8/12 sec. intervals triple fat burning?

[cityeast]

news.com.au

A REVOLUTION in weight loss is about to hit Australia after scientists devised a workout that burns three times the amount of fat.

They found their specific brand of interval training prompts the body to click into a metabolic response that allows more fat to be burned under the skin and within the muscles.

Researchers at the University of NSW and the Garvan Institute studied 45 overweight women over 15 weeks, putting them through a 20 minute cycling regime in which they sprinted on a stationary bike for eight seconds followed by 12 seconds of cycling lightly.

"They lost three times more weight as other women who exercised at a continuous, regular pace for 40 minutes," UNSW Associate Professor Steve Boutcher said.

Their success was due to higher amounts of chemical compounds called catecholamines that are produced in increasing amounts when linked to interval sprinting; the resulting chemical reaction drives greater weight loss.

The scientists believe the regime would also be applicable to swimming, walking, running and rowing.

Professor Boutcher said other types of interval training use longer interludes which are not as effective for overweight people and said the current government recommendations for exercise are largely ineffectual.

"Walking for 60 minutes, seven times a week does not result in much fat loss, usually 1.15kg over 15 weeks – for a lot of overweight people this is going to be a revolution," he said.

The scientists found their method could "spot reduce" troublesome areas such as legs and buttocks.

The system will be useful to diabetics, as "insulin resistance was dragged down by about 32 per cent".

The findings were welcomed by Bondi local Kim Broderick, 21.

"I try to run or walk but if this system works better it's great."

The scientists are now ready for the next phase of the study which controls food and exercise plans.

"We hope to find even more loss in fat," Professor Boutcher said.

The trial will put participants through the interval training while placing them on a Mediterranean diet of fresh food as well as daily fish oil capsules, which helps burn fat more efficiently.

Anyone else think this could be adapted to rowing? Maybe as follows:

4 hard strokes 28-30spm,
4 easy strokes 20-22spm

[johnlvs2run]

I did the following session on 10-30-02, three days before my 10k PB:

2k warmup @ 2:08 / drag factor 87 / 8 meters per stroke
8k 40x 100/100 @ 1:53.2 faster ones / 2:09.9 overall / no straps
8k 40x 100/100 @ 1:52.4 faster ones / 2:08.9 overall
4x 250, starts on 1:45 @ 1:47.6 / straps
4x 250, starts on 1:45 @ 1:46.0

Working this out by time, the faster 100's were 22.6s and the slower ones were 29.2s.

This was done with the pm2 monitor, and cannot be done on the pm3 as it limits to 30 repetitions or splits.

[cityeast]

I assuming this study is focused on people with relatively low levels of fitness. I mean, 8/12 sec. intervals would hardly register with most fit people as even being intervals.

I am wondering if this study has examined the possibility that longer intervals are required as peoples fitness increase.

Having said that, it does show intervals are very beneficial for weight loss, as opposed to steady pace.

[johnlvs2run]

"Walking for 60 minutes, seven times a week does not result in much fat loss, usually 1.15kg over 15 weeks – for a lot of overweight people this is going to be a revolution," he said.

Their conclusions are nonsense.

Walking and gardening are among the very best exercises.

I know of a woman who lost 80 pounds with walking and another who lost 50. She looks like an athletic superstar now and no one would ever guess she had been overweight.

The study doesn't say if the intensities and other variables were held constant, the only difference being the intervals vs steady and length of time of the sessions. I am highly skeptical of their results to the point that I don't believe them or else they used faulty protocols.

On the other hand it looks like their aim was to lose more than 2 pounds over 15 weeks. These shows on tv where they have 400 pounders lose 3 or 4 pounds in a week just demonstrate they don't know what they're doing. It is not necessary to trash themselves every day to lose weight, and it's actually counterproductive.

Yes I agree with you that as fitness improves the sessions and length of intervals (repetitions) can be lengthed. On the other hand, even beginners can exercise for a long time with great benefits, as long as they keep the efforts within themselves and don't do anything foolish, as is suggested in the study. Consistency is the key.

[funnyfidel]

Dear John
You once again prove yourself to be an ignorant halfwitted idiot. You confuse anectdotal evidence with research and once again cannot differentiate between what is reported in the media and what is written in scientific journals. Why don't you just shut the hell up you stupid little man, do you really think you know better than scientists? When did you get your Ph.D. you stupid stupid ignorant fool. JUST SHUT UP!

[Alissa]

Dear John
You once again prove yourself to be an ignorant halfwitted idiot. You confuse anectdotal evidence with research and once again cannot differentiate between what is reported in the media and what is written in scientific journals. Why don't you just shut the hell up you stupid little man, do you really think you know better than scientists? When did you get your Ph.D. you stupid stupid ignorant fool. JUST SHUT UP!

funnyfidel, John's posts don't bother me in the least, because I almost never see them. You can arrange for exactly that result (from your point of view, at least). Just click the "ignore" button in the corner of one of his posts, confirm that you mean it and thereafter you'll get a line where he's posted that:

"You have added this person to your Ignore List. Click HERE to view this post."

I almost never choose to view it. But I can if from the comments of others it seems it might be interesting.

HTH,

Alissa

[rtmmtl]

Dear John
You once again prove yourself to be an ignorant halfwitted idiot. You confuse anectdotal evidence with research and once again cannot differentiate between what is reported in the media and what is written in scientific journals. Why don't you just shut the hell up you stupid little man, do you really think you know better than scientists? When did you get your Ph.D. you stupid stupid ignorant fool. JUST SHUT UP!

Not bad for your first post!

But a suggestion funnyfidel, if you have something to say just come out and say it--don't beat around the bush--do not be shy.

[michaeln]

I rather doubt that's his first post. First post under that name, yes, but clearly he has some history here.

[Widgeon]

funnyfidel, please don't revert the forum into a series of unpleasant flame-fests. Many of us have lived through those days, and don't wish to return to the name calling.

You must have some excellent knowledge on the subject, all of us could benefit from a serious discussion of the merits of this research. If you have some expertise in this area, I would sincerely love to know your thoughts. I am always trying to learn more and do things which can improve my health and performance. ( I also would rather not end up a stupid stupid ignorant fool ).

I must agree with Mr. Rupp in that is seems like too much high intensity training without sufficiant recovery time seems risky for injury production; however the tabata protocol study did essentially that and demonstrated phenomenal gains in both aerobic and anaerobic capacity.

My understanding is that acetylCoA groups are most effeciently mobalized and burned under aerobic conditions (krebs cycle and electron transport chain), and that anaerobic (pyruvate/lactate pathway) requires glucose as the substraight. There seems to be controversy as to aerobic training for best fat burning, or, as the propnents of interval training suggest, more fat loss due to overall longterm increase in metabolic rate following the exersize produced by the higher intensity training.

funnyfidel, I would appreciate your ideas and insight into this topic. It is a topic worthy of indepth discussion, anything you can add would certainly assist me in deciding to alter my training routine.

In Mr. Rupps' defense: I certainly remember the days in which I would cringe at the content of his posts. He has done a remarkable job of turning that around and bringing valuable insight and ideas to the forum in a constructive manner, he is to be commended in that regard. I personally find his insight helpful, and am grateful that he is willing to share his knowledge and experience. It is true that he approaches things from an alternative view in many respects, but we are all entitled to our opinions, and without that we would not create discussion. Mr. Rupp is actually doing what a scientist would do: questioning information he has received; in a search for accuracy of information. Many scientific and medical advances occured because of observations by untrained individuals (eg: use of digitalis in congestive heart failure, started because a woman had great success treating "dropsy" with foxglove tea; far better than the doctors at that time).

Alissa also offers a good suggestion in using the ignore button.

Cheers, Pam

[Bob S.]

funnyfidel, please don't revert the forum into a series of unpleasant flame-fests. Many of us have lived through those days, and don't wish to return to the name calling.
Pam

Great post, Pam. I agree wholeheartedly — not just with the short quote above, but with the entire message.

Bob S.

[Widgeon]

michealn, you are correct, not a first post for the individual, who clearly has some history and a personal vandetta. After looking back and seeing 1 post and todays date for joining, I feel a bit silly for having taken them seriously. Guess we won't be gleaning any useful insight from that bloke.

I'm a bit new to forums, and so I guess I've learned something here! One step on my quest away from being a "stupid stupid ignorant fool".

Thanks michealn!

Pam

[TurboCog]

funnyfidel, please don't revert the forum into a series of unpleasant flame-fests. Many of us have lived through those days, and don't wish to return to the name calling.
Pam

Great post, Pam. I agree wholeheartedly — not just with the short quote above, but with the entire message.

Bob S.

It's a pleasure to read these posts I've just started to use this fine forum again but must confess that the rude posting by funnfidel really put me off. I wandered if it was just me being 'English', but obviously not.
I too thought that John Rupps post was worthy of serious consideration.
My faith in the forum is restored - thankyou.

[DavidA]

I would also like say that I agree and appreciate Pam and Bob S.'s posts, as well as the tone of John's post lately.

David

[funnyfidel]

Sorry if I offended you TurboCog, I guess Aussies are apt to do that to Poms. Yes I have been a member of the forum for quite a few years, mostly reading and sometimes contributing. However, a change of computer and loss of passwords meant I did have to open a new account.

Regarding my previous response: I am a scientist and I do get quite upset when ignorant fools write off research based upon a newspaper report. Ruup has done this previously and I have also had a go at him, funnily enough it also concerned an Australian scientist.

My response was prompted by a persons' blatant ignorance to write-off a study without in fact reading the peer reviewed journal article.
Prof Boucher's selected publication are published in peer reviewed journals.

My beef is twofold:
First: Research cannot be written off as "Their conclusions are nonsense." without actually reading the scientist's actual conclusions and not a media release. Furthermore, the statement made by Prof Boutcher to prompt this response from Ruup was not a conclusion but an actual statement of observation.

Secondly: Science understands that a population shows variation and that is why significance levels (as in p<0.05) are set to ensure that significant effect are not due solely to chance but are actual statistically significant effects. However, an anecdotal observation of two people is not a statistically significant population to refute any study.

Now to write-off such research based upon an anecdotal observation is akin to the persecution that Galileo received when he described the sun as being the centre of the solar system. If we allow ignorance for the facts to cloud our judgment and condemn anything new then our future is surely doomed. So sure object, but object on factual research, not on a couple of anecdotal cases out of 5 billion.

I will always defend a well planned, controlled study over a stupid ignorant fool's shortsighted response. Respond, with facts not absurdity. I am sorry if my comments offended, but until proven otherwise the study has proved the effect of interval exercise upon weight loss, and I will always defend these observations over ignorance.
Dr Stuart Gunzburg BSc(Hons), PhD, MBA

[TurboCog]

OK Doc - I understand your position on this. It is unfortunate that your first post was a personal attack on another forum member - maybe a more scientific response would have been more usefull?

ps - I'm out in Oz in a few weeks time - we'll see how thick my skin is them Must find the Hotels with C2's or nearby gyms.