Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Evil Vegetarian and Her Eggs - The Almost Untold Story
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Many of us leaning to plant-eating types often allow ourselves dairy products. Eggs in particular are a staple allowed protein. As we pay our premium for eggs from free range roving happy hen clucking chickens we think, well, that's pretty good right? Happy beasties laying those eggies. Where's the harm?
Let us set aside for a moment the scenes from Chicken Run and the fate of hens who do not produce their quota. Indeed, let us not think of the happy hen yard at all. Instead, let us ask the question, whither all these chickies brudders? I mean, when we think about it, while all chickens that lay eggs are of the same sex, not all chickens are of that sex. Where are the males of the species that pop forth all hopeful from such eggs from time to time?
Pet food. Among other places.
Yup, about two years ago now, Jamie Oliver did an intriguing series called "Jamie's Fowl Dinners" to show what happened to chickens in different contexts from factory to free range to simply free (yes chickens do exist in the wild).
He modelled each stage of the process. Including what happens to all the male chicks. And how.
For some reason i woke up remembering this scene, thinking right, we think we're doing such good stuff not eating meat, but these psuedo chicken by-product choices indirectly do exactly that: cause a whole lot of creature culling. There's no market for so many live male chicks. I wonder, i thought, how many people know this?
And so, dear b2d reader, now we both do. Will that shift our eggy behaviour? I think that as i'm at meetings this week at a hotel where the buffet veggies are dripping in something like butter and the only veggie protein is "vegetarian lasagne" which means lots of carbohydrates in a white sauce it seems, and that salmon beside it is looking a heck of a lot saner, despite the environmental damage from evil farmed salmon fisheries.
At least i remembered to bring some protein powder. From non-organic/free range cows
great great great. i am a total ethical food failure. i abdure myself. dang.
Sort of related posts
Let us set aside for a moment the scenes from Chicken Run and the fate of hens who do not produce their quota. Indeed, let us not think of the happy hen yard at all. Instead, let us ask the question, whither all these chickies brudders? I mean, when we think about it, while all chickens that lay eggs are of the same sex, not all chickens are of that sex. Where are the males of the species that pop forth all hopeful from such eggs from time to time?
Pet food. Among other places.
Yup, about two years ago now, Jamie Oliver did an intriguing series called "Jamie's Fowl Dinners" to show what happened to chickens in different contexts from factory to free range to simply free (yes chickens do exist in the wild).
He modelled each stage of the process. Including what happens to all the male chicks. And how.
For some reason i woke up remembering this scene, thinking right, we think we're doing such good stuff not eating meat, but these psuedo chicken by-product choices indirectly do exactly that: cause a whole lot of creature culling. There's no market for so many live male chicks. I wonder, i thought, how many people know this?
And so, dear b2d reader, now we both do. Will that shift our eggy behaviour? I think that as i'm at meetings this week at a hotel where the buffet veggies are dripping in something like butter and the only veggie protein is "vegetarian lasagne" which means lots of carbohydrates in a white sauce it seems, and that salmon beside it is looking a heck of a lot saner, despite the environmental damage from evil farmed salmon fisheries.
At least i remembered to bring some protein powder. From non-organic/free range cows
great great great. i am a total ethical food failure. i abdure myself. dang.
Sort of related posts
- i don't know. i'm too depressed,
- but here's some stuff on nutrition.
- what's the point.
PDF
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Hand care for Kettlebell work: what's with the Cornhuskers anyway?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Dear B2D readers. I'm afraid i have another question for you. Today it's about hand calluses and hand lotion. In particular, what's the point of the latter?
As with i think anyone whose hands have objects that rotate in them (either the object is rotated in their hands, or their bodies rotate via the hands around the object) i have calluses on my hands. Mine are pretty much from kettlebell work these days. i think i've read all the hand care solutions, and tend to use the usual variety of scraping, emorying, abraiding, pumicing and shaving (personal fave, curtousy of a tip from dr. squat) that anyone does.
I'm simply thankful that since actually getting better on technique, with tips from Coach Hauer, they've been less likely to rip.
That said, one of the constant suggestions in ANY of these (by guys, let's face it) lists, is "use hand lotion" with the usual one recommended being Corn Huskers.
So i gotta ask, what's this stuff supposed to do? I have some. I've tried it after swinging, after
showering post swinging, after swinging, showering, sanding, filing and sometimes, just on a whim.
As far as i can tell, it does nothing - for me. Well there's a certain folksie charm i suppose to sporting the bottle in the bathroom, but beyond this?
SO once again, let me ask b2d readers - if you flail a kettlebell - or get calluses on your hands from any other activity -
Thank you for your kind assistance and attention.
mc
[update. later that day]
Surprisingly spirited discussion on the DD forum about corn huskers, and the following points have emerged.
related posts
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
As with i think anyone whose hands have objects that rotate in them (either the object is rotated in their hands, or their bodies rotate via the hands around the object) i have calluses on my hands. Mine are pretty much from kettlebell work these days. i think i've read all the hand care solutions, and tend to use the usual variety of scraping, emorying, abraiding, pumicing and shaving (personal fave, curtousy of a tip from dr. squat) that anyone does.I'm simply thankful that since actually getting better on technique, with tips from Coach Hauer, they've been less likely to rip.
That said, one of the constant suggestions in ANY of these (by guys, let's face it) lists, is "use hand lotion" with the usual one recommended being Corn Huskers.
So i gotta ask, what's this stuff supposed to do? I have some. I've tried it after swinging, after
showering post swinging, after swinging, showering, sanding, filing and sometimes, just on a whim.As far as i can tell, it does nothing - for me. Well there's a certain folksie charm i suppose to sporting the bottle in the bathroom, but beyond this?
SO once again, let me ask b2d readers - if you flail a kettlebell - or get calluses on your hands from any other activity -
- do you use hand lotion? does it do something for your hands that if otherwise left alone, you'd be in sorry shape?
- is this a consequence specifically of having calluses, or would you need hand lotion whether you did callusable activity or not?
- Or is this just the big boy excuse to go kinda metro?
Thank you for your kind assistance and attention.
mc
[update. later that day]
Surprisingly spirited discussion on the DD forum about corn huskers, and the following points have emerged.
- it's a non-greasy moisturiser -
- different climates and hands combined with chalk in some people causes dry cracking ickyness and this kind of moisturiser seems to address that
- likewise, some folks experience the stuff as a way to soften and even gap fill calluses such that they are less likely to tear.
related posts
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Facebook Friend Requests - What to do when you don't know the Who, and get no Info to Say Nuffin to You
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Hello B2D readers. To those of you kind folk who subscribe to b2d, please f
orgive this wee intrusion on your reader/rss collector/browsing for a slight off topic. IT's about facebook. And if you don't use facebook, please by all means, skip this post. For those who do, i have a question for which i seek your help to unravel: what do you do with friend requests that come without messages to introduce the person? I'm at a loss.
Personally, i'm still trying to figure out the role of facebook in my life - and what the quality "friend" means. It seems more to be acquaintances than friends, per se. But that aside, i find myself surprised to get a number of these "friend" requests from people i've never met, don't know, and who provide no context - no little message to say "Hi, you don't know me, but the reason i'd like to be friends with you is BLAH" We may have some other "friends" in common, but forgive me, so what?
And so this is my conundrum. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding facebook entirely, and one shouldn't care who asks to be one's friends; just hit accept. After all, these connections aren't really about friends; they're just something - oh, i don't know what.
It seems i'm not entirely alone. In a post called Both Sides of the Table by Mark Suster (whom it seems gets a ton of facebook requests. He writes:
I'd add to the above that some folks may seem to think that if i see whom we may have as friends in common, then no further data is required - or maybe they don't - i'm guessing, cuz i don't know. They don't say. But for me, that friends in common thing offers nothing useful. Many people ride motorcycles, for instance, is that single data point sufficient to want to expose one's communication to others, or invite others to comment on any topic you initiate?
Again, perhaps i'm just missing something obvious about Facebook.
S.O.S. SO i reach out to b2d readers. What do you do when you get a request from someone whom you do not know, and have no note about the request?
With many thanks,
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
orgive this wee intrusion on your reader/rss collector/browsing for a slight off topic. IT's about facebook. And if you don't use facebook, please by all means, skip this post. For those who do, i have a question for which i seek your help to unravel: what do you do with friend requests that come without messages to introduce the person? I'm at a loss.Personally, i'm still trying to figure out the role of facebook in my life - and what the quality "friend" means. It seems more to be acquaintances than friends, per se. But that aside, i find myself surprised to get a number of these "friend" requests from people i've never met, don't know, and who provide no context - no little message to say "Hi, you don't know me, but the reason i'd like to be friends with you is BLAH" We may have some other "friends" in common, but forgive me, so what?
And so this is my conundrum. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding facebook entirely, and one shouldn't care who asks to be one's friends; just hit accept. After all, these connections aren't really about friends; they're just something - oh, i don't know what.
It seems i'm not entirely alone. In a post called Both Sides of the Table by Mark Suster (whom it seems gets a ton of facebook requests. He writes:
Facebook. I know some people link to anybody and everybody on Facebook – I do not. Facebook is a reciprocal (or symmetrical) network and therefore if you want to follow me by default I follow you back. The problem I have with this is two-fold. First, I send lots of private stuff on Facebook because that’s where I connect to my parents, my siblings, my classmates and my wife. Second, I don’t want to clutter up the stream of information that I have in my Facebook newsfeed with information on people with whom I don’t have a relationship.At least Mark has figured out a particular use for Facebook, and so has clear guidance on how he accepts friends. This groundwork is by way of background to the cool basics of exchange Suster suggests:
The more Personal. I like this; it's simple. Send a note with your request. I think beyond being informative it's just nice, isn't it? Polite? I like the comparison to sending a CV to a company without a cover letter. But even more casually, how often to complete strangers just step up to you in the middle of a conversation and start talking - with no introduction?If you’re asking to “connect” with people you don’t know (or don’t know well), how should you go about it? Send people a personalized comment on the intro saying who you are and why you’d like to connect. I do this even for people who I know very well. Put in any info about people we know in common, places we may have met or some other relevant fact. Even if we don’t know each other – finding a common bridge increases your probability of getting accepted.
If you connect to me on Facebook and simply have an invite with no explanation and if I can’t figure out how I know you I’ll just hit ignore. On Facebook there isn’t even a standard “join my network” introduction. Sending a blank invite is the equivalent of sending your resume to a company with no cover letter. People do it, but it’s not professional.
I'd add to the above that some folks may seem to think that if i see whom we may have as friends in common, then no further data is required - or maybe they don't - i'm guessing, cuz i don't know. They don't say. But for me, that friends in common thing offers nothing useful. Many people ride motorcycles, for instance, is that single data point sufficient to want to expose one's communication to others, or invite others to comment on any topic you initiate?
Again, perhaps i'm just missing something obvious about Facebook.
S.O.S. SO i reach out to b2d readers. What do you do when you get a request from someone whom you do not know, and have no note about the request?
With many thanks,
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
IPoding Athlete Audio Earphone - Update: more custom earphone options at the Apple Store
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Last week i did a post about the importance of good hearing 
protection while listening to one's tunes at the gym. I noted that there's a cool deal in the UK for custom sleeves to be fitted to the very cool etymotic research made-for-ipod ER 6i. While these are way cool for folks who don't need a mic with their earphones, some folks do, as their ipod may be an iPhone.
So i had a wee chat with ACS head honcho Andy Shiach late last week, and he informed me i'm a wee bit out of date. Etymotic has a headphone called the hf2 which is like the 6i except with the necessary inline mic AND they have a custom in-ear phone program AND ACS is doing the custom ear sleeves for them AND you can go into any apple store (in the UK right now), and buy the custom pack: you get the headphones and a vouchure for the custom sleeves. And this program is about to be rolled out world-wide "very soon" The vid below shows how it works.
Folks in the US right now can head to Ety's site to take a peek.
I'll update the site as soon as i learn of the Apple Store US release.
Technical Note: real protection
I also asked Andy about the differences in db ratings on the ety site, claiming 35-40 decibles and the custom sleeves rating 26db on the customhearing.co.uk site, especially since i find the sleeves much better. He explained that the 35-40 db may be the attenuation at some frequencies, but not at all. Indeed it may be quite a bit less as some hotter frequencies. On the other hand, the custom sleeves provide 26db at least at all frequencies. Cool.
So now, even less excuse not to protect one's hearing AND get improved audio experience at the same time. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
protection while listening to one's tunes at the gym. I noted that there's a cool deal in the UK for custom sleeves to be fitted to the very cool etymotic research made-for-ipod ER 6i. While these are way cool for folks who don't need a mic with their earphones, some folks do, as their ipod may be an iPhone.So i had a wee chat with ACS head honcho Andy Shiach late last week, and he informed me i'm a wee bit out of date. Etymotic has a headphone called the hf2 which is like the 6i except with the necessary inline mic AND they have a custom in-ear phone program AND ACS is doing the custom ear sleeves for them AND you can go into any apple store (in the UK right now), and buy the custom pack: you get the headphones and a vouchure for the custom sleeves. And this program is about to be rolled out world-wide "very soon" The vid below shows how it works.
Folks in the US right now can head to Ety's site to take a peek.
I'll update the site as soon as i learn of the Apple Store US release.
Technical Note: real protection
I also asked Andy about the differences in db ratings on the ety site, claiming 35-40 decibles and the custom sleeves rating 26db on the customhearing.co.uk site, especially since i find the sleeves much better. He explained that the 35-40 db may be the attenuation at some frequencies, but not at all. Indeed it may be quite a bit less as some hotter frequencies. On the other hand, the custom sleeves provide 26db at least at all frequencies. Cool.
So now, even less excuse not to protect one's hearing AND get improved audio experience at the same time. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Sunday, January 24, 2010
HIIT (on bikes) - why it results in both more fat reduction, and Spot Fat Reduction at That, too than Hearty Steady State
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
There are lots of folks espousing the value of HIIT as an effective calorie burner when trying to burn fat. But is there really a special role for HIIT in the fat burning lexicon, or should we just strive to work harder - like 50-75% VO2max - throughout a cardio session? Some more recent work suggests there may be in terms of metabolic activity and even spot fat reduction. But before we go there, let's refresh a bit about HIIT.
The old argument that HIIT burns more calories than Steady State and so is beter has been given a good walloping by Lyle McDonald. Especially in his head to head of steady state with HIIT he pretty persuasively shows that "The intervals only come out a TINY bit ahead if you compare workouts of identical length and even there the difference is absolutely insignificant."
Review: What's HIIT supposed to Do?
Indeed, work from 2008 lead by Shannan E.
Gormley comparing intervals to a decent level of steady state effort did show a benefit for intervals of a sort, but the question for the researchers is what's the optimal time to spend at that peak intensity in an interval to elicit this effect? As cited previously here, the authors state:
So what about fat loss & HIIT, then?
HIIT means high intensity interval protocol. But what is the best HIIT to do if you're tuning it for fat lost first, and anything else second? And does it make a difference if you're dealing with elite athletes or people who are just well enough conditioned so their hearts won't explode if you ask them to go "really hard" for a bit? Is it 60 secs on? 30 off? 60:60? The infamous tabatta on for 20 off for 10 - and remember that was not primarily a fat burning study but an anaerobic/aerobic capacity study.
In 2007 & 2008 a couple studies came out on HIIT from New South Wales as part of some cool PhD work lead by Gail Trapp that i have come to cite frequently about a great HIIT protocol for fat loss and other cool, related benefits that looked explicitly at intervals for fat burning and effects between conditioned and less conditioned participants. Here's the first one, looking at what different HIIT intervals stir up metabolically.
Any type of heart rate elevation triggers some catecholamine response - so does drinking green tea. But what the authors show
here is that both long and short high intensity efforts - sprints in this case - can be effective to trigger greater catecholomine release, but the longer 24 sec sprint with its equivalent longer recovery seems to be better overall for fat mobilization. That's cool. That's actually less work/minute at 24 secs on 36 off than the shorter burst of 8on/12off (24sec vs 40secs of work). Wow. So longer more intense intervals - not necessarily more work - yields higher levels of fat release for fuel - but both the shorties and the longies are good.
Applying these Inervals to Fat Loss. Trapp and Co. then took this finding to a larger cohort of 45 participants (up from 8 and 8), and went longitudinal running a 15 week study. 15 weeks is *good* for 45 people to hang in there.
To be clear, in the second study, gals in the HIIT group did a five minute warm up, followed by 20mins of 8sec sprint followed by 12s of 20-30rpm recovery. The load was continually adjusted over the course of 15 weeks, starting at everyone getting to 20mins at .5kg of resistance. Based on heart rate, the load was upped by .5kg so that the heart effect was consistent as folks got stronger.
The steady state group worked at 60%V02peak - that's a good clip - about 75% maxHR so no slouching there. They worked up from 10mins to 40mins. The mean heart rate of the groups was 168.6 for the HIIT group; 155.7 for the steady state group (participants were 18-30 years old).
As to the fat loss: There was significant FM loss (P less than 0.05) r="−0.58,">This last point is not surprising, based on energy available for fuel from fat relative to bodyfat % (discussed here). The authors come back to this point stating:
Discussion of Findings - Cautious optimism for Intense Intervals
The authors in true geek science-ness don't overegg the results:
more fat available as fuel in the blood ready to be used, Trapp's crew hypothesizes, maybe people doing HIIT just aren't homeostatically tweaked to reach for calorically dense foods - their bodies know they have that covered. That's a really intersting idea. I wonder if doing HIIT closer to meal times enhances this effect, if that's what's going on.
What about this seeming spot reduction? But even if you want to say there are interesting side effects going on with HIIT that are causing these fat loss responses, the authors' key result is this abdominal fat difference. HIIT took OFF some ab fat; Steady state, i'm sorry to say, put some on. Dang.
Here's where exercise type may play an important role in whether or not this spot effect is achieved. The authors postulate the following:
Translating Results to Other Modes? Do these findings translate to other modalities for HIIT - like oh i dunno, maybe kettlebells? Don't know. Perhaps that would be an interesting comparison for bike, hardstyle with it's tension at the top of the swing say, and that hip/core/lat activation, and GS with its more relaxed swing. Do GS/HS differences fall away as the bell weight gets heavier?
In the meantime, the authors offer the following:
While the authors tested their participants with the 8/12 interval, their earlier work with the 24/36 suggests the benefits might be even greater - on a bike, but maybe with a kettlebell or a rowing machine, too.
Take Away: the Skinny on the Fat & HIIT
There are at least two ways to talk about HIIT - in the performance arena, and in fat burning. In performance, there is a small but not insignificant edge to interval work over intense steady state. In fat burning there is a really significant effect. Here's what i think it is.
While the authors make much of the spot fat reduction - and that's not nothing - the more intriguing thing is that *only* the HIIE group lost fat & had their lean body mass go up.
I've cited before work to show that without diet, any weight loss changes, even over 12 weeks of working out are small. In this case, there was no deliberate dietary intervention. So that there was such fat loss without more or less trying dietarily as well is really kinda eye openingly "what the heck?"
So i am intrigued by the authors' speculation about that catecholamine effect and glycerol release and potential effect on let's say homeostasis - a reduced reach for high cal foods, naturally. Wow. That makes HIIE worth looking at from a whole other point that has a whole lot less to do with the calories burned on the bike and the effect of those intervals throughout every other day of the week. And that's only 3*15. What would 3days at 20 or 30 or 40 minutes do? More is not always better - and intervals can be fatiguing but. Hmm.
Related Posts
main refs
There are lots of folks espousing the value of HIIT as an effective calorie burner when trying to burn fat. But is there really a special role for HIIT in the fat burning lexicon, or should we just strive to work harder - like 50-75% VO2max - throughout a cardio session? Some more recent work suggests there may be in terms of metabolic activity and even spot fat reduction. But before we go there, let's refresh a bit about HIIT.The old argument that HIIT burns more calories than Steady State and so is beter has been given a good walloping by Lyle McDonald. Especially in his head to head of steady state with HIIT he pretty persuasively shows that "The intervals only come out a TINY bit ahead if you compare workouts of identical length and even there the difference is absolutely insignificant."
Review: What's HIIT supposed to Do?
Indeed, work from 2008 lead by Shannan E.
Gormley comparing intervals to a decent level of steady state effort did show a benefit for intervals of a sort, but the question for the researchers is what's the optimal time to spend at that peak intensity in an interval to elicit this effect? As cited previously here, the authors state:It should be noted that although interval training groups spend some of their training time at a very high intensity, a similar amount of time is spent at a lower intensity, and therefore the mean intensity of training may not be any higher than that of a continuous training program. In the current study, the interval training group used 5 min each for the work and the recovery phases of the intervals and had an average intensity of 72% HRR, which is slightly less than the 75% HRR of the vigorous [the steady state -mc] group. The work-recovery periods of Helgerud et al.[16] were 4 min at ∼93% HRmax and 3 min at 70% HRmax, for a mean intensity of 83% HRmax in the interval group, whereas one of the continuous groups used 85% HRmax. Warburton et al.[37] used 2 min at 90% HRR and 2 min at 40% HRR for the work and the recovery phases, yielding a mean intensity of 65% HRR in the interval group, and had the continuous training group use 65% HRR. Wisloff et al.[38] used 4-min work phases at ∼93% HRmax and 3-min recovery phases at 60% HRmax, for a mean intensity of 79% HRmax in the interval group, and used ∼73% HRmax in the continuous training group. Despite the similarity of mean intensity between the interval and the continuous training groups, the interval groups in all of these studies experienced greater improvements in aerobic fitness after training. Therefore, although intensity is a key variable in cardiorespiratory training (as shown by comparing the two continuous training groups in this study), the mean intensity may not be as important as the highest intensity that is used for a significant portion of the training. A topic for future research is to determine what portion of training should be done at high intensities and using what work-recovery periods to obtain the greatest resultsThe above is looking not at fat loss effects of intervals, but training to enhance oxidative capacity for performance. More recently even really brief intense bouts of exercise (like 6 mins a week of effort compared with hours of steady state for the same physiological effect as hours of 60% MaxHR), there are similar kinds of performance benefits. So, there seem to be some performance optimization benefits from (a) looking at finding the right balance of peak intensity to recovery for work sessions and (b) looking at supramaximal efforts that may have similar effects in less time. Again, that's performance, not fat loss, and in the former case, we are talking really small degrees of difference.
So what about fat loss & HIIT, then?
HIIT means high intensity interval protocol. But what is the best HIIT to do if you're tuning it for fat lost first, and anything else second? And does it make a difference if you're dealing with elite athletes or people who are just well enough conditioned so their hearts won't explode if you ask them to go "really hard" for a bit? Is it 60 secs on? 30 off? 60:60? The infamous tabatta on for 20 off for 10 - and remember that was not primarily a fat burning study but an anaerobic/aerobic capacity study.
In 2007 & 2008 a couple studies came out on HIIT from New South Wales as part of some cool PhD work lead by Gail Trapp that i have come to cite frequently about a great HIIT protocol for fat loss and other cool, related benefits that looked explicitly at intervals for fat burning and effects between conditioned and less conditioned participants. Here's the first one, looking at what different HIIT intervals stir up metabolically.
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2007 Dec;293(6):R2370-5. Epub 2007 Sep 26.Fat Mobilization: Freed for the Burning. Ah ha you say, there's no fat loss measured here. Right. But what IS measured here is catecholamine activation. Those threat response fight or flight hormones are what mobilize fat to get burned, baby burned. And from these the authors suggest a correlation to the level of catecholamine released and the level of glycerol to be found in the blood stream. In other words, higher degree of intensity, greater catecholamine release, more fat mobilised to be used for fuel.
Metabolic response of trained and untrained women during high-intensity intermittent cycle exercise.
Trapp EG, Chisholm DJ, Boutcher SH.
School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Univ. of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. e.trapp@unsw.edu.au
The metabolic response to two different forms of high-intensity intermittent cycle exercise was investigated in young women. Subjects (8 trained and 8 untrained) performed two bouts of high-intensity intermittent exercise: short sprint (SS) (8-s sprint, 12-s recovery) and long sprint (LS) (24-s sprint, 36-s recovery) for 20 min on two separate occasions. Both workload and oxygen uptake were greater in the trained subjects but were not significantly different for SS and LS. Plasma glycerol concentrations significantly increased during exercise. Lactate concentrations rose over the 20 min and were higher for the trained women. Catecholamine concentration was also higher postexercise compared with preexercise for both groups. Both SS and LS produced similar metabolic response although both lactate and catecholamines were higher after the 24-s sprint. In conclusion, these results show that high-intensity intermittent exercise resulted in significant elevations in catecholamines that appear to be related to increased venous glycerol concentrations. The trained compared with the untrained women tended to show an earlier increase in plasma glycerol concentrations during high-intensity exercise.
Any type of heart rate elevation triggers some catecholamine response - so does drinking green tea. But what the authors show
here is that both long and short high intensity efforts - sprints in this case - can be effective to trigger greater catecholomine release, but the longer 24 sec sprint with its equivalent longer recovery seems to be better overall for fat mobilization. That's cool. That's actually less work/minute at 24 secs on 36 off than the shorter burst of 8on/12off (24sec vs 40secs of work). Wow. So longer more intense intervals - not necessarily more work - yields higher levels of fat release for fuel - but both the shorties and the longies are good.Applying these Inervals to Fat Loss. Trapp and Co. then took this finding to a larger cohort of 45 participants (up from 8 and 8), and went longitudinal running a 15 week study. 15 weeks is *good* for 45 people to hang in there.
Int J Obes (Lond). 2008 Apr;32(4):684-91. Epub 2008 Jan 15.
The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women.
Trapp EG, Chisholm DJ, Freund J, Boutcher SH.
Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. e.trapp@unsw.edu.au
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a 15-week high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) program on subcutaneous and trunk fat and insulin resistance of young women. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES: Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: HIIE (n=15), steady-state exercise (SSE; n=15) or control (CONT; n=15). HIIE and SSE groups underwent a 15-week exercise intervention. SUBJECTS: Forty-five women with a mean BMI of 23.2+/-2.0 kg m(-2) and age of 20.2+/-2.0 years. RESULTS: Both exercise groups demonstrated a significant improvement (P<0.05) in cardiovascular fitness. However, only the HIIE group had a significant reduction in total body mass (TBM), fat mass (FM), trunk fat and fasting plasma insulin levels. There was significant fat loss (P<0.05) in legs compared to arms in the HIIE group only. Lean compared to overweight women lost less fat after HIIE. Decreases in leptin concentrations were negatively correlated with increases in VO(2peak) (r=-0.57, P<0.05) and positively correlated with decreases in TBM (r=0.47; P<0.0001). There was no significant change in adiponectin levels after training. CONCLUSIONS: HIIE three times per week for 15 weeks compared to the same frequency of SSE exercise was associated with significant reductions in total body fat, subcutaneous leg and trunk fat, and insulin resistance in young women.
To be clear, in the second study, gals in the HIIT group did a five minute warm up, followed by 20mins of 8sec sprint followed by 12s of 20-30rpm recovery. The load was continually adjusted over the course of 15 weeks, starting at everyone getting to 20mins at .5kg of resistance. Based on heart rate, the load was upped by .5kg so that the heart effect was consistent as folks got stronger.
The steady state group worked at 60%V02peak - that's a good clip - about 75% maxHR so no slouching there. They worked up from 10mins to 40mins. The mean heart rate of the groups was 168.6 for the HIIT group; 155.7 for the steady state group (participants were 18-30 years old).
As to the fat loss: There was significant FM loss (P less than 0.05) r="−0.58,">This last point is not surprising, based on energy available for fuel from fat relative to bodyfat % (discussed here). The authors come back to this point stating:
High-intensity intermittent exercise training had a marked effect on fat levels for some individuals and a moderate effect for others. The correlation (r=0.58, P less than 0.01)43, 44 The four moderate fat loss responders in the HIIE group (women who had a 3% or less decrease in total fat) possessed significantly lower initial FM than the other women. With the four lean women removed, the mean fat loss in the HIIE group was 3.94±0.91 kg resulting in a 4.3% decrease in body mass and a 14.7% decrease in total FM. This 3.94-kg fat loss compares favorably to the 1.15-kg weight loss reported in a recent meta-analysis of the effects of SEE on weight loss.That all sounds good and reasonable and wonderful, but then comes the particularly interesting bits - gosh what would almost seem like spot fat reductions:
High-intensity intermittent exercise led to a significant decrease (P less than 0.05) in central abdominal fat (−0.15plus or minus 0.07 kg), whereas the SSE and CONT groups had nonsignificant increases in central abdominal fat (SSE group, +0.1 plus or minus 0.08 kg; CONT group, +0.03 plus or minus 0.04 kg).So more weight off the gut area in HIIT, legs and trunk (other newer work (like this one Nov 08 lead by Irving, and this one Aug 09 lead by Coker ) has seen similar results with gut fat). Intriguingly all groups put on fat in the arms (but not a lot). Indeed, the gut fat loss the authors cite as THE finding of the study. Even more, they state
Despite exercising half the time, HIIE subjects in the present study lost 11.2% of total FM with SSE subjects experiencing no fat loss.That's a pretty big difference between the two groups
Discussion of Findings - Cautious optimism for Intense Intervals
The authors in true geek science-ness don't overegg the results:
Collectively, these results demonstrate that intermittent sprinting compared to SEE is a more effective and efficient way of controlling body composition. However, our estimates of energy expenditure and intake lack sufficient precision to comfortably conclude that energy balance was unaffected in the HIIE condition. Thus, it is feasible that the change in FM that occurred in HIIE may have been influenced by unreported changes in diet. Indeed, HIIE-induced suppressed diet intake may be one of a number of possible factors underlying the fat loss effect of HIIE.11 For example, HIIE may have suppressed appetite or decreased attraction for energy-dense foods.24, 25 Another explanation for the HIIE fat loss effects is that this type of exercise may result in enhanced lipid utilization. Prior research in our laboratory has shown that lipid release, as indicated by blood glycerol levels, gradually increased over 20 min of HIIE.20 Catecholamine levels in this study were also found to be significantly elevated after HIIE.20Free Fat. I love this! Because of that catecholomine hit we saw earlier, and because there's
more fat available as fuel in the blood ready to be used, Trapp's crew hypothesizes, maybe people doing HIIT just aren't homeostatically tweaked to reach for calorically dense foods - their bodies know they have that covered. That's a really intersting idea. I wonder if doing HIIT closer to meal times enhances this effect, if that's what's going on. What about this seeming spot reduction? But even if you want to say there are interesting side effects going on with HIIT that are causing these fat loss responses, the authors' key result is this abdominal fat difference. HIIT took OFF some ab fat; Steady state, i'm sorry to say, put some on. Dang.
Here's where exercise type may play an important role in whether or not this spot effect is achieved. The authors postulate the following:
It is considered that spot reduction (that is, deliberately reducing fat stores in specific areas of the body) is not possible, and the body will mobilize preferentially those stores with the highest concentrations of adipose cells.36, 37, 38 There is evidence in the current study that this principle may not apply to every exercise modality. In HIIE, where work is done primarily by the musculature of the legs and the trunk muscles act as stabilizers, there was a decrease in FM and an increase in lean mass, which summated to a significant change in percentage of fat in these two regions. This was not the case with the SSE group.So where work triggers core stabilizers to get that extra intensity, there may be a seeming spot fat loss effect. It's also interesting to note that only the HIIT group had lean body mass increase.
Translating Results to Other Modes? Do these findings translate to other modalities for HIIT - like oh i dunno, maybe kettlebells? Don't know. Perhaps that would be an interesting comparison for bike, hardstyle with it's tension at the top of the swing say, and that hip/core/lat activation, and GS with its more relaxed swing. Do GS/HS differences fall away as the bell weight gets heavier?In the meantime, the authors offer the following:
In conclusion, 20 min of HIIE [on a bike - mc] , performed three times per week for 15 weeks compared to the same frequency of 40min of SSE exercise was associated with significant reductions in fasting insulin, total body fat, subcutaneous leg fat and abdominal fat.
While the authors tested their participants with the 8/12 interval, their earlier work with the 24/36 suggests the benefits might be even greater - on a bike, but maybe with a kettlebell or a rowing machine, too.
Take Away: the Skinny on the Fat & HIIT
There are at least two ways to talk about HIIT - in the performance arena, and in fat burning. In performance, there is a small but not insignificant edge to interval work over intense steady state. In fat burning there is a really significant effect. Here's what i think it is.
While the authors make much of the spot fat reduction - and that's not nothing - the more intriguing thing is that *only* the HIIE group lost fat & had their lean body mass go up.
I've cited before work to show that without diet, any weight loss changes, even over 12 weeks of working out are small. In this case, there was no deliberate dietary intervention. So that there was such fat loss without more or less trying dietarily as well is really kinda eye openingly "what the heck?"
So i am intrigued by the authors' speculation about that catecholamine effect and glycerol release and potential effect on let's say homeostasis - a reduced reach for high cal foods, naturally. Wow. That makes HIIE worth looking at from a whole other point that has a whole lot less to do with the calories burned on the bike and the effect of those intervals throughout every other day of the week. And that's only 3*15. What would 3days at 20 or 30 or 40 minutes do? More is not always better - and intervals can be fatiguing but. Hmm.
Related Posts
- Kettlebells and Cardio - it doesn't have to be VO2max all the time
- Viking Warrior Conditioning, the Review with Kenneth Jay
- Does Cardio interfer with Strength work? How 'bout No
- Running the bells - hill workouts with kettlebells
- Weight loss doesn't work without Diet - really [story 1, story 2]
- Fat, the amazing fuel.
- Getting a handle on the habits of thinner peace (as martha beck calls it)
main refs
Trapp, E., Chisholm, D., Freund, J., & Boutcher, S. (2008). The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women International Journal of Obesity, 32 (4), 684-691 DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803781Tweet Follow @begin2dig
GORMLEY, S., SWAIN, D., HIGH, R., SPINA, R., DOWLING, E., KOTIPALLI, U., & GANDRAKOTA, R. (2008). Effect of Intensity of Aerobic Training on VO2max Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40 (7), 1336-1343 DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31816c4839
Trapp, E., Chisholm, D., & Boutcher, S. (2007). Metabolic response of trained and untrained women during high-intensity intermittent cycle exercise AJP: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 293 (6) DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00780.2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
