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.
Abstract:
Endurance exercise training can promote an adaptive muscle fiber transformation and an increase of mitochondrial biogenesis by triggering scripted changes in gene expression. However, no transcription factor has yet been identified that can direct this process. We describe the engineering of a mouse capable of continuous running of up to twice the distance of a wild-type littermate. This was achieved by targeted expression of an activated form of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor δ (PPARδ) in skeletal muscle, which induces a switch to form increased numbers of type I muscle fibers. Treatment of wild-type mice with PPARδ agonist elicits a similar type I fiber gene expression profile in muscle. Moreover, these genetically generated fibers confer resistance to obesity with improved metabolic profiles, even in the absence of exercise. These results demonstrate that complex physiologic properties such as fatigue, endurance, and running capacity can be molecularly analyzed and manipulated.
Hm... I still have my doubts. Not to unvalidate the story because this is strictly anecodotal, but here is my story. I am, as many in here know, an adventure racer, which requires an inordinant amount of endurance work (12+ hours of straight cardio). I train for my races by riding around 80-100 miles a week on my bike (much of that on trails, not road), running 3-5 miles a couple times a week, running the stairs in my building (41 flights) a couple times a week, paddling and rock climbing and/or brick training on weekends, etc. In my best condition I was pretty competitive, but I wasn't very lean. See the photo below:
Notice the gut, puffy cheeks and double chin. Sadly, this is not the worst I could come up with either.
Currently I have not trained consistently for any races. I haven't biked more than 100 miles in the last 3 months in fact. I have done NO cardio in the gym either. All I have done is train with weights consistently. Here is the results I had at 8 weeks:
I'll give you two guesses to figure out in which one of those photos my bodyfat was lower. Along with that, guess which one I was in killer condition and could literally do cardio ALL DAY LONG. Now that you have made your guesses on those, guess which one I would rather look like. I can say that I feel healthier now by far!
First off, wow! I suppose, given your profession, you should look like that. I mean that as the utmost compliment. For vanity's sake alone, I would like to as well. Do you think an individual's muscle fiber makeup has anything to do with response to types of training (this is something Lou Schuler has mentioned)? I've always done better at endurance sports. Or maybe I've never concentrated fully on fast twitch exercise. I'd be willing to sacrifice my health (if that's what would happen) just to see if I could get maximally muscular and ripped. Is there a quick answer as to how to do it? Seriously, your photo speaks louder than any debate in terms of appearance. Again, health might be another story. But, hey, I might trade a few years at the end to look better for the majority of my life.
Thanks for sharing. It will likely inspire at lot of forumites. As well it should!
We describe the engineering of a mouse capable of continuous running of up to twice the distance of a wild-type littermate.
Sorry but I just don't buy most of this rodent-resarch. First off, it's a F@$king rat (or mouse). Shit, we killed millions of rats testing saccharin on rats to find that it caused massive cancer development what did we do, we put it on the market anyway. Also, we know that hyperlasia occurs in rodents but not in humans....gee, did it take about a million rats to die to figure out that we aren't F@$king rodents?! To display our lack of compassion for the sake of some jackass' publication is ridiculous (see the latest issue of the NSCA's JSCR and their tests with retired breeder rats swimming around without ovaries....)WTF?!
Lastly, let's use common sense here. Take a look at all those fast-twitch fat-assed athletes out there like our 100 meter sprinters, running backs, basketbl players, volleyball players...shit, they're way fatter than those marathoners, triathletes, and bowlers huh?
P.S. JP, tell me you have shower slippers on in there will ya!? That's alot of fungus-prone tile buddy!
__________________
Robert dos Remedios, MA, CSCS,
HCC (Hartman-Cosgrove Certified)
Director of Speed, Strength & Conditioning
College of the Canyons, CA http://www.canyons.edu/departments/pe/strength
"NO CHAMPION HAS EVER ACHIEVED HIS OR HER GOAL WITHOUT SHOWING MORE DEDICATION THAN THE NEXT PERSON; MAKING MORE SACRIFICES THAN THE NEXT PERSON; WORKING HARDER, TRAINING, AND CONDITIONING HIM / HERSELF MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON; ENJOYING HIS / HER FINAL GOAL MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON"
Come on now. Comparing athletes by their physiques could well be due to self-selection. You know, the fast twitch kids win the 100 yard dashes in elementary school and end up doing what? You guessed it, NOT cross country. They do fast twitch sports. In other words, it's GENETICS. Moreover, go look up studies of body fat percentages among types of athletes. Endurance athletes ARE among the leanest. The "fat aerobics instructor" comment that circulates around the Web is, quite simply, a bunch of bull. As for the rats or mice, of course there's a difference. However, how many medical practices that save human lives every day were based on animal studies? That's right. Lots! So, we can learn a lot about humans from other critters. We're not as different as you might think. Finally, with all due respect to your credentials and experience, I can't help but place some credibility with Ph.D.s and M.D.s who publish in peer reviewed journals. Also, look at the organizations that the authors of this article are affiliated with. On the face, it should be taken seriously. Which isn't to say it's beyond reproach. Just be careful when you dismiss research that you're "professionally" not qualified to assess. Again, that's not an insult (and I really hope you don't take it as such). It's just my perspective as a somewhat objective observor looking for fitness advice. Who should I believe? Of course, as JP points out anecdotally, the proof is in the pudding. Unfortunately, as Alwyn has reminded us, it's not always so simple. In other words, some of us might be built more like rats or mice versus lions, tigers or bears.
I've always felt that Dos was never passionate enough about this stuff. And, one is never sure how he feels about something.
Regarding research and rats, one would think that a lot could be learned about many of these matters by simply carrying out some common sense, well designed studies using humans. Perhaps there are budget reasons; or, maybe mice are just easier to work with. But even the human studies are so poorly designed at times, or the researchers look at some stupid topics. I don't put a ton of merit in the PhD or MD, because *I* can often see the flaw (or stupidity or uselessness) of their study or design, and I'm NOT a PhD or MD. I think those guys (it's usually guys) just get some notion in their head and go with it. All other considerations regarding practicality and applicability be damned. It's just research. Do research, get published (chalk another one up), keep tenure. They get credit for doing research and getting published, period. So, do you think they really try to come up with really good stuff? Why bother? They are often seemingly very uncreative, if not just dumb.
Regarding self selection, muscle fibers, etc, I'd imagine that self selection is a pretty high and reliable phenomenom. But, some longitudinal studies could answer some questions there. Also, I've wondered how much people are in fact stuck with their fiber make up, or how much fiber make up changes over a life span due to various ages and activities. Maybe running fast or throwing things as a 5-10 year old has a big effect on fiber make up.
Also anecdotal is the fact that during my marathon training, my legs (upper and lower) were the biggest they've ever been in my life. I had my jeans literally folded over inside my belt around the waist and yet I couldn't wear some of them because my thighs wouldn't fit in the legs.
When I was sprinting 3x a week, watching my diet on Fitday, and lifting, I didn't see any great fat loss that I hadn't seen WITHOUT the sprinting. When I trained for that marathon, I lost three inches off my waist in three months.
My point? I'm currently VERY slowly ramping up my walking/running while still lifting like a madman (OVT atm). I think we might all be different enough that I can run thirtyfive miles a week and STILL put on LBM. We'll see.
Incidently, I also question (along with Symbolic): Did the running make marathoners unnaturally thin, or did the thinness make them distance runners to begin with? You don't sign up for football or sprinting if you're 6'3" 150 lbs. You sign up for cross country and run distances in track.
I did get quite a laugh from looking around at the spaghetti feed the night before the marathon. I was about 176 and was easily the biggest guy I saw. During the race, I ran back with more normal looking people.
Endurance athletes may be leaner than the average population, but if you compare a marathon runner to a sprinter there is no comparison. You can see every sinew on a sprinter. Granted, their lean body mass is much thicker, but those guys are as lean as athletes get.
Look at the ultimate endurance athlete in the world, Lance Armstrong. Where I admire him and any tour rider beyond belief, I sure wouldn't want to look like any one of them. Resting heart rates in the upper 20's! They certainly have strong hearts. Bodyfat supposedly around 5%, but they don't look hard or ripped. They look like prison camp victims!
And again, remember that for training for fat loss, I all but eliminated my endurance work and did nothing but activate fast-twitch tissue for several weeks. By bodyfat dropped by 11% in 8 weeks. My RHR is probably by now in the lower 60's instead of the mid 50's, but I am still very healthy and I will certainly live a much higher quality of life with all that bodyfat gone.
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).
People of an afro-caribean origin have a genetically higher portion of fast twitch muscle fibres which goes some way to explain the dominance of the 100m, basketball etc.., however it doesn't answer the question as to why the Kenyans/Ethiopians are so damn good at long distance.
__________________
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King
IMO a single study doesn't mean squat. You see this all the time on anyone trying to pimp out whatever they believe "Study X shows that if you take 15g of protien per pound combined with hard lifting you'll gain muscle mass"...well yeah...that doesn't mean that you need 15g per pound though. IMO you need a collection of studies and look at the methods and results to come up with ANY type of conclusion. Often enough that conclusion will be "there really isn't any conclusive evidence to believe a whole hell of a lot, but this seems to be a fairly reasonible guess"
Which fiber is better at burning fat? IMO neither. If you have a large amount of muscle on you, you'll likely have an easier time of burning fat.
Will doing endurance excersise make you look like an olypic marathoner? No...very likely not unless you have the genetic tendancy to look like that. Can it limit your muscle growth...in theory...an exssive amount of endurance work releases whatever hormone it is that limits growth to be more effeciant at whatever endurance excersise you're doing. Will running 15 miles a week do that...hell no.
Endurance athletes (read: as in the ones that I've met) generally don't train with weights as the extra bulk hurts them, they generally don't do upper body work at all. Will a weightlifter have bigger muscles than a non-lifter? I'd hope so. Will a lifter have better definition than a non lifter? I'd hope so.
If you're training almost purely for an endurance sport your body will react. A
If you're training almost purely for cosmetics your body will react. B
Just because you do endurance sports A doesn't mean that you can't have a body like B.
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.
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.
I didn't say it HAD gone up, I said that it PROBABLY had gone up. Your post prompted me to test my bp/rhr. BP = 121/70, RHR = 63. Keep in mind that I have been up and around now for nearly 4 hours so it is not completely accurate. I would probably still have a rate in the upper 50's at waking based on this score (estimating).
Quote:
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?
I have no trade secrets. My life is literally an open book (or web page as it were). Here is my workout (and here is the thread with the rest of the photos from my update). It is particularly good for me because I have had a long history of chronic shoulder and neck problems, which are pretty much under control for the time being. Very good for athletes my age because at 36 it takes a lot longer for me to spring back from an injury.
My new way to eat is not really a diet per se. It was based on Adam Campbell's recommendations:
Quote:
1. Eat as many of these vegetables as you desire throughout the day.
Asparagus, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery, corn, cucumbers, egg plant, lettuce, mushrooms, onions, peppers, pickles, spinach, squash, string beans, tomatoes, zucchini. Of course, oil-based, low carb dressings are fine for dipping, steaming is great, as well as sautéing with garlic (fantastic for fresh spinach with olive oil).
2. Eat as much lean meat as you want: 90 percent lean beef, turkey, chicken, tuna, salmon (any kind of fish/seafood really). (You can eat bacon, ham, and fattier meat, too, but just for the sake of being politically correct, limit these to one to two servings a day.) Use low-carb marinades and rubs to add variety to things like chicken and beef.
3. Especially avoid high-carbohydrate snacks. That is, anything that would spike your insulin between meals. Instead eat pepperoni or cheese (or better yet, pepperoni sticks dipped in soft cheese! or tuna, etc. Also, eat at 1-2 servings of peanuts, almonds, sunflower seeds, and pine nuts per day (great snacks).
4. Allow yourself one to two servings (but only at ONE meal) of the following: whole grain/wheat bread, brown rice, sweet potato, oats/oatmeal (In other words, if you want a sandwich for lunch, eat it. If you like oatmeal for breakfast, eat it.)
5. Limit fruit intake to 2 servings a day. Choose from: strawberries, pears, peaches, apples, and grapes.
6. Have as much coffee (with cream or artificial sweeteners), diet soft drinks, and tea as you like.
7. Drink lots of water. Let's say 16 ounces ever two hours you are awake on top of other beverages.
8. Drink (roughly): 15 grams of protein, 45 grams of carbohydrate (high-glycemic like maltodextrin or dextrose) in 12 ounces of water--half 5 to 15 minutes before your workout, and the rest evenly divided every 15-20 minutes of your workout. (This is basically a "Nutrient Timing" principle.)
9. After your workout, drink 20 grams of protein and 20 to 40 grams of carbohydrate. (These numbers are debatable, but I think they'll do the job quite nicely.)
10. Eat eggs and plenty of cheese. Avoid milk most of the time. (If you love it, limit it to one serving a day.)
Does this make sense. You'll get plenty of carbohydrates but you'll time them correctly and you won't be eating the 'bad" ones when it counts. The idea is that you'll keep insulin levels low all day long (high insulin inhibits fat loss and promotes fat storage) except during your workout, when you'll use insulin to decrease protein breakdown. You'll also eat protein at the same time, to enhance protein synthesis. Plus, by eating before and during your workout, you can workout as intensely as you desire. So it's the best of both worlds: faster fat loss with more energy. In addition one problem with a pure fat loss ketogenic diet is that although you preserve muscle, you can look "flat" because of the reduced glycogen stores. This plan keeps your muscles looking full and feeling big. Basically, it's meat and vegetables. So you don't have the pasta and bread, but you really don't need it if you get creative enough with food preparation. I'd also recommend that if you can sneak a fiber supplement in during the day (BeneFiber or Metamucil) say, 30 minutes before you eat any meal in which you eat the foods that are in number four you'll enhance your results even more.
Keep in mind that I don't use any supplements that he or anyone recommends. I am taking in about 200 mgs of caffeine in the morning about an hour before I train (which may also explain why my rhr is slightly higher this morning).
Actually, Lou's description pretty much sums it up. I am pretty much a mesomorph, so it makes sense that activating fast twitch fibers is probably an optimal for me to stay lean.
I personally wouldn't base my weightloss program on which fiber i think burns more fat. ultimitly weight less is going to determined on whether your expanding more cals then you are consuming. I'd base it on the type of training that forces my metabolism to run at its fastest. Its a fact that HIIT type cardio and heavy low rep weight training both cause the afterburn effect for hours. Endurence running and high rep work doesn't.
__________________
\"100 percent of the shots you don\'t take don\'t go in\"
I would like to see some studies on muscle fiber type and longevity or overall health throughout the lifespan. I know there would be some design problems and control problems, but nonetheless, I would like to see something like this done.
I don't want to get into this whole 'aerobics vs. interval training' debate again (..it looks as if we might be going that way).
Symbolic, my point was based on the study that you posted and the example I gave about the retired breeder rats. I stand by my beliefs 100%. I also pointed out the fact that we went through virtually millions of rats to test substances such as saccharin for cancer causing agents only to find that they DO in fact cause cancer in rats....so what do we do? We put a warning on the back of every packet of sweet-n-low stating that fact. WTF? Do I agree that there are valid reasons for animal research, absolutely. Do any of these 'valid' reasons entail killing animals the sake of exercise science....absolutely not.
Also, it might be more accurate to say that some of us are built like gorillas while others are built like chimps or orangutangs (sp?). Safe to say that, while we might see SOME similarities in muscle cell physiology, none of us are built like rats or mice. Bottom line is that when we are talking about exercise science we should be testing on humans period, the end.
Oh, and while i have tremendous respect for many PhD's (especially the ones that I worked with during my graduate studies), there are many PhD's doing shitloads of meaningless research at top notch universities for the sake of $$, grants, special interest etc. So don't assume that every study done by a "PhD" is something to swoon over.
Note: The ovarian-less retired breeder rat, swimming study was, in fact, a PhD led reserach project and published in a peer reviewed journal ....
Lastly, no doubt that those who excel at certain sports early on do, in fact, continue to develop thoses particular genetic 'gifts'. I never said that they didn't. I was making the point that if all the 'research' that may state that aerobic activity or slow twitch MF's are superior at burning fat is in fact true, how could you explain the fact that all the anaerobic, fast twithc athletes like the ones I mentioned are extremely lean? Genetics? 100%? Really????
__________________
Robert dos Remedios, MA, CSCS,
HCC (Hartman-Cosgrove Certified)
Director of Speed, Strength & Conditioning
College of the Canyons, CA http://www.canyons.edu/departments/pe/strength
"NO CHAMPION HAS EVER ACHIEVED HIS OR HER GOAL WITHOUT SHOWING MORE DEDICATION THAN THE NEXT PERSON; MAKING MORE SACRIFICES THAN THE NEXT PERSON; WORKING HARDER, TRAINING, AND CONDITIONING HIM / HERSELF MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON; ENJOYING HIS / HER FINAL GOAL MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON"
Nice point dos. While I agree with animal research to a certain extent I do not feel research on animals is always the most humane thing to do because we are on top of the food chain. while i'm not sure if it's irony or coincidence, but animals are getting even. Alot of these newer type viruses aids, bird flu, west nile, mad cow, foot and mouth etc. etc. are coming from animals.
Some local zoos are selling older animals to private hunters on private property for what they call SPORT. I have to wonder "we are supposed to be the intelligent species".
snake....I agree, we could go off into another thread with this stuff. When it comes down to things like compassion and ethical behavior, people start to get real fired-up if you know what I mean. My view is that if we don't have to do it then why do it? As most know on this board, I am a vegan and have been one for almost 17 years for ethical reasons. I know for a fact that one does not have to eat any animals or animal products to gain lean body mass, get strong, have endurance etc. I also know that some of the animal research that's going on at some universities is absolutely atrocious. Funny how so many people have a hard time with stem-cell research but they're ok with testing out helmet impact capability on apes, go figure.
__________________
Robert dos Remedios, MA, CSCS,
HCC (Hartman-Cosgrove Certified)
Director of Speed, Strength & Conditioning
College of the Canyons, CA http://www.canyons.edu/departments/pe/strength
"NO CHAMPION HAS EVER ACHIEVED HIS OR HER GOAL WITHOUT SHOWING MORE DEDICATION THAN THE NEXT PERSON; MAKING MORE SACRIFICES THAN THE NEXT PERSON; WORKING HARDER, TRAINING, AND CONDITIONING HIM / HERSELF MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON; ENJOYING HIS / HER FINAL GOAL MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON"
JP,
I assume you believe that your mesomorphic somatype explains your muscularity. If there are very significant genetic predispositions when it comes to training response, it means that training must absolutely take into account such factors. Of course, this makes program design complicated for non-experts. It would be great for you fitness professionals to develop a program that enables lay folks to assess genetic predispositions and follow a program designed to maximize one's potential.
Lou Schuler's comments seem to be suggesting as much. However, I'm not sure his framework is exhaustive. In other words, I'm slow twitch dominant in my legs, yet, I tend to carry excess fat. Is this because I eat too much or is it that being slow twitch dominant doesn't necessary correlate with leanness? It seems to me that we need to take into acccount a range of factors, including, but not limited to, muscle fibers makeup, hormonal profile, diet, and lifestyle (all of which interact).
Dos,
I really don't have a strong or well-developed opinion on animal studies. However, I'll stick by my original comment that we can extrapolate useful information about human beings from animal research. I'm enough of an expert in my area to know that I shouldn't mock research about which I'm unqualified to assess. Perhaps you are qualified in this area. Moreover, just because research appears esoteric, doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Scientific contributions occur at various levels of abstraction. As a theoretician, I'm particularly sensitive to this point.
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.
I really don't have a strong or well-developed opinion on animal studies. However, I'll stick by my original comment that we can extrapolate useful information about human beings from animal research. I'm enough of an expert in my area to know that I shouldn't mock research about which I'm unqualified to assess. Perhaps you are qualified in this area. Moreover, just because research appears esoteric, doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Scientific contributions occur at various levels of abstraction. As a theoretician, I'm particularly sensitive to this point.
Symbolic, you are right, as a person who has not studied in this field you most certainly are not qualified to 'mock' research in this field. on the other hand, as a person w/ a masters degree in Exercise Phys. who has spent his share of hours in the lab, doing extensive research, and publishing in peer reviewed journals, YES, I am in fact, 'qualified' to poo-poo irrelevant research when I see fit. I don't have so much of a problem with studies that seem to have questionable motivation in terms of relevance to the field. I do, however, have problems with the ones (like the one I mentioned and I can pull-up many, many more if you like), that have absolutely no relevance to the field and do it at the sacrifice of hundreds and hundreds of rats. I'm sorry but "Scientific contributions occurring at various levels of abstraction" is not a good enough reason for animal research. As an actual "practitioner", studies like these are not only cruel and unethical, they are virtually meaningless in their findings.
Lastly, you make note that mesos are more likely to be more muscular than ectos which is true. You might have forgotten, however, that your original post gave 'proof' that slow twitch fibers were the key to fat loss. My point as has been Alwyn's point in the other beaten-to-death-threads, is that these fast-twitch mesos are not only more muscular, they are also leaner. Why would a 200 lb. 100 meter sprinter who does zero aerobic work and has very little type1 going on be so much leaner than the 130lb guy (who is big-time type1 and trains aerobic most of the time) who won the marathon in Greece? 100% genetics? Proof???? Obviously I am guessing that he is (leaner) just by looking at them but you get my point...I hope.
__________________
Robert dos Remedios, MA, CSCS,
HCC (Hartman-Cosgrove Certified)
Director of Speed, Strength & Conditioning
College of the Canyons, CA http://www.canyons.edu/departments/pe/strength
"NO CHAMPION HAS EVER ACHIEVED HIS OR HER GOAL WITHOUT SHOWING MORE DEDICATION THAN THE NEXT PERSON; MAKING MORE SACRIFICES THAN THE NEXT PERSON; WORKING HARDER, TRAINING, AND CONDITIONING HIM / HERSELF MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON; ENJOYING HIS / HER FINAL GOAL MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON"
As an actual "practitioner", studies like these are not only cruel and unethical, they are virtually meaningless in their findings.
Dos, sure, as a pracitioner, they might seem meaningless. However, research findings often take time before they become applicable in the field. This type of research might help fitness professionals better design programs that take into account an individual's genetic predispositions in order to optimize work effort. Moreover, it might help convince folks that the research doesn't simply support the notion that anaerobic exercise is better for fat loss. It seems to depend on an individual's physiology. That's why I found the article interesting.
Quote:
My point as has been Alwyn's point in the other beaten-to-death-threads, is that these fast-twitch mesos are not only more muscular, they are also leaner. Why would a 200 lb. 100 meter sprinter who does zero aerobic work and has very little type1 going on be so much leaner than the 130lb guy (who is big-time type1 and trains aerobic most of the time) who won the marathon in Greece? 100% genetics? Proof???? Obviously I am guessing that he is (leaner) just by looking at them but you get my point...I hope.
This is simply incorrect based on a few different studies I've read. Distance runners are among the very leanest athletes. They are just as lean as sprinters. 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.
Once again Symbolic has lead this "fat loss breakthrough" research right back to where I KNEW it was going to go....the health benefits of aerobic activity.
P.S. Symbolic, don't bother reading the anaerobic training article in Men's Fitness this month....you won't like it. (just having fun as well...)
__________________
Robert dos Remedios, MA, CSCS,
HCC (Hartman-Cosgrove Certified)
Director of Speed, Strength & Conditioning
College of the Canyons, CA http://www.canyons.edu/departments/pe/strength
"NO CHAMPION HAS EVER ACHIEVED HIS OR HER GOAL WITHOUT SHOWING MORE DEDICATION THAN THE NEXT PERSON; MAKING MORE SACRIFICES THAN THE NEXT PERSON; WORKING HARDER, TRAINING, AND CONDITIONING HIM / HERSELF MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON; ENJOYING HIS / HER FINAL GOAL MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON"
Regarding research and rats, one would think that a lot could be learned about many of these matters by simply carrying out some common sense, well designed studies using humans. Perhaps there are budget reasons; or, maybe mice are just easier to work with.
It's often impractical and/unethical to go right to human studies without beginning with animal studies.
Quote:
But even the human studies are so poorly designed at times, or the researchers look at some stupid topics.
The poorly designed studies tend not to get published, or get published in low-impact journals
Quote:
I don't put a ton of merit in the PhD or MD, because *I* can often see the flaw (or stupidity or uselessness) of their study or design, and I'm NOT a PhD or MD.
You don't need to be a scientist to understand how to evaluate clinical trials, but it certainly helps to have a background in critical appraisal and research methodology. For example, one of the members of this forum has a very strong background in research methodology, and that background is very evident when he posts a critique of a scientific study. Common sense isn't enough.
Quote:
I think those guys (it's usually guys) just get some notion in their head and go with it. All other considerations regarding practicality and applicability be damned.
How do they get funding if this is the case? Remember, they often have to apply for grants, etc.
Quote:
Do research, get published (chalk another one up), keep tenure. They get credit for doing research and getting published, period. So, do you think they really try to come up with really good stuff? Why bother? They are often seemingly very uncreative, if not just dumb
At at least one of the academic institutions where I've worked, the quality of the journal in which the research is published is paramount. In fact, studies published in low impact journals had no bearing on academic appointments. Only that which makes it into the high impact journals counts, so researching relatively useless topics would not necessarily contribute to academic standing. Moreover, most researchers that I know tend to be fascinated with the stuff that they're researching. That's what motivates them. Keep in mind that researchers are often sacrificing a great deal of income compared to their more 'practical' colleagues.
I, on the other hand, have way more of a problem with research passing itself off as legitimate and scientifically valid when it's crap (even when the topic is relevant and they do it on humans). At least the breeder mouse study was conducted with proper controls. If I have to read _another_ poorly designed experiment...Oh, who am I kidding, I just read one this morning. Hell, I'm peer-reviewing one right now.
I have yet to see a bunch of humans volunteer to have their calf muscles removed. Heck, finding people to biopsy is tough enough.
I'm not pro animal research, but there is a necessity for animal models (even if YOU happen to think the research is frivolous, which in the case of the breeder rats, I don't think is necessarily frivolous)--until someone can figure out a better way to do it.
And Symbolic, we could throw together a program drawn from a HAT, and most people would see improvements (where do you think most celebrity trainers come from?). The day run-of-the-mill trainers actually have to take genetics into consideration, is the day where there are no fat/physically unfit people left (except the highly elite weightlifters).
All good points. Of course, there are rebuttals, but I don't want to bother with that. I've expressed some opinions (not absolute ones, but ones which I think apply often) and I'll leave it at that.
Thanks for taking the time to join in the discussion! [img]smile.gif[/img]
All good points. Of course, there are rebuttals, but I don't want to bother with that. I've expressed some opinions (not absolute ones, but ones which I think apply often) and I'll leave it at that.
If I want an argument, I go to the CE forum [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Linear Mode
