Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Optimising Fat Burning on Non-HIIT days
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
We can't HIIT all the time, nor can we work steady state at the top end of our aerobic capacit all the time. Our central nervous system would come up and strangle us. That's another word for overtraining. But if we still want to make sure that we're optimizing our non-HIIT time for both endurance capacity and fat mobilization, can we do both at the same time? Outlook looks good that there's a sweet spot for such work in the 60-80% MaxHR zone.
Last week, we looked at a successful protocol for fat mobilization and showed fat loss when comparing steady state to HIIT. We might recall that of the two groups - steady state and HIIT - when there was no other change to regimen (no diet change for instance) only the HIIT group changed BF%, dropping 5 pounds plus of fat over 15 weeks. One would seem to see in this that HIIT is the best approach to get the fat off then, but there is a related question, as authors on a 2009 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research paper puts it:
The authors also do a really nice job of saying what things impact on fat mobilization, too. Eg, eating carbs before exercise surpresses fat mobilization (hence the Precision Nutrition heuristic to say carb-dense foods for post-workout).
The nice thing is here, that while few of us have access to a metabolic cart (and using one isn't a lot of fun), we can use heart rate instead as a pretty good indicator of fuel type metabolized.
TO calculate Aerobic Zone, the authors used the ACSM measure: 50% of HRR (heart rate reserve) for the lower end, and anaerobic heat rate threshold for the upper end. While Anaerobic threshold is becoming an increasing question of debate (while lactate threshold has been totally toasted), the authors are just using points established by a Body, and testing against these. Good idea. There are known methods to determine AT in the lab - or what passes for tha threshold, so what the heck.
Fat burning zone was determined by watching the gas exchange readings on the cart: as soon as the ratio flipped beyond .7, one is beyond the FBZ.
Here's what the AZ/FBZ's look like:
To cut to the chase, the main result is that
The authors' discussion of these results describes the following observations and potential uses for the findings:
That's potentially great to know for endurance athletes. But what about strength athletes working on their body comp?
Recommendations:
HIIT is generally recommended only a few times a week. And from last week's studies we saw that the bouts are only 15 mins of work long. These ranges are for the benefit of one's central nervous system.
If you still want to do fat burning work on non-HIIT days, or just more work on your HIIT days, it seems that one has a wide range of efforts to play in: 60-80% of MaxHR. So for CARDIO days when you've HIIT yourself to death and your CNS is crying for mercy, you can still do cutting by working in the 60-80% zone. Likewise, if you still have more sauce on HIIT days after 15 mins of work, you might want to add on some effort of steady state at your optimal fat burning zone.
Caveat on 60-80%. That's a heck of a big range. In some interesting reflections on their results, the authors note that we still don't know WHY there is such a range. Dietary practices alone apparently don't account for it. And in this group, we're talking really fit people too, and even in such a closely matched cadre, there was still this rather large range of values for where the OPTIMAL fat mobilization occured.
In other words, there is a LOT we don't know yet about individual variation within fat mobilization. It's not a 1:1 relationship of work this hard and get these results. The best the authors can say is with a 90% result of participants in this range, there's a good probability that work in this range will have the best likelihood of fat mobilization.
Example: Combos Applied.
All caveats considered, I had a note from a person last week responding to the HIIT work saying that he does a similar interval protocol on his bike of the 24/36 protocol doing hills as hard as he can, and then finishes up with 30 mins of work at 70% max heart rate - for him, that's his sweet spot, and fat loss has never been so fast for him as when he hit this combo.
Personally i think this is really cool to see how we can mix and match various optimizations for our goals.
Related Posts
main ref:
Carey, DG (2009). Quantifying Differences in the "Fat Burning" Zone and the Aerobic Zone: Implications For Training Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: , 23 (7), 2090-2095 : 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bac5c5 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
We can't HIIT all the time, nor can we work steady state at the top end of our aerobic capacit all the time. Our central nervous system would come up and strangle us. That's another word for overtraining. But if we still want to make sure that we're optimizing our non-HIIT time for both endurance capacity and fat mobilization, can we do both at the same time? Outlook looks good that there's a sweet spot for such work in the 60-80% MaxHR zone.Last week, we looked at a successful protocol for fat mobilization and showed fat loss when comparing steady state to HIIT. We might recall that of the two groups - steady state and HIIT - when there was no other change to regimen (no diet change for instance) only the HIIT group changed BF%, dropping 5 pounds plus of fat over 15 weeks. One would seem to see in this that HIIT is the best approach to get the fat off then, but there is a related question, as authors on a 2009 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research paper puts it:
‘‘Should I exercise at a level that optimizes fat oxidation, or is total caloric expenditure the ultimate determinant of fat loss?’’Surprisingly, this fundamental question has not been answered to date, probably because of the difficulty of precisely controlling caloric intake and expenditure.From the HIIT work, we saw that pushing anaerobically for sprints, and then recovering aerobically was great for fat mobilization. The authors, without unfortunately citing any specifics, suggest that there may be some issues with this conclusion
I'm not sure about that and the authors get away without substantiating that claim that "no definitive conclusion could be reached". Indeed, they rather punt to say that they're not tring to figure out the optimal training intensity for fat loss. Ok, then what are they doing? They want to know
Those studies that have been completed generally have controlled for exercise dose, comparing highintensity, short-duration exercise with low-intensity, longduration exercise of equivalent caloric expenditure. However, nonexercise physical activity and caloric intake were not controlled, and no definitive conclusion could be reached.
Can improvement in aerobic capacity and optimization of fat oxidation be attainedIn other words if you're working out to be able to do more work at a level that is "glycogen spairing" - uses fat for fuel rather than precious muscle and blood sugar - can training to get that effect optimized also connect with fat burning? And so to get at this question, the authors say
simultaneously, or are these objectives distinctly different and require different intensities of training for their attainment?
The purpose of this study is to compare the FBZ [fat burning zone] and AZ [aerobic zone] in a group of competitive endurance athletes (runners). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to directly compare these 2 training zones in the same group of subjects. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to directly compare these 2 training zones in the same group of subjects.As a first step, the authors make clear that it's really straight ahead to see the points at which one goes from using fat as the primary fuel to using sugars. The calcutation looks at the respiratory exchange ratio (RER). For Carbs being 100% of fuel, the RER is 1. For fat, it's .7. This can be tested by hooking a person up to a cart that collects respiratory gasses. Cool.
The authors also do a really nice job of saying what things impact on fat mobilization, too. Eg, eating carbs before exercise surpresses fat mobilization (hence the Precision Nutrition heuristic to say carb-dense foods for post-workout).
The nice thing is here, that while few of us have access to a metabolic cart (and using one isn't a lot of fun), we can use heart rate instead as a pretty good indicator of fuel type metabolized.
TO calculate Aerobic Zone, the authors used the ACSM measure: 50% of HRR (heart rate reserve) for the lower end, and anaerobic heat rate threshold for the upper end. While Anaerobic threshold is becoming an increasing question of debate (while lactate threshold has been totally toasted), the authors are just using points established by a Body, and testing against these. Good idea. There are known methods to determine AT in the lab - or what passes for tha threshold, so what the heck.
Fat burning zone was determined by watching the gas exchange readings on the cart: as soon as the ratio flipped beyond .7, one is beyond the FBZ.
Here's what the AZ/FBZ's look like:
To cut to the chase, the main result is that
for Maximum Fat Oxidation, 32 of the 36 subjects (89.0%) fell in a range of 60.2–80.0% of maximal heart rate.And there is overlap between these two zones:
The authors' discussion of these results describes the following observations and potential uses for the findings:
the upper limit of exercise intensity for FBZ (80.0% max heart rate) is mid-range for the AZ (67.6–87.1% max heart rate). In addition, the upper limit for calories per minute (11.5) for FBZ is mid-range for AZ (9.15–-14.2 cal /min). The upper limit of fat calories per minute for FBZ (3.45) was not significantly different (t = 1.23, p = 0.225) from the lower limit of AZ (3.11). The biggest discrepancy between the 2 zones occurs when comparing fat calories expended at the upper limit of FBZ (3.45 fat cal/min) with the upper limit of AZ (1.68 fat cal/min).If the objective is metabolism of fat calories, training at the upper limits of AZ should not be recommended. If total caloric expenditure is the objective, the upper limits of AZ will be the most efficient.One might think, well there you go: fat mobilization is below the top of the AZ and so back off from that edge. Umm, no, apparently not so fast:
In addition to more calories being expended during exercise, caloric expenditure during recovery from high-intensity exercise is greater than recovery caloric expenditure from low-intensity exercise because of the additional energy requirement of ventilation, restoration of adenosine triphosphate phosphocreatine, replenishment of glycogen stores, and body temperature elevation. Also, prolonged exercise at high intensity, as in marathon running, has shown a gradual decrease in carbohydrate oxidation and gradual increase in fat oxidation as glycogen stores become depleted. If fat calories, and not total calories, were a better predictor of weight control, we would expect endurance athletes, who spend a rather large volume of training above FBZ, to have weight control problems. This is clearly not the case.In other words, almost as with hypertrophy training, volume has a pretty important role to play for fat mobilization, and volume here can be accrued by time. What's this mean: a few weeks ago, we looked at CoQ10's effect on endurance, and there we saw that after repeats of wingates that are pretty carb stealing, the oxidative system kicks in because those carb sources have been depleted. What this seems to suggest is that if you can stand it, working at the AZ top end for long enough will burn out the carbs and push into the fat as primary fuel source out of necessity.
That's potentially great to know for endurance athletes. But what about strength athletes working on their body comp?
Recommendations:
HIIT is generally recommended only a few times a week. And from last week's studies we saw that the bouts are only 15 mins of work long. These ranges are for the benefit of one's central nervous system.
If you still want to do fat burning work on non-HIIT days, or just more work on your HIIT days, it seems that one has a wide range of efforts to play in: 60-80% of MaxHR. So for CARDIO days when you've HIIT yourself to death and your CNS is crying for mercy, you can still do cutting by working in the 60-80% zone. Likewise, if you still have more sauce on HIIT days after 15 mins of work, you might want to add on some effort of steady state at your optimal fat burning zone.
Caveat on 60-80%. That's a heck of a big range. In some interesting reflections on their results, the authors note that we still don't know WHY there is such a range. Dietary practices alone apparently don't account for it. And in this group, we're talking really fit people too, and even in such a closely matched cadre, there was still this rather large range of values for where the OPTIMAL fat mobilization occured.
In other words, there is a LOT we don't know yet about individual variation within fat mobilization. It's not a 1:1 relationship of work this hard and get these results. The best the authors can say is with a 90% result of participants in this range, there's a good probability that work in this range will have the best likelihood of fat mobilization.
Example: Combos Applied.
All caveats considered, I had a note from a person last week responding to the HIIT work saying that he does a similar interval protocol on his bike of the 24/36 protocol doing hills as hard as he can, and then finishes up with 30 mins of work at 70% max heart rate - for him, that's his sweet spot, and fat loss has never been so fast for him as when he hit this combo.
Personally i think this is really cool to see how we can mix and match various optimizations for our goals.
Related Posts
main ref:
Carey, DG (2009). Quantifying Differences in the "Fat Burning" Zone and the Aerobic Zone: Implications For Training Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: , 23 (7), 2090-2095 : 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bac5c5 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
