Sarcopenia, the undiagnosed epidemic
25 Jan || by Will Brink
Posted in Articles, General Health, Longevity, Mens Health, Women's Health
How To Prevent Age Related Muscle Mass
Is a loss of strength, mobility, and functionality an inevitable part of aging? No, it’s not. It’s a consequence of disuse, suboptimal hormone levels, dietary and nutrient considerations and other variables, all of which are compounded by aging. One of the greatest threats to an aging adult’s ability to stay healthy and functional is the steady loss of lean body mass – muscle and bone in particular.
The medical term for the loss of muscle is sarcopenia, and it’s starting to get the recognition it deserves by the medical and scientific community. For decades, that community has focused on the loss of bone mass (osteoporosis), but paid little attention to the loss of muscle mass commonly seen in aging populations. Sarcopenia is a serious healthcare and social problem that affects millions of aging adults. This is no exaggeration. As one researcher recently stated:
“Even before significant muscle wasting becomes apparent, ageing is associated with a slowing of movement and a gradual decline in muscle strength, factors that increase the risk of injury from sudden falls and the reliance of the frail elderly on assistance in accomplishing even basic tasks of independent living. Sarcopenia is recognized as one of the major public health problems now facing industrialized nations, and its effects are expected to place increasing demands on public healthcare systems worldwide” (Lynch, 2004)
Sarcopenia and osteoporosis are directly related conditions, one often following the other. Muscles generate the mechanical stress required to keep our bones healthy; when muscle activity is reduced it exacerbates the osteoporosis problem and a vicious circle is established, which accelerates the decline in health and functionality.
What defines sarcopenia from a clinical perspective? Sarcopenia is defined as the age-related loss of muscle mass, strength and functionality. Sarcopenia generally appears after age 40 and accelerates after the age of approximately 75. Although sarcopenia is mostly seen in physically inactive individuals, it is also commonly found in individuals who remain physically active throughout their lives. Thus, it’s clear that although physical activity is essential, physical inactivity is not the only contributing factor. Just as with osteoporosis, sarcopenia is a multifactorial process that may involve decreased hormone levels (in particular, GH, IGF-1, MGF, and testosterone), a lack of adequate protein and calories in the diet, oxidative stress, inflammatory processes, chronic, low level, diet-induced metabolic acidosis, as well as a loss of motor nerve cells.
A loss of muscle mass also has far ranging effects beyond the obvious loss of strength and functionality. Muscle is a metabolic reservoir. In times of emergency it produces the proteins and metabolites required for survival after a traumatic event. In practical terms, frail elderly people with decreased muscle mass often do not survive major surgeries or traumatic accidents, as they lack the metabolic reserves to supply their immune systems and other systems critical for recovery.
There is no single cause of sarcopenia, as there is no single cause for many human afflictions. To prevent and/or treat it, a multi-faceted approach must be taken, which involve hormonal factors, dietary factors, supplemental nutrients, and exercise.
Dietary considerations
The major dietary considerations that increase the risk of sarcopenia are: a lack of adequate protein, inadequate calorie intake, and low level, chronic, metabolic acidosis.
Although it’s generally believed the “average” American gets more protein then they require, the diets of older adults are often deficient. Compounding that are possible reductions in digestion and absorption of protein, with several studies concluding protein requirements for older adults are higher than for their younger counterparts (Young, 1990; Campbell et al., 1994; Campbell et al., 1996). These studies indicate that most older adults don’t get enough high quality protein to support and preserve their lean body mass.
There is an important caveat on increasing protein, which brings us to the topic of low level, diet-induced, metabolic acidosis. Typical Western diets are high in animal proteins and cereal grains, and low in fruits and vegetables. It’s been shown that such diets cause a low grade metabolic acidosis, which contributes to the decline in muscle and bone mass found in aging adults (Frassetto et al., 2001). One study found that by adding a buffering agent (potassium bicarbonate) to the diet of post-menopausal women the muscle wasting effects of a “normal” diet were prevented (Frassetto et al., 1997). The researchers concluded the use of the buffering agent was “… potentially sufficient to both prevent continuing age-related loss of muscle mass and restore previously accrued deficits.”
The take home lesson from this study is that – although older adults require adequate intakes of high quality proteins to maintain their muscle mass (as well as bone mass), it should come from a variety of sources and be accompanied by an increase in fruits and vegetables as well as a reduction of cereal grain-based foods. The use of supplemental buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate, although effective, does not replace fruits and vegetables for obvious reasons, but may be incorporated into a supplement regimen.
Hormonal considerations
As most are aware, with aging comes a general decline in many hormones, in particular, anabolic hormones such as Growth Hormone (GH), DHEA, and testosterone. In addition, researchers are looking at Insulin-like Growth factor one (IGF-1) and Mechano Growth factor (MGF) which are essential players in the hormonal milieu responsible for maintaining muscle mass as well as bone mass. Without adequate levels of these hormones, it’s essentially impossible to maintain lean body mass, regardless of diet or exercise.
It’s been shown, for example, that circulating GH declines dramatically with age. In old age, GH levels are only one-third of that in our teenage years. In addition, aging adults have a blunted GH response to exercise as well as reduced output of MGF (Hameed et al., 2003), which explains why older adults have a much more difficult time building muscle compared to their younger counterparts. However, when older adults are given GH, and then exposed to resistance exercise, their MGF response is markedly improved, as is their muscle mass (Hameed et al., 2004).
Another hormone essential for maintaining lean body mass is testosterone. Testosterone, especially when given to men low in this essential hormone, has a wide range of positive effects. One review looking at the use of testosterone in older men (Gruenewald et al., 2003) concluded:
“In healthy older men with low-normal to mildly decreased testosterone levels, testosterone supplementation increased lean body mass and decreased fat mass. Upper and lower body strength, functional performance, sexual functioning, and mood were improved or unchanged with testosterone replacement”
Contrary to popular belief, women also need testosterone! Although women produce less testosterone, it’s as essential to the health and well being of women as it is for men.
The above is a highly generalized summary and only the tip of the proverbial iceberg regarding various hormonal influences on sarcopenia. A full discussion on the role of hormones in sarcopenia is well beyond the scope of this article. Needless to state, yearly blood work after the age of 40 is essential to track your hormone levels, and if needed, to treat deficiencies via Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT). Private organizations like the Life Extension Foundation offer comprehensive hormone testing packages, or your doctor can order the tests. However, HRT is not for everyone and may be contraindicated in some cases. Regular monitoring is required, so it’s essential to consult with a medical professional versed in the use of HRT, such as an endocrinologist.
Nutrient considerations:
There are several supplemental nutrients that should be especially helpful for combating sarcopenia, both directly and indirectly. Supplements that have shown promise for combating sarcopenia are creatine, vitamin D, whey protein, acetyl-L-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate.
Creatine
The muscle atrophy found in older adults comes predominantly from a loss of fast twitch (FT) type II fibers which are recruited during high-intensity, anaerobic movements (e.g., weight lifting, sprinting, etc.). Interestingly, these are exactly the fibers creatine has the most profound effects on. Various studies find creatine given to older adults increases strength and lean body mass (Chrusch et al., 2001; Gotshalk et al., 2002; Brose et al., 2003). One group concluded:
“Creatine supplementation may be a useful therapeutic strategy for older adults to attenuate loss in muscle strength and performance of functional living tasks.”
Vitamin D
It’s well established that vitamin D plays an essential role in bone health. However, recent studies suggest it’s also essential for maintaining muscle mass in aging populations. In muscle, vitamin D is essential for preserving type II muscle fibers, which, as mentioned above, are the very muscle fibers that atrophy most in aging people. Adequate vitamin D intakes could help reduce the rates of both osteoporosis and sarcopenia found in aging people (Montero-Odasso et al., 2005) leading the author of one recent review on the topic of vitamin D’s effects on bone and muscle to conclude:
“In both cases (muscle and bone tissue) vitamin D plays an important role since the low levels of this vitamin seen in senior people may be associated to a deficit in bone formation and muscle function”
and
“We expect that these new considerations about the importance of vitamin D in the elderly will stimulate an innovative approach to the problem of falls and fractures which constitutes a significant burden to public health budgets worldwide.”
Whey protein
As previously mentioned, many older adults fail to get enough high quality protein in their diets. Whey has an exceptionally high biological value (BV), with anti-cancer and immune enhancing properties among its many uses. As a rule, higher biological value proteins are superior for maintaining muscle mass compared to lower quality proteins, which may be of particular importance to older individuals. Finally, data suggests “fast” digesting proteins such as whey may be superior to other proteins for preserving lean body mass in older individuals (Dangin et al., 2002).
Additional Nutrients of interest
There are several additional nutrients worth considering when developing a comprehensive supplement regimen designed to prevent and or treat sarcopenia. In no particular order, they are: fish oils (EPA/DHA), acetyl-l-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate. There is good scientific reason to believe they would be beneficial for combating sarcopenia, but data specific to sarcopenia is lacking. For example, EPA/DHA has been found to preserve muscle mass (e.g. is anti-catabolic) under a wide range of physiological conditions. The anti-inflammatory effects of fish oils would also lead one to believe they should be of value in the prevention or treatment of sarcopenia. In general, fish oils have so many health benefits, it makes sense to recommend them here.
Acetyl-l-carnitine also offers many health benefits to aging people, and data suggests it should be useful in combating this condition. More research specific to sarcopenia is needed however.
Glutamine is another nutrient that should be useful in an overall plan to combat sarcopenia. Finally, data does suggest strongly that bicarbonate and citrate buffering agents containing minerals such as potassium, magnesium, and calcium can reverse the metabolic acidosis caused by unbalanced western diets. However, I hesitate to recommend this particular strategy as it does not address the root cause, which is the diet itself. Much greater health benefits will result from improving the diet over simply adding in this supplement. In addition, there are potential problems that could result from excessive intake of buffer salts, such as hyperkalemia and formation of kidney stones.
Exercise Considerations
Exercise is the lynchpin to the previous sections. Without it, none of the above will be an effective method of preventing/treating sarcopenia. Exercise is the essential stimulus for systemwide release of various hormones such as GH, as well as local growth factors in tissue, such as MGF. Exercise is the stimulus that increases protein and bone synthesis, and exerts other effects that combat the loss of essential muscle and bone as we age. Exercise optimizes the effects of HRT, diet and supplements, so if you think you can sit on the couch and follow the above recommendations…think again.
Although any exercise is generally better then no exercise, all forms of exercise are not created equal. You will note, for example, many of the studies listed at the end of this article have titles like: “GH and resistance exercise” or “creatine effects combined with resistance exercise” and so on. Aerobic exercise is great for the cardiovascular system and helps keep body fat low, but when scientists or athletes want to increase lean mass, resistance training is always the method. Aerobics does not build muscle and is only mildly effective at preserving the lean body mass you already have. Thus, some form of resistance training (via weights, machines, bands, etc.) is essential for preserving or increasing muscle mass. The CDC report on resistance exercise for older adults summarizes it as:
“In addition to building muscles, strength training can promote mobility, improve health-related fitness, and strengthen bones.”
Combined with HRT (if indicated), dietary modifications, and the supplements listed above, dramatic improvements in lean body mass can be achieved at virtually any age, with improvements in strength, functionality into advanced age, and improvements in overall health and general well being.
Conclusion
Hopefully, the reader will appreciate that I have attempted to cover a huge amount of territory with this topic. Each sub-section (nutrition, hormones, etc.) could easily be its own article if not its own book. This means each section is a general overview vs. anything close to an exhaustive discussion. Below is guide to web sites that offer additional information regarding the topics covered in this article and should (hopefully!) help fill in any gaps. To summarize, to prevent or treat sarcopenia:
• Get adequate high quality proteins from a variety of sources as well as adequate calories. Avoid excessive animal protein and cereal grain intakes while increasing the intake of fruits and vegetables.
• Get regular blood work on all major hormones after the age of 40 and discuss with a medical professional if HRT is indicated.
• Add supplements such as: creatine, vitamin D, whey protein, acetyl-l-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate.
• Exercise regularly – with an emphasis on resistance training - a minimum of 3 times per week.
I’m going to conclude this article the way most people would start it, with the good news and the bad news. The bad news is, millions of people will suffer from a mostly avoidable loss of functionality and will become weak and frail as they age from a severe loss of muscle mass. The good news is that you don’t have to be one of those people. One thing is very clear: it’s far easier, cheaper, and more effective to prevent sarcopenia – or at least greatly slow its progression – than it is to treat it later in life. Studies have found, however, that it’s never too late to start – so don’t be discouraged if you are starting your sarcopenia fighting program later in life. People following my programs for either weight loss or weight gain (in the form of muscle…) will be following the proper guidelines for avoiding sarcopenia.
Additional information:
Info on diet induced metabolic acidosis, recommended foods and more info on the topic in general, see Dr. Berardi’s web site:
http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/bases.htm
Discussion on the importance of regular blood work:
It’s in your blood!
Friday, April 16, 2010
Will Brink on Weights for Women!
Why Women Need Weight Training!
It’s nice to see that in 2010 the mainstream media is finally starting to “get it” when it comes to the benefits of resistance training (weight training baby!) for women. I wrote an extensive commentary on the topic a while back, that debunked the myths and covered some of the science of why women specifically benefit from weight training. For example, some of the benefits listed were:
◦Enhanced bone modeling to increase bone strength and reduce the risk of osteoporosis
◦Stronger connective tissues to increase joint stability and help prevent injury
◦Increased functional strength for sports and daily activity
◦Increased lean body mass and decreased nonfunctional body fat
◦Higher metabolic rate because of an increase in muscle and a decrease in fat
◦Improved self-esteem and confidenceA recent piece in The Sydney Morning Herald called “Anti-ageing – get with the strength” attempted a more cosmetic approach to why women benefit from weight training, and then add in some of the more physical/medical benefits of weight training for women:
Skin treatments like Botox and retinol might be high profile anti-agers, but they don’t tackle the pointy end of ageing that’s tucked away in nursing homes – the muscle wasting that leads to Zimmer frames and loss of independence. It’s not just the wrinkling of the outer skin that makes a 60 or 70 year old body look older than that of a 30-something. It’s also what’s happening to the stuffing inside – when muscles start shrinking, bodies sag and posture droops. This doesn’t just affect how a body looks, but how it functions – ever-weakening muscles make it harder to get up the stairs or out of your chair.
That’s the bad news. The good news is there’s an antidote – strength training. It was great to hear Professor Hal Kendig, head of the ageing, work and health unit at the University of Sydney, spruiking strength training in the Sydney Morning Herald last week when he said that if older women want to stay out of nursing homes, they should lift weights. He’s right. But wouldn’t it be better still if women got the strength message earlier, say, in their 40s when creeping muscle loss begins? It’s not like men don’t need this message too – they do. But women need it more because they generally have less muscle to begin with and get frailer faster than men. Women also put less value on strength. If you were to guess which physical feature would be high on most women’s wish lists, you can bet strong muscles wouldn’t be up there. All our lives we learn we need good hair, good skin, good boobs and good legs, but strength? Not really our department.
Yet muscle is a real asset and building it has anti-ageing benefits for women, in how they look and how they function. Let’s count the ways.
Regular strength training helps your body look younger. It fights the sagging, ageing effect of dwindling muscle and gravity, and makes it easier to stay at a healthy weight. Cardio exercise is important too for both general health and weight management, but it can’t boost muscle in the same way as strength training so you need a combination of both. And it’s a myth that working out with weights makes women bulky – women don’t produce enough of the male hormone testosterone to grow muscles like a man.
Strong muscles make you less accident prone. We hear a lot about preventing osteoporosis, but hands up who’s heard of sarcopenia? It’s the medical term for loss of muscle and preventing it is as important as preserving bone. After all, it’s the unsteadiness caused by dwindling muscle strength that leads to falls – that lead to fractures.
Regular strength training helps prevent diabetes. To get the link between muscle and diabetes, it helps to know that muscles soak up blood sugar to use as fuel, The more muscle you have, the more blood sugar they take up and the lower the risk of high blood sugar levels that lead to diabetes.
Stronger muscles give you more energy. How’s this for sad news? A study of 34 to 58-year old women by the University of Michigan found that those who’d lost around 2.5 kilos of lean muscle walked more slowly and had less strength in their leg muscles. These women were hardly ancient, yet muscle loss was already eroding their strength.
The Brink Bottom Line: Well, the above is at least a step in the right direction in that it pushes the benefits of weight training for women. That’s a good thing. Readers will note the mention of sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass. I have a full article on that topic for those interested in the details there. Although resistance training is a key player in preventing sarcopenia, it’s far more complicated then the above article would suggest. I’m happy to see weight training/resistance training is slowly but surely not being seen as a “manly” activity and the media getting with the program. Might take another 50 years until they figure out aerobics is overrated (read is close to worthless…), but that’s another blog…
It’s nice to see that in 2010 the mainstream media is finally starting to “get it” when it comes to the benefits of resistance training (weight training baby!) for women. I wrote an extensive commentary on the topic a while back, that debunked the myths and covered some of the science of why women specifically benefit from weight training. For example, some of the benefits listed were:
◦Enhanced bone modeling to increase bone strength and reduce the risk of osteoporosis
◦Stronger connective tissues to increase joint stability and help prevent injury
◦Increased functional strength for sports and daily activity
◦Increased lean body mass and decreased nonfunctional body fat
◦Higher metabolic rate because of an increase in muscle and a decrease in fat
◦Improved self-esteem and confidenceA recent piece in The Sydney Morning Herald called “Anti-ageing – get with the strength” attempted a more cosmetic approach to why women benefit from weight training, and then add in some of the more physical/medical benefits of weight training for women:
Skin treatments like Botox and retinol might be high profile anti-agers, but they don’t tackle the pointy end of ageing that’s tucked away in nursing homes – the muscle wasting that leads to Zimmer frames and loss of independence. It’s not just the wrinkling of the outer skin that makes a 60 or 70 year old body look older than that of a 30-something. It’s also what’s happening to the stuffing inside – when muscles start shrinking, bodies sag and posture droops. This doesn’t just affect how a body looks, but how it functions – ever-weakening muscles make it harder to get up the stairs or out of your chair.
That’s the bad news. The good news is there’s an antidote – strength training. It was great to hear Professor Hal Kendig, head of the ageing, work and health unit at the University of Sydney, spruiking strength training in the Sydney Morning Herald last week when he said that if older women want to stay out of nursing homes, they should lift weights. He’s right. But wouldn’t it be better still if women got the strength message earlier, say, in their 40s when creeping muscle loss begins? It’s not like men don’t need this message too – they do. But women need it more because they generally have less muscle to begin with and get frailer faster than men. Women also put less value on strength. If you were to guess which physical feature would be high on most women’s wish lists, you can bet strong muscles wouldn’t be up there. All our lives we learn we need good hair, good skin, good boobs and good legs, but strength? Not really our department.
Yet muscle is a real asset and building it has anti-ageing benefits for women, in how they look and how they function. Let’s count the ways.
Regular strength training helps your body look younger. It fights the sagging, ageing effect of dwindling muscle and gravity, and makes it easier to stay at a healthy weight. Cardio exercise is important too for both general health and weight management, but it can’t boost muscle in the same way as strength training so you need a combination of both. And it’s a myth that working out with weights makes women bulky – women don’t produce enough of the male hormone testosterone to grow muscles like a man.
Strong muscles make you less accident prone. We hear a lot about preventing osteoporosis, but hands up who’s heard of sarcopenia? It’s the medical term for loss of muscle and preventing it is as important as preserving bone. After all, it’s the unsteadiness caused by dwindling muscle strength that leads to falls – that lead to fractures.
Regular strength training helps prevent diabetes. To get the link between muscle and diabetes, it helps to know that muscles soak up blood sugar to use as fuel, The more muscle you have, the more blood sugar they take up and the lower the risk of high blood sugar levels that lead to diabetes.
Stronger muscles give you more energy. How’s this for sad news? A study of 34 to 58-year old women by the University of Michigan found that those who’d lost around 2.5 kilos of lean muscle walked more slowly and had less strength in their leg muscles. These women were hardly ancient, yet muscle loss was already eroding their strength.
The Brink Bottom Line: Well, the above is at least a step in the right direction in that it pushes the benefits of weight training for women. That’s a good thing. Readers will note the mention of sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass. I have a full article on that topic for those interested in the details there. Although resistance training is a key player in preventing sarcopenia, it’s far more complicated then the above article would suggest. I’m happy to see weight training/resistance training is slowly but surely not being seen as a “manly” activity and the media getting with the program. Might take another 50 years until they figure out aerobics is overrated (read is close to worthless…), but that’s another blog…
High Intensity Interval Training+
Here's a new post from Tom Venuto's website.
New HIIT Research: A Practical Model For High Intensity Interval Training
Tom Venuto
High intensity interval training, also known as HIIT, has become immensely popular in the last decade. HIIT involves alternating brief bursts of very high intensity exercise (work intervals) with brief segments of lower intensity exercise (recovery intervals). One problem with some types of HIIT is that they call for such high intensity bursts - literally all out sprints - that they’re not practical for everyone, and possibly not even safe for older or overweight individuals. A new study out of McMaster University has tested a protocol for HIIT that produces impressive results in a short period of time without the need for “all-out” sprints…
Many of the previous studies on HIIT used ALL-OUT intervals on a specialized cycle ergometer, pedaling against a high resistance.
This type of training takes a high level of commitment and motivation and can result in feelings of severe discomfort and even nausea.
One of my colleagues mentioned in our Burn the Fat Forums that he remembers exercise physiology class in college where they did all out cycle ergometer interval sprint testing and nearly everyone either puked or passed out.
The Tabata protocol for example, is a brief but brutal 4 minute HIIT workout often spoken of by trainers and trainees alike with both appreciation and dread. It’s no walk in the park.
The truth is, some HIIT protocols which have been tested in the lab to produce big improvements in cardiovascular function and conditioning in a short period of time, may not be practical or safe, especially for beginners, obese or older adults.
In this new study out of McMaster University, a HIIT protocol that was more practical and attainable for the general population was tested to see how the results would compare to the more “brutal” very short, but extremely intense types of HIIT.
Here’s what the new HIIT protocol looked like:
Study duration: 2 weeks
Frequency: 3 sessions per week (mon, wed, fri)
Work intervals: 60 seconds @ constant load
Recovery intervals: 75 seconds
Rounds: 8-12 intervals
Progression: 8 intervals 1st two workouts, 10 intervals second two workouts, 12 intervals last 2 workouts.
Warm up: 3 min:
Duration of work intervals: 8-12 minutes
Total time spent: 21-29 minutes.
Results: In just 2 weeks, there were significant improvements in functional exercise performance and skeletal muscle adaptations (mitochondrial biogenesis). Subjects did not report any dizziness, nausea, light headedness that is often reported with all-out intervals.
They concluded that HIIT does not have to be all-out to produce significant fitness improvements and yet the total weekly time investment could remain under 1 hour.
On a personal note, I REALLY like this kind of interval training: 60 second work intervals repeated 8-12 times. Here’s why:
Body composition was not measured in this study, but I believe that enough energy expenditure can be achieved with 20-30 minutes of this style of interval training to make significant body comp improvements in addition to all the cardiovascular conditioning improvements.
That’s another problem with super-brief and super intense HIIT programs: The cardio and heart benefits are amazing, but you can only burn so many calories per minute, no matter how intensely you work. To call a 4-minute workout a “good fat burner” in the absolute sense is ridiculous.
Somewhere in between long duration slow/moderate steady state cardio and super short super-intense HIIT lies a sweet spot for fat-burning benefits… a place where intensity X duration yield an optimal total calorie expenditure at a reasonable time investment. Perhaps this 20-30 minute HIIT workout is it?
If you’ve read any of my previous posts on cardio, you’ll know that I’m not against steady state cardio, walking or even light recreational exercise and miscellaneous activity as part of a fat loss program. All activity counts towards your total daily energy expenditure, and in fact, the little things often add up during the day more than you would imagine (just look up N.E.A.T. and see what you find).
But for your formal “cardio training” sessions, if you’re going to use traditional cardio modes (stationary cycle, etc) and if your goal includes fat burning, and if your time is limited, this type of HIIT is a great choice and you can now say it is research proven…
Not to mention… the excuse, “I don’t have enough time” has been officially busted!
Reference:
A practical model of low-volume high-intensity interval training induces mitochondrial biogenesis in human skeletal muscle: potential mechanisms. Little JP, Safdar A, Wilkin GP, Tarnopolsky MA, Gibala MJ. J Physiol. 2010 Mar 15;588(Pt 6):1011-22. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada [Pub Med]
New HIIT Research: A Practical Model For High Intensity Interval Training
Tom Venuto
High intensity interval training, also known as HIIT, has become immensely popular in the last decade. HIIT involves alternating brief bursts of very high intensity exercise (work intervals) with brief segments of lower intensity exercise (recovery intervals). One problem with some types of HIIT is that they call for such high intensity bursts - literally all out sprints - that they’re not practical for everyone, and possibly not even safe for older or overweight individuals. A new study out of McMaster University has tested a protocol for HIIT that produces impressive results in a short period of time without the need for “all-out” sprints…
Many of the previous studies on HIIT used ALL-OUT intervals on a specialized cycle ergometer, pedaling against a high resistance.
This type of training takes a high level of commitment and motivation and can result in feelings of severe discomfort and even nausea.
One of my colleagues mentioned in our Burn the Fat Forums that he remembers exercise physiology class in college where they did all out cycle ergometer interval sprint testing and nearly everyone either puked or passed out.
The Tabata protocol for example, is a brief but brutal 4 minute HIIT workout often spoken of by trainers and trainees alike with both appreciation and dread. It’s no walk in the park.
The truth is, some HIIT protocols which have been tested in the lab to produce big improvements in cardiovascular function and conditioning in a short period of time, may not be practical or safe, especially for beginners, obese or older adults.
In this new study out of McMaster University, a HIIT protocol that was more practical and attainable for the general population was tested to see how the results would compare to the more “brutal” very short, but extremely intense types of HIIT.
Here’s what the new HIIT protocol looked like:
Study duration: 2 weeks
Frequency: 3 sessions per week (mon, wed, fri)
Work intervals: 60 seconds @ constant load
Recovery intervals: 75 seconds
Rounds: 8-12 intervals
Progression: 8 intervals 1st two workouts, 10 intervals second two workouts, 12 intervals last 2 workouts.
Warm up: 3 min:
Duration of work intervals: 8-12 minutes
Total time spent: 21-29 minutes.
Results: In just 2 weeks, there were significant improvements in functional exercise performance and skeletal muscle adaptations (mitochondrial biogenesis). Subjects did not report any dizziness, nausea, light headedness that is often reported with all-out intervals.
They concluded that HIIT does not have to be all-out to produce significant fitness improvements and yet the total weekly time investment could remain under 1 hour.
On a personal note, I REALLY like this kind of interval training: 60 second work intervals repeated 8-12 times. Here’s why:
Body composition was not measured in this study, but I believe that enough energy expenditure can be achieved with 20-30 minutes of this style of interval training to make significant body comp improvements in addition to all the cardiovascular conditioning improvements.
That’s another problem with super-brief and super intense HIIT programs: The cardio and heart benefits are amazing, but you can only burn so many calories per minute, no matter how intensely you work. To call a 4-minute workout a “good fat burner” in the absolute sense is ridiculous.
Somewhere in between long duration slow/moderate steady state cardio and super short super-intense HIIT lies a sweet spot for fat-burning benefits… a place where intensity X duration yield an optimal total calorie expenditure at a reasonable time investment. Perhaps this 20-30 minute HIIT workout is it?
If you’ve read any of my previous posts on cardio, you’ll know that I’m not against steady state cardio, walking or even light recreational exercise and miscellaneous activity as part of a fat loss program. All activity counts towards your total daily energy expenditure, and in fact, the little things often add up during the day more than you would imagine (just look up N.E.A.T. and see what you find).
But for your formal “cardio training” sessions, if you’re going to use traditional cardio modes (stationary cycle, etc) and if your goal includes fat burning, and if your time is limited, this type of HIIT is a great choice and you can now say it is research proven…
Not to mention… the excuse, “I don’t have enough time” has been officially busted!
Reference:
A practical model of low-volume high-intensity interval training induces mitochondrial biogenesis in human skeletal muscle: potential mechanisms. Little JP, Safdar A, Wilkin GP, Tarnopolsky MA, Gibala MJ. J Physiol. 2010 Mar 15;588(Pt 6):1011-22. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada [Pub Med]
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Weight loss without dietary intervention
This was from an E-mail I received, it's nice to see studies that validate what we already know from experience. Diet makes the exercise work!
Make sure you read this ENTIRE email to see how average people
who workout 5 HOURS a week ONLY lost 1.5 lbs in 12 weeks!
==================================================
from Dr. John...
Sean, let me put this bluntly: exercise ALONE doesn't really work all
that well. Especially when looking at body composition related outcomes,
like fat loss, for example - far and away the most important outcome your
clients are asking for help with.
Now, this isn't just something I'm throwing out there.
Several recent studies, including one done at the University of Texas and
another done at the University of Oklahoma, have shown pretty conclusively
that in the absence of a sound nutrition intervention, exercise produces pretty
disappointing results.
Let's take a look at the data.
In this first investigation, done at the University of Texas, two sedentary
groups of people were studied. The first group of 50 was considered the
control group. And they simply remained sedentary for the entire 12 week study.
The second group of 50 was considered the exercise group. And this group
worked with a trainer to perform 3 strength and 2 interval training sessions
per week - about 5 total hours of exercise.
Both groups were instructed to keep their diets the same. And data analysis
showed that at the beginning and at the end of the study, their diets hadn't
changed at all.
What did the researchers find?
Well, although the exercise group did lose statistically more fat than the control
group, the total amount of fat lost in the exercise group was a mere 1.5lbs!
So, in this study, if these 50 people would have hired personal trainers, they
would have spent about 60 hours and 3-4 thousand dollars to lose a mere 1.5lbs
of fat. That's not good.
Now let's look at the Oklahoma study.
In this investigation, two additional groups were studied. The first group of 10 was
considered the control group. And they simply remained sedentary for the 10 week
study.
The second group of 14 was considered the exercise group. And this group worked
with a trainer to perform 2 strength and 3 steady state cardio training sessions
per week - about 5 total hours of exercise.
Both groups were instructed to keep their diets the same. And data analysis showed
that at the beginning and at the end of the study, their diets hadn't changed at all.
What did the researchers find here?
Well, although the exercise group did lose statistically more fat than the control group,
the total amount of fat lost in the exercise group was just 1.5lbs - same as the Texas study.
So, in this study, just like the last, these 14 people would have hired personal trainers,
they would have spent about 50 hours and 3-4 thousand dollars to lose just 1.5lbs of fat.
I could go on all day citing research showing that exercise alone - without a nutrition
intervention - isn't all that effective at helping your client achieve the #1 goal they're after.
==================================================
WOW! Even I was shocked that without following a proper nutrition system
people only lost 1.5 of fat after busting their butts exercising for 5 hours a week!
Make sure you read this ENTIRE email to see how average people
who workout 5 HOURS a week ONLY lost 1.5 lbs in 12 weeks!
==================================================
from Dr. John...
Sean, let me put this bluntly: exercise ALONE doesn't really work all
that well. Especially when looking at body composition related outcomes,
like fat loss, for example - far and away the most important outcome your
clients are asking for help with.
Now, this isn't just something I'm throwing out there.
Several recent studies, including one done at the University of Texas and
another done at the University of Oklahoma, have shown pretty conclusively
that in the absence of a sound nutrition intervention, exercise produces pretty
disappointing results.
Let's take a look at the data.
In this first investigation, done at the University of Texas, two sedentary
groups of people were studied. The first group of 50 was considered the
control group. And they simply remained sedentary for the entire 12 week study.
The second group of 50 was considered the exercise group. And this group
worked with a trainer to perform 3 strength and 2 interval training sessions
per week - about 5 total hours of exercise.
Both groups were instructed to keep their diets the same. And data analysis
showed that at the beginning and at the end of the study, their diets hadn't
changed at all.
What did the researchers find?
Well, although the exercise group did lose statistically more fat than the control
group, the total amount of fat lost in the exercise group was a mere 1.5lbs!
So, in this study, if these 50 people would have hired personal trainers, they
would have spent about 60 hours and 3-4 thousand dollars to lose a mere 1.5lbs
of fat. That's not good.
Now let's look at the Oklahoma study.
In this investigation, two additional groups were studied. The first group of 10 was
considered the control group. And they simply remained sedentary for the 10 week
study.
The second group of 14 was considered the exercise group. And this group worked
with a trainer to perform 2 strength and 3 steady state cardio training sessions
per week - about 5 total hours of exercise.
Both groups were instructed to keep their diets the same. And data analysis showed
that at the beginning and at the end of the study, their diets hadn't changed at all.
What did the researchers find here?
Well, although the exercise group did lose statistically more fat than the control group,
the total amount of fat lost in the exercise group was just 1.5lbs - same as the Texas study.
So, in this study, just like the last, these 14 people would have hired personal trainers,
they would have spent about 50 hours and 3-4 thousand dollars to lose just 1.5lbs of fat.
I could go on all day citing research showing that exercise alone - without a nutrition
intervention - isn't all that effective at helping your client achieve the #1 goal they're after.
==================================================
WOW! Even I was shocked that without following a proper nutrition system
people only lost 1.5 of fat after busting their butts exercising for 5 hours a week!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Eggs for Easter!
Here's some info on good old eggs, although not as good as the eggs I eat.
http://www.burnthefat.com/eat_the_egg_yolk_or_just_the_egg_white.html
http://www.burnthefat.com/eat_the_egg_yolk_or_just_the_egg_white.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
