the "key to fat loss" is unavailable I'll be unable to get him lean !!!
Yet he's at 9.8% right now [img]smile.gif[/img] , and getting leaner AND stronger. Probably because he's not a rat eh?
And to me this is the ultimate problem with research. What do you do in the REAL WORLD ?
Unforunately, you completely missed the point of this new thread. It was meant to address the issue of the relationship between muscle fiber makeup and fat loss. I'm quite aware of the studies and testimonials about high intensity exercise. That was, indeed, the last thread. Before you chastise me for beating a dead horse, please read more carefully. Despite your statement to the contrary, I'm willing to acknowledge, if it turns out to be accurate, that every individual, regardless of physiology, benefits more from anaerobic exercise when it comes to fat loss. As one who makes a living gettings "results," I would expect that you would welcome the opportunity to scrutinize your own orthodoxy. Really, whose position is more entrenched?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again because it seems to be ignored, why bother engaging in these debates if you find them uninteresting? I really find the tendency to dismiss ideas without effective evidence disturbing. Of course, that's what I'm professionaly invested in, so I tend to be committed to investigating thoroughly before making sweeping generalizations lacking in nuance. Again, maybe this is simple to you. For those of us perusing the research and fitness community, it's far more complex than you're suggesting. Ultimately, if this issue isn't worth discussing, then there shouldn't be a response. I'm not being provocative. Rather, it seems to me that I've managed to address an issue worth discussing. Still!
Originally posted by Symbolic: As one who makes a living getting "results," I would expect that you would welcome the opportunity to scrutinize your own orthodoxy.
If you think for one second that I don't scrutinize and research what I do on a DAILY basis, you are completely off base. As much as I appreciate your giving me this wonderful "opportunity" you can be assured that the results of my clients and my business have always been of utmost importance to me. It is my job to provide the best methods of progress possible.
If I could get a better result using different methods than I am doing now I would. My livelihood depends on delivering the best results that i am aware of. I have no religious attachment to ANY form of training - I use what works best "Absorb what is useful - reject what is useless" -Bruce Lee. I reserve the right to continue to learn, study and collect data on all my clients workouts and their results.
I constantly study and assess different methods and refine what I do. A removal of steady state aerobic training as a fat loss tool from my programs was not an accident. It has been a result of that scrutiny and refinement.
Here's a very interesting research article that seems to contradict the notion that high intensity (fast twitch dominant) exercise is key to fat loss.
Symbolic: I think this statement is the issue. That research doesn't contradict anything; it shows that something happened in rhodents. It certainly didn't directly compare humans doing one type of exercise versus another. (Like the ones I posted.)
You should know as a PhD that you certainly can't derive any conclusions from that, or even use it as an argument. That would a require a huge leap and lots of assumptions.
But hey, since you like rhodent studies so much, here's ANOTHER one for you. Does it prove anything in humans? Nope. But using your logic, it WOULD actually support "the notion that high intensity exercise is key to fat loss" (consider the time devoted to each type of training). (I would not suggest that this supports anything, except that if you're going to make rats exercise, you should make it HIIT since 6 hours of swimming is just plain cruel.)
Quote:
Of course, they don't have big muscles and thus doen't appear as ripped. However, as the Finnish study demonstrates, they'll probably live longer.
Also, statements like this are odd as well. You're saying that distance runners will live longer than say, someone who exercises vigorously, has more muscle, and doesn't do aerobic exercise? And that's based on that one study, which you found in an online ARTICLE by a guy who's a marathoner? The reason I bring this up is because you're putting your faith in an article which made this statement:
Quote:
The key difference is that participation in endurance exercise makes it highly unlikely that someone will keel over between the ages of 50 and 69.
WHAT? Really? I'd like to see some REAL proof of that. Keep in mind that I could write an article that used lots of studies to demonstrate the opposite of everything in that story. It wouldn't necessarily be right, but I could do it--and with really nice references, too. But just think about what that says: "endurance exercise makes it highly unlikely that someone will keel over between the ages of 50 and 69."
If the average lifespan is somewhere in the 70's, wouldn't that be true of everyone? (Depending on your definition of "highly unlikely".)
Also, consider this: The last time I had my VO2Max measured it was 57 ml/kg/min. But I hadn't done ANY aerobic exercise in two years. Now if you put me in some sort of longevity study that used V02Max as a measure of fitness, and I lived for a long time, then you'd think that V02Max is the key to a long life. How do you boost V02 Max? You do aerobic exercise.
Oh, wait, you can also do it by using intervals!!
Here's a STUDY that actually showed a very short but intense interval workout did it better than a long aerobic workout. (Same guy who did the rat study.)
Here's a summary: After following a HIIT protocol (6-7 sprints of 20 seconds separated by rest intervals of 10 seconds) for 6 weeks, subjects showed a 14% improvement in their aerobic power (VO2max) and a 28% improvement in their anaerobic capacity. In contrast, more traditional aerobic training for an identical period improved VO2max by only 9.5% with no improvement in anaerobic capacity.
Now I didn't analyze the methodology, so if someone wants to do that I encourage it. I'm just putting it out here to make a point about health. If many studies correlate VO2MAX with health, then how do I stack up? Is someone that jogs for an hour everyday but has a V02Max of 52 as "healthy" as me, even though I don't do much aerobic exercise? Or is it just a way they came up with to quantify fitness levels? There are a lot of questions to be answered, but I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions when you say that you are doing people a health disservice by not encouraging them to do aerobic exercise in order to facilate the an aesthetic improvement.
Personally, I don't put much stock in the V02Max thing. I mean, it certainly can show if a person is way out of shape (if it's in the 20's etc), which would be a health risk. But does it matter if it's 45 compared to 55 or even 65? Or how much does it matter?
At some point, the benefits of exercise for your health provide diminishing returns. As Lou Schuler likes to point out, you get the most benefit from going from nothing to something. And something could be ANYTHING.
Also, I talk to PhD's in the field all the time, and I can tell you that as many disagree with you as agree with you on the health issue, as well as the fat loss issue. A lot of it does depend on who you talk to, who they studied under, and where their research interest lies--but it also depends on how open-minded and progressive they are. Those who have been in the field for years don't typically change their opinions quickly--it's just too hard for them to do psychologically and few people want to step out of the realm of their comfort-zone. Plus, they also think in terms of practicality: How much of the general population is going to do HIIT? Not many: It's hard!!! So there's not as much of a reason to study it or promote it.
Government health organizations are the worst. If you want an example just look at the USDA Food Pyramid. So just because "they" say something doesn't make it the best recommendation.
You also have to remember that not only do many PhD's in the field not have any practical experience, they don't have much "personal" experience either. Look at the workouts that Tom Fahey puts in Muscular Development. I'll give you one guess what I think of them. Yet I used his textbook in grad school ("Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and its applications) and Alwyn has an employee who studied under him. (Don't get me wrong, he's obviously very successful in his field, and bright person; but his workouts aren't very "practical".)
I'm not trying to bash researchers in general--there are many very good ones--but ask one to design a workout for you and you'll get the same thing the would have written 20 years ago. Some would say it doesn't matter, but you asked who you should believe, and when it comes to practice, I'd say the practitioners. Scratch that: The smart practitioners. Trust me, you can tell who those are--they have an understanding of the science, they keep up with the new research, the question reserch, they try everything, and then they use what works.
It's good that all these arguments were not printed on paper or alot of trees would have given up their lives for nothing. I believe that intellectual discussion is important, but I do not think that this part of the forum is the proper place. The average person is not as interested in genetic research as the professionals that it affects. I have heard and believe that the only effective exercise program is the one that a person will stick with. So, if a mouse loses more fat because he has more slow twitch fibers, it will not make Joe Blow like running any better.
I don't doubt for a moment your commitment. In fact, it's quite evident and that's why I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you (as well as JP and the other pros on this forum). So, let me be clear. Thanks! I'm sincerely grateful. Having said that, I still think you're a little bit too quick to dismiss steady state exercise even for fat loss. I'm sure you're business is successful. But, could it be even more so? Perhaps your clientele self-select based on your reputation for high intensity workouts. There could be a vast untapped market that you're not reaching because of the protocol that you espouse. Look, I know you don't need business advice from me, however, as a sociologist I bring a particular perspective to this that just might be useful. Think of it in terms of cause and effect. You believe your success is due to the exclusive use of high intensity exercise. You observe that your clients get results. However, you don't know how much more success you might produce if you expanded your practice to take into account various protocols geared towards different target populations. You might find that, relative to your current success, you'd be even more successful, thus negating your current model of success. Observing a correlation can result in erroneous conclusions.
Your knowledge of the research is obviously greater than mine. And that's why I'm here: to learn from folks like you. However, I really think you've missed my point as well. I started this new thread in order to generate a discussion about this single article that suggests how the physiological changes associated with slow twitch exercise prevents obesity in rodents. Should we jump to any conclusions regarding human beings and exercise? Of course not. I don't believe that I have. Or at least not more than you have and what seems like the entire Web fitness community that has jumped to the conclusion that steady state is of little benefit and high intensity is the panacea for fat loss. (I'm beginning to think that the Web produces peculiar networks of individuals who promote nearly identical beliefs.)
You seem quite unwilling to acknowlege that aerobic exercise might work better for fat loss for some individuals. The studies that you cite regarding the superiority of high intensity exercise have a common flaw. They take a group of individuals who don't appear to have any predisposing factors for a type of exercise, but for whom the researchers haven't done a genetic or physiological profile, and compare results of different exercise protocols. High intensity seems to work best. Is there any chance that volunteers for these studies are more likely than average to be fast twitch dominant? If they come from exercise science programs at universities, my guess is yes. My hunch is that people drawn to these programs participate in sports. Since the majority of sports in the United States are fast twitch oriented, to be successful one must be fast twitch dominant. See where I'm going? It's just a hypothesis, but one that could really undermine the implications of these studies.
The advantage of the rodent study is that it addresses physiological responses to exercise and fat loss. A biased sample is less important because the analysis is assessing relative physiological changes. It's an entirely different way to understand how fat metabolism occurs. Is it better than research that observes differences induced by different exercise protocols? No, but it certainly complicates the ability to reach generalized conclusions.
I know you're in the business of producing a popular fitness publication. I also understand that trends sell. Which isn't to say that you're uninterested in publishing information based on integrity. But even as you point out, there's a lot of disagreement out there among a range of folks who make their livings studying and/or practicing this stuff. Why not embrace the complexity instead of looking for cookie cutter approaches? It reminds me of politics in which candidates, like Bush, get praised for being decisive. What good is being cocksure if you're wrong? Just for the appearance of being right? Ultimately, it's never practical to reach hasty conclusions even it seems expedient at the time. We always pay for it in the long run.
To tie this back in to the original point, there's a continuum of body types. At one end are the slow twitchers and the other the fast twitchers. It seems to me that exercise needs to be tailored to one's location on the continuum. Unfortunately, there's a trend towards celebrating fast twitchers. Perhaps in the 80s the trend was the opposite. Neither extreme makes sense.
I started this new thread in order to generate a discussion about this single article that suggests how the physiological changes associated with slow twitch exercise prevents obesity in rodents. Should we jump to any conclusions regarding human beings and exercise? Of course not.
Oh...it didn't seem like that by your original statement, which is why I pointed it out. Maybe it wasn't your intention, but I thought that original statement did imply that we could jump to conclusions.
Quote:
You seem quite unwilling to acknowlege that aerobic exercise might work better for fat loss for some individuals.
No, not at all. I never once said that. I DO believe in demanding, efficient workouts. Maybe it's a shortcoming of mine. But I'm certainly willing to accept that different things work for different people. I think in general, you can't go wrong with vigorous physical activity and that it fits most people's busy lifestyles a lot better than activities that take longer. Of course, that doesn't mean that vigorous can't be aerobic. (A 20-minute three-mile run is damn vigorous, if you ask me.)
Quote:
Is there any chance that volunteers for these studies are more likely than average to be fast twitch dominant? If they come from exercise science programs at universities, my guess is yes.
That's not always a good hunch. I worked on a multi-million dollar NIH grant in grad school where we mostly used sedentary, overweight women. Some were college aged, some were in their thirties. You wouldn't think they would be fast-twitch dominant. We put them on treadmills for 45 minutes a day, five days a week, for 16 months, and didn't change their diet. (Obviously, I had nothing to do with study design; I just collected data.) They didn't lose weight. Interestingly, the men in the study--these were mostly college-aged guys, but sedentary and slightly overweight when starting--they did. At a pretty good clip, too. But back to my point: You're making a pretty big leap with that hunch. (Although it's accurate in the Tabata studies, since they used elite speed skaters.)
Quote:
I know you're in the business of producing a popular fitness publication. I also understand that trends sell. Which isn't to say that you're uninterested in publishing information based on integrity.
Statements like this are the reason this is the last time I will bother debating with you. I am in the "business" of making a living for myself and family, while trying to get out the best information possible. I try to print what I think will help our readers the most. I assume they have little time and want the best results. So I contact experts and I print what they can back up with sound logic, solid science, and client experience. I realize that you threw in that part about integrity to temper your statements, but I do take offense because I didn't go into this field for money (no one does), every day is a fight to put out good information (instead of stuff like "do crunches during commercials"), and I my life would be a lot easier if I would just go ith the flow, instead of trying to stay to true to the ideals that I believe, based on experience, education, and expert consultation work the best for the most people.
Quote:
Why not embrace the complexity instead of looking for cookie cutter approaches?
1. Have you ever read any of the stories I've written or edited? Once again, you are making a lot of assumptions without knowing the details. I do emphasize higher intensity activity most of the time, but I've done plenty of stories and written plenty of tips on longer endurance exercise.
2. You can't possibly avoid the "cookie-cutter" approach in a magazine written for millions. Could you? If you know a way, I'd sure like to see it.
3. By the way, do you know what happens if you go to the "top" obesity researcher in the world: He'll tell you to take more steps every day to control weight. It's the same thing he's been saying for years, and personally, I'm quite sure it won't solve the obesity problem, let alone help our average reader lose his gut. (Here's a hint: He's not really the top researcher, but he's pulled in A LOT of government grant money and is promoted well.)
Quote:
To tie this back in to the original point, there's a continuum of body types. At one end are the slow twitchers and the other the fast twitchers. It seems to me that exercise needs to be tailored to one's location on the continuum.
Did you ever read train for your type of whatever it was? That's the book for you. You are again making assumptions that it all comes down to muscle-fiber type. Why is that? Could it be something else entirely? Is it all about muscle fiber type, or could it be other things that create the differences in body type and muscle mass like testosterone and protein receptor cites, and a whole host of other stuff I know nothing about. I don't think people are as muscle-fiber dominant as you make them out to be. Different muscles have a different percentages of fiber types, but I can't imagine that they're different in such huge extremes that it should be the whole determinant of how you train, at least not in the general public (perhaps in elite athletes?). I might be completely wrong about that, so someone please correct me if I am.
Certainly some people pack on muscle easier than others, but I'm not convinced it's because of their muscle-fiber type. Not to mention you can certainly hypertrophy slow-twitch fibers--bodybuilders are QUITE good at it.
Quote:
What good is being cocksure if you're wrong?
You don't know me very well. I'm not "sure" about very much, and am amazed at how stupid I am on a daily basis. And I think this thread is just making me "stupider".
I'm hella bored from studying for my exam (ironically, part of which is on obesity management and fat loss). So here's Adam's Medicine and Science in Sports Illustrated (honestly, in the five years we've done journal club, there has only been ONE article worth the paper it was printed on from MSSE).
Here's my two-cent summary (writing as I go through the article, for the most part)
Study question (according to the authors): Are the effects of training on anaerobic capacity are dependent on the magnitude of anaerobic energy release developed by specific training on the anaerobic capacity?
Subjects: Young, male phys ed undergrads most of whom were on varsity teams (And since this study is done by Japanese researchers at an institution in Japan, it's pretty safe to say that their subjects were probably all Japanese). Mean age 23. SEVEN subjects for experiment 1, SEVEN subjects for experiment 2. Mean starting VO2MAX for experiment 1: 52.9. Mean starting VO2MAX for experiment 2: 48.2 (so probably not exactly the same subjects from experiment to experiment)
Study Design: Prospective interventional cohort (i.e. they took one group and followed them forward in time after doing something to them)
Exercise protocols:
Experiment 1 (the endurance training protocol): One 60 minute session, 5 days a week of erg cycling at 70% of VO2MAX. Apparently, VO2MAX was re-measured every workout. It's vague, "VO2max was determined before and after the training and every week during the training period." No mention as to what this method was. I honestly can't see them putting the subjects through 2 VO2MAX tests a day, 5 days a week. By the way, I'm not sure I would consider exercising for 60 minutes at 70% of my VO2MAX to be typical "fat loss" cardio either.
Experiment 2 (the intermittent training protocol): 5 sessions per week. Four of those sessions involved cycling at a load determined to exhaust the subject in 2-3 minutes. Subjects were encouraged to perform 7-8 sets of pedalling. Subjects were instructed to stop pedalling if their RPMs fell under 85. If subjects could complete nine sets, their load was increased by 11 watts. Once a week as the fifth session, subjects pedalled for 30 minutes at 70% VO2MAX and then 4 sets at 170% VO2MAX workload (which was not exhaustive, according to the authors).
The method by which they measured VO2MAX is not well described. They referenced Medbo, but I'm not aware that this is a reliable protocol to be using. It involves measuring oxygen uptake for the last two or three 30s intervals during several bouts of supramaximal intensity exercise that lasted 2-4 min. The highest VO2 was taken as the VO2MAX. _When_ the subjects did this, they're not saying (though they claim VO2MAX was measured before and after every training session).
However, this is the protocol they were using, both to extrapolate VO2MAX as well as to determine 'anerobic capacity', which entails measuring maximal accumulated oxygen deficit.
Results: The authors didn't detect a difference in anaerobic capacity between pre and post measurements in the endurance training group, but did detect a difference in anaerobic capacity between pre and post measurememts in the intermitten group.
Both groups increased their VO2MAX significantly (statistically).
Authors conclucions: Intermittent training is better than endurance training because it produces improvements in both VO2MAX and anaerobic capacity. Additionally, intermittent training improved VO2MAX by a mean of 7 ml per kg per min, where endurance training only improved VO2MAX by 5 ml per kg per min.
Why this study exemplifies the reason MSSE is a rag of a journal:
1) The method (as near as I can tell) of measuring VO2MAX favours the intermittent group, since the test involves intermittent bouts of "supramaximal" exercise.
2) No between group comparisons. So the intermittent group went up by 7 when the endurance group only went up by 5. The MEAN anaerobic capacity in the intermittent group went up by 28%, while not doing up in the endurance group. What the chance that the difference they observe is actually meaningful? Well, if you look at the graphs, you'll see that there's very little difference between the two groups for either outcome (VO2max or anaerobic capacity) due to the wide variance in measurements. I could do the t-test between the two VO2max figures, but there's not enough info. But 7 subjects in each group, comparing a mean of 7 (SD=1) and 5 (SD=unpublished). There are pinheads on the dots in the graph, but the article doesn't specify whether the pinheads are standard errors or standard deviations.
So, even though there are pre-post differences within the intermittent training group, the fact that we see a difference between the two groups is probably due to random chance and fluctuations, and NOT due to a training effect.
3) Possibly invalid VO2MAX testing. Not only does it favour the intermittent group, it might not even be measuring VO2MAX! What is it measuring? That's for the keener who wants to read Medbo's literature. I'm willing to bet that there's an inappropriate correlation coefficient in there somewhere...
4) Poor generalizability: Who does this study apply to? Ok, not mice. There's one improvement. But the sample consisted of 14 young (22-24 years old), athletic Japanese men. Can we use this as evidence that 40 year old white guys should start doing HIIT? And the answer is...No.
So, as we say in journal club: What can we possibly take away from a crap study like this?
a) Learn from this paper how NOT to run a study.
b) Submit your paper to MSSE if it doesn't get accepted at a high-quality journal.
c) Crappy work, but we could use the standard deviations (possibly, and only if there wasn't anything better, like our own pilot work) to estimate a sample size for a study that COULD actually answer the study question in a definitive kind of way.
And just because I'm using this thread as a proxy for studying for the obesity section of my exam here's the current 'medical' take on exercise and obesity, according to Dr. Lau, who is also a world-renown researching in obesity physiology. It's what I have to regurgitate, but there's some merit in it.
Exercise, in general, whether it's HIIT or not, is a poor contributor to overall fat loss. From the energy balance point of view, far more effort is required to increase caloric expenditure to offset caloric intake to produce a net caloric deficit by exercising than by NOT EATING something. And that INCLUDES the increases due to the thermal effect of food consumption AND the so-called extended increase in RMR (resting metabolic rate) which HIIT claims to provide.
So regardless of which option you choose, unless you're burning significant numbers of calories a day (say, by rowing for 2 hours, twice a day), exercise has comparatively little effect on weight loss when compared to making changes in diet. Flip a coin if you must. The difference between the two in terms of the small dent they'll make in fat loss compared to diet is probably pretty small. HIIT is appealing because it doesn't take as much time. But if you like the long runs, go for it.
There are still no good studies to look at the contributory effects of exercise vs. diet towards fat loss. The recommendation to do both comes from a largely theoretical basis and practical sense. Hey, maybe if I EVER get out of school, I could do that study! Seriously, if anyone has the data lying around, I'll analyse it.
Do people who go on long runs live longer than HIIT'ers? Maybe. Do they live happier? Maybe. Or maybe not. Unless you're prepared to do the study that spans more than one generation of researchers to follow all these folks until they die, I'd say get off the pot, 'cause you're not shittin'.
Originally posted by Adam Campbell: Okay... now go find that Finnish study!! [img]smile.gif[/img]
What Finnish study? Geez people, I am NOT going to go traipsing around Medline trying to track down a single Finnish study.
Gimme a reference. If I have online access to it, I'll look at it sometime tomorrow. If I have library access, I'll see if I have the wherewithal to get it on Monday AFTER my exam.
Originally posted by Snake_Plisken: Isn't recovery aerobic in nature? so, wouldn't having some aerobic base help with anerobic power from the recovery perspective?
Just so this doesn't get lost in the fray:
Yes, Snake, recovery of muscles is "aerobic" in nature, but not the way you think it is. The resting fuel for muscle is fat (put simply) and the energy required for restorative function therefore comes from the oxidation of fat (oxidation is where the oxygen comes from, and hence why it is technically 'aerobic', where the term "aerobic" means, "with oxygen"). But cellular aerobic respiration, which is what we usually refer to when we call things 'aerobic' and when we refer to 'aerobic training' is a totally diferrent kettle of fish.
So, no, a higher aerobic capacity would not help with faster recovery, because the energy cells use to recover doesn't derive from aerobic cellular respiration.
Speaking of which, when is MF going to start putting citations in?
I would like that very much. Of course, it won't happen because no one would want to "waste" the space and advertisers probably wouldn't like it. I kind of agree with the space because articles are truncated as they are. So they'd just get smaller. But I always liked how Muscular Development (back before it got juiced up) used to put them in there. (They might still do it, I can't remember. Typically, they cite OTHER MAGAZINES now.)
Of course, that would mean you would spend all your time tearing all of them apart, which would probably cause you to flunk out of school
There are still no good studies to look at the contributory effects of exercise vs. diet towards fat loss. The recommendation to do both comes from a largely theoretical basis and practical sense.
Of course, as a former scientist, I shouldn't say this, but I'm willing to bet if that was studied, a lot of theorists would be eating crow. Again, it's just anecdotal, but I lost twentythree pounds in sixteen weeks when I trained for the marathon. I was eating far MORE during that time, but I don't have any hard numbers to back that up.
I've read that aerobic activity doesn't cause you to burn after the "run" is over, but I wonder about how much more efficient it makes your body at burning fat (or some other mechanism). You guys have inspired me to go back to aerobic activity and see if it works for ME. I was cutting caloried hard earlier this year and barely losing weight. I'm going to try it with some serious running.
I'll prove nothing...except to me (and my ExPhys wife )
Why is it that when the discussion really starts to get difficult and interesting, Adam and Alwyn claim that they're going to retreat? Come on now fellows, this is when it's time to roll up your sleaves and exercise your most important body part. As I've said before, I'm not an expert in anything related to exercise or physiology. However, I'm pretty good at identifying problematic claims no matter what the field. I firmly stand by my position. Here it is once again. Research and experience suggest that the efficacy of exercise protocols for fat loss vary. Fitness magazines are biased towards the advocacy of aneorobic exercise despite the totality of evidence.
Why aren't there more balanced recommendations floating around the Web and popular fitness press? The value of this discussion for me is that I now realize that there's lots of hype and entrenched positions, but not much in the way of overwhelming evidence to support a particular type of exercise. Perhaps my biggest mistake is looking for professional advice, backed by a balanced approach to research and practice, to guide my rather modest desire to create an effective exercise routine. I'll say this, however, it's certainly fascinating to observe how various camps stake their claims irrespective of a preponderance of evidence.
I would love to see a wide ranging panel of leading researchers and fitness professionals debate this stuff. JP, maybe you can convene a mini-conference. Or Adam, how about a debate series in Men's Fitness. You know, share with the reading public just how much disagreement there is about the ideal exericise routine (By the way, Adam, when's the last time Men's Fitness advocated a moderate intensity aerobic workout?) Just more food for thought. I really hope nobody gets offended or exhausted by any of this. While I'm certainly being sincere, I don't take myself too seriously.
)
Linear Mode
