So it's been a while. Sorry for the delay. I hope everyone had an excellent new year. I was very much under the weather...attempting to battle a tag-teaming virus and bacteria. After a brutal week of not being able to eat...and losing 15 lbs...I'm finally back to "normal."
I've been bouncing this blog's topic around in my head for a few weeks, and finally decided to start from the beginning. By that...I mean a proper warm-up. I was taught, from a very young age, that before you exercise...you must warm up. That meant a lot of static stretching. Each stretch was held for at least 30 seconds, hitting all the major muscle groups. It didn't matter what the activity to follow was going to be...lifting, running, basketball, etc...you had to stretch, right? Maybe the warm-up included some jogging or a few minutes on the eliptical machine...but not too long, and not too intense...I mean, you don't want to waste your energy on the warm-up.
In my opinion, all that "traditional" stuff needs to go. We all should have more common sense than that. I mean seriously, does it make sense to do a 5 minute stretch session (low intensity) followed by 3-5 slow minutes on an eliptical (low intensity)..and then throw as much weight on the bench as we can possibly lift (high intensity)? I would argue that there is a better way to prepare for physical activity. I believe a dynamic warm-up is a better way to prepare the entire body for physical activity.
What is the point of the warm up?
Well...if the goal of the warm-up is to adequately prepare you for the stress of exercise...we need to evaluate our warm-up.
What is the difference between a static stretching (traditional) warm-up and a dynamic stretching warm-up? Lets see what the body of literature says.
A study performed at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, by D.J. McMillian, J.H. Moore, B.S. Hatler, and D.C. Taylor compared the outcomes of a traditional "static" warm-up, no warm-up, and a "dynamic" warm-up prior to 3 tests of power and agility (T-shuttle run for time, underhand medicine ball throw for distance, and 5 step jump for distance). The testing, which occurred over 3 consecutive days so that each participant in the study was tested after random assignment to each type of warm up, yielded significantly clear results. Across the board, the dynamic warm-up resulted in significantly greater performance outcomes for each of the 3 tests when compared to a static warm-up or no warm-up. The authors of this study, therefore, suggest that due to the performance outcomes of a dynamic warm-up, a traditional "stand-alone" static warm-up prior to physical activity should be reassessed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16937960
A study looking at the specific effects of static stretching on peak torque (maximal force) production of the quadriceps sheds more light on the warm-up issue. T.A. Siatras, V.P. Mittas, D.N. Mameletzi, and E.A. Vamvakoudis measured knee flexion ROM as well as isometric and concentric isokinetic peak torque of the quadriceps muscle group before as well as after static stretching in 4 experimental groups (no stretching (control), stretching for 10 seconds, stretching for 20 seconds, stretching for 30 seconds, and stretching for 60 seconds). Though there was a significant increase in knee joint flexibility in the 30 second and 60 second stretching groups, these groups both also displayed a significant decrease in isometric peak torque and isokinetic peak torque. In other words...when static stretching is used to "loosen-up" prior to physical activity...the result is actually a reduction in the muscle's ability to generate power. That is not a very good trade-off if you ask me. The authors go on to suggest that static stretching held for 30 seconds or longer should NOT be performed prior to performances requiring maximal strength.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18296954
Another study involving the effects of static stretching duration on the muscle force production brings to light an important concept. J.P. Brandenburg conducted a study measuring 2 static stretching groups (15 seconds and 30 seconds) prior to hamstring performance during concentric, isometric, and eccentric muscle contractions. The results revealed a reduction in performance in each muscle contraction type in both groups. The author therefore concluded that regardless of duration of static stretching, even a very short stretch duration (15 seconds), there is a statistically significant decrease in muscle power production, and static stretching is consequently not appropriate as a warm-up prior to "strength activities".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17119516
So static stretching increases ROM prior to activity...but can cause reductions in power output. I know what you are thinking: "Dynamic stretching can result in better performance outcomes when compared to static stretching...but what effect does dynamic stretching have on ROM?" I'm glad you asked...because E.T. Perrier, M.J. Pavol, and M.A. Hoffman have an answer. In their study looking at the the differences between a static and dynamic warm-up on countermovement jump height, reaction time, and low-back and hamstring flexibility, the authors explain that though there was no significant difference between groups on reaction time, dynamic warm-up had a significantly greater performance outcome on countermovement jump height when compared to static warm-up. This is the cool part (in my opinion)...both static warm-up and dynamic warm-up had a statistically significant increase on the outcome of the flexibility test...with no statistical difference between the two groups. Meaning? Well...it means that a dynamic warm-up is just as effective as static stretching at increasing ROM...while having no detrimental effects on power output. That's a big deal! The authors recommend, therefore, based on the results of this study, that individuals participating in activities requiring lower extremity power should employ a dynamic warm-up to improve performance and simultaneously increasing flexibility. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21701282
Those are some specific examples...but what is the collective consensus on the static vs dynamic topic?
D.G. Behm and A. Chaouachi conducted a review of literature on the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching and performance outcomes. Though they explain that there are a large number of studies that show static stretch-induced decreases in performance prior to activity, there are also many studies that show no performance decreases associated with a static warm-up. The authors explain that these newer studies showing no performance decrements may be due to specifics in the study protocols such as: stopping the stretch before the point of discomfort, the specific choice of performance test measure, the amount of time the stretch is held, and the specific population used (elite athletes as opposed to trained middle age participants, for example). An interesting thing to note is that the authors state that there may be performance benefits to static stretching prior to activities that require "slower velocity eccentric contractions" and "contractions of a more prolonged duration or stretch-shortening cycle". To conclude, the authors recommend that static stretching be used as its own separate component (not prior to exercise) for the specific "health related range of motion benefits". Back to the issue of warm-up...the authors explain that in order to both enhance performance and minimize impairments, submaximal aerobic activity followed by "large amplitude" dynamic stretching and finally, if applicable, concluding with sport-specific dynamic movements and activities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21373870
So when it comes to preparation for physical activity...static stretching doesn't cut it. The takeaway:
- Static stretching...regardless of the duration...results in performance reductions
- Dynamic stretching is just as effective as static stretching at increasing flexibility and ROM prior to activity
- Dynamic warm-up results in increases in measures of athletic performance when compared to static warm-up
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not here to attack static stretching. There is most definitely a time and place for static stretching...I just don't think it has any place in preparation for physical activity. There are numerous health and flexibility benefits associated with this type of stretching. I recommend using this modality after exercise or activity is finished. My reasons for post activity static stretching may be a future post.
Before I finish up, I just wanted to mention that there are many exercise professionals, including physical therapists and strength and conditioning coaches who have been in this industry much longer than I have, who include static stretching into a warm-up. I can not speak for all of them, but I would assume some sort of dynamic movements are performed after the static stretching is used. While I was examining this warm-up philosophy...I found this interesting study, one worth examining, involving static stretching followed by dynamic movements prior to athletic activity. If static stretching is thought to be necessary prior to an athletic activity, K.L. Taylor, J.M. Sheppard, H. Lee, and N. Plummer explain in their study that the performance decrements associated with static stretching can be offset if it is immediately followed by a sport-specific warm-up component.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18768355
I try to include some sort of practical application in each blog post...but unless you already know what a dynamic warm-up entails...you may have to wait til the next post. So sorry! I'll go into what I do for my warm-up...and I may even have video examples. Exciting...I know.
Stay tuned!
KRK
P.S. I'm going to have guest blogs in the future. For now, however, I may include bits and pieces of conversations I've had with fitness colleagues about specific blog topics. Here is a piece my friend Lovell Thomas had to say regarding a proper warm-up:
"I believe your warmup should be based on the type of workout you are preparing for. So if you lift hard core I think the warmup should be pretty intense to get the muscles prepared to fire quickly. If you are just going to do a low intensity long distance run the warmup can be some static stretching and some active stretching to get the blood in the lower extremities flowing (adequate blood flow to the joints).
With resistance training I usually suggest warmup your body accordintg to what you plan to workout. If you are doing an upperbody routine, a few sets with very light weight incorporating the actual exercise(s) or motions that you plan to use can be sufficient. Add some rotator cuff work (a common weak point) before getting too intense. If a lower or full body workout is planned, then i suggest only active stretching with rotator cuff work along with warmup sets for the first few exercises. These warmup sets must be thorough and progressive to avoid injury. Now Kuhn correct me or feel free to interject but i always save static stretches for the end of resistance training workouts because I believe elongated and over stretched muscles are more prone to injuries due to ligaments and tendons having too much "give" and reducing power output. (could be wrong) But more so use post workout stretching to prevent intense muscle soreness aka DOMS baby!!!"
Monday, January 16, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Now that you're sick of turkey...
So sorry for the delay. I have been putting off finishing this...using the "finding a new car because my civic was totaled" excuse. That excuse has worn itself out.
I hope everyone had an awesome Thanksgiving. I was fortunate to visit family and friends I had not seen in ages. I've been asked by a few different people how hard (either by heart rate or rating of perceived exertion) they need to exercise to burn the most fat...especially after a 5000 calorie "meal" (estimated average Thanksgiving meal caloric intake). So the question is...to burn the most fat or to lose the most weight..."What is the ideal fat burning zone (IFBZ)?".
I have major issues with this question for a few specific reasons. Before I get into my objections to the "ideal fat burning zone", I'll go into some basics of bioenergetics.
In order for any muscle contraction to occur, energy must be freed from ATP (adenosine triphosphate). When one of the high energy phosphate bonds is broken from ATP, changing it to ADP (adenosine diphosphate), energy is freed up to allow muscle contraction to take place, and thus work can be done. There exists in each muscle cell a very limited supply of ATP (roughly enough for 10 seconds of maximal intensity exercise). Once this "fuel" is used up, the body can use 3 macronutrients to produce more ATP: carbohydrates, fats, and protein. I will focus primarily on the first two. At any given time, the body is using a percentage of carbs and fats to produce ATP through different metabolic mechanisms. The specific ratio of these two macronutrients is directly related to how intense the exercise is. The more intense the exercise, the higher the percentage of carbohydrates used to produce ATP. Conversely, the lower the intensity of exercise, the higher the percentage of fat used to produce ATP. Generally speaking, the higher the intensity of exercise, the shorter the duration of activity, and vice versa.
Individuals seeking to lose weight typically are not as concerned with the number of calories used, but the amount of fat they lose, as determined by their scale. Due to this, the traditional thinking is to focus on exercises that "burn" the most body fat. So...based on this premise...it makes sense that one should be doing low intensity exercise since this would result in a higher percentage of fats versus carbohydrates used to produce ATP. It is from this idea that the "ideal fat burning zone" has become so popular.
There are various equations and calculations, along with specific products, such as Newleaf, employed to figure out an individual's IFBZ. Since heart rate is closely linked to exercise intensity, this is the most common measure used to find the IFBZ. So...the IFBZ is the specific range (typically heart rate) at which the amount of fat, measured in calories, peaks. D.G. Carey explains this in his article, which can be viewed here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855335).
This seems like a great thing to know for someone wanting to lose weight...but I personally do not use this when training clients seeking to lose weight. I believe there are better ways to expend both total calories and the amount of fat "burned". Before I discuss what method I typically employ for weight loss, I'll explain why I don't think IFBZ isn't all it is cracked up to be.
The major problem I have with IFBZ is that maximal fat oxidation occurs around 54% of VO2 max, according to the D.G. Carey and the article cited earlier (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855335). According to Dr. Howard LeWine, this roughly equates to about 7-8 food calories burned per minute during exercise and typically matches up to about 70% of an individuals heart rate max (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35322/423294.html?d=dmtHMSContent). So...at the IFBZ...the amount of time necessary to burn a sufficient number of calories for legitimate body fat loss is...well...ALOT.
Before deeper investigation, I believed that the number of calories burned immediately following low intensity exercise and high intensity exercise were drastically different. Regardless of the type or intensity of exercise, the body uses primarily aerobic mechanisms (using fat as fuel) to return the body to a state of homeostasis, or recovery. The excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) required to bring the body back to homeostasis is directly related to the exercise intensity and duration. The higher the intensity, the more calories are required to bring the body to a "resting" level. However, the same is true regarding exercise duration. A study performed by J. Laforgia, R.T. Withers, and C.J. Gore has actually shown that the amount of calories burned due to EPOC when comparing high and low intensity exercise bouts, though the percentages were significantly different, were not practically significant (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101527). So basically regardless of exercise type...some fat calories will be used to return the body to "normal".
Sorry for that bit of a rabbit trail. Back to the point...
IFBZ is one way to elicit weight loss, however, I believe that high intensity interval training (HIIT) is a much more efficient way of achieving weight loss...and it provides a few other benefits as well!
HIIT has been used as a training tool for much longer than I've been alive, specifically for sports performance. It's effects on both athletic performance and weight loss have been researched, but its application to weight loss is only now becoming popular and a "buzz word" in the fitness industry. I'm not completely sure why this is, so I won't even begin to explain why. I will be a bit of a "prophet" and say it will be very much a fad in the fitness industry in the very near future. I'm calling it right now...HIIT is the next "step aerobics."
So what is HIIT exactly? Well, it is exactly that described by its name...High-intensity intervals. From a work to rest ratio stand point...it is on the other side of the spectrum with regards to traditional "weight-loss" aerobic exercise. Instead of a lower intensity "steady-state" cardio-type exercise bout, HIIT involves short, but very intense (perhaps even maximal effort) bouts of exercise paired with short rest intervals...typically to exhaustion.
The reason I prefer HIIT for weight loss comes from the outcome of multiple studies comparing the two forms of training. Just one example of this comes from a classic study conducted by A. Tremblay, J.A. Simoneau, and C. Bouchard at the Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory at Laval University in Quebec, Canada (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502). The study, executed all the way back in 1994 examined head to head 20 weeks of cardio (endurance training: 30-45 minutes of continuous cycling at 60-85% of heart rate reserve) versus 15 weeks of high intensity interval (they called it "intermittent": 10-15 bouts of 10-30 second intervals or 4-5 bouts of 30-90 second intervals with enough rest to return the heart rate to 120-130 bpm) training on measures of body fat (measured using skinfold calipers) and skeletal muscle metabolism (measured by levels of citric acid cycle markers, muscle glycolytic enzymes, and HADH). As one would assume, the endurance training resulted in over double the total calories burned during exercise when compared to HIIT...
BUT...
when it came to the skinfold measurements...the HIIT group experienced fat loss 9 times greater than the endurance training group. Muscle biopsies revealed that both groups experienced increases in citric acid cycle enzymatic activity, which is indicative of increases in fat metabolism. More interesting than this finding is that the HIIT group experienced increases in muscle glycolytic enzyme activity (while there was no significant change in the endurance group) as well as a significant increase in HADH (a marker of beta-oxidation...or fat metabolism). The drastic increase and adaptation in metabolic enzymatic activity results in more fat available for use once exercise is finished...and that over time, HIIT results in more fat burned during normal activity.
So put plainly... when used consistently, HIIT causes more adipose tissue (fat) to be available as fuel. The more fat used throughout the day...the more is lost over time.
My favorite HIIT protocol (Tabata http://www.tabataprotocol.com/) is one I learned from my strength and conditioning mentor while in grad school.
The original study on Tabata Protocol was performed by I. Tabata, K. Nishamura, M. Kouzaki, Y. Hirai, M. Miyachi, and K. Yamamoto in 1996 at the National Institute of Fitness and Sports, in the Department of Physiology and Biomechanics at Kogashima Prefecture, located in Japan (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392). Izumi Tabata, the lead investigator, explained that the 7-8 sets of 20 second exercise bouts at 170% of VO2 max with 10 seconds rest between sets results in improvements in both aerobic (14 % increase in VO2 max!!!) as well as anaerobic fitness (28% increase in anaerobic capacity!!!). This is ridiculous because a moderate intensity endurance training group used in the study to act as some what of a control group only had an increase of 10% with regards to aerobic fitness as measured by VO2 max...and no significant increase in anaerobic capacity. Izumi Tabata is therefore correct when he said in regards to only 6 weeks of Tabata Protocol that "...The fact is that the rate of increase in VO2 max is one of the highest ever reported in exercise science."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392
So...to sum it up in some simple bullet points:
-HIIT was found to be 9 x more effective at fat loss when compared to traditional cardio-training.
-HIIT (specifically Tabata) improves VO2 (measure of aerobic fitness) greater than cardio-training.
-HIIT (specifically Tabata) improves anaerobic capacity (measure of anaerobic fitness) while cardio-training has no significant effect on anaerobic capacity.
I hope I have shown that HIIT is not only better for fat loss, but from a sport performance/health point of view, it is more time efficient and effective for most, if not all, athletic/health/performance goals.
So go ahead and give Tabata Protocol a try. My favorite piece of equipment to use is a rowing machine, but this protocol can be done on an eliptical, a treadmill, or just about any other piece of equipment. Try easing into it, going near maximal effort for 2-4 cycles of 20 seconds of work and 10 seconds of rest. After a few of these sessions per week for a few weeks, bump up to 4-8 cycles. You'll probably hate all the work...but you'll love the results!
Thanks again for reading!!
KRK
I hope everyone had an awesome Thanksgiving. I was fortunate to visit family and friends I had not seen in ages. I've been asked by a few different people how hard (either by heart rate or rating of perceived exertion) they need to exercise to burn the most fat...especially after a 5000 calorie "meal" (estimated average Thanksgiving meal caloric intake). So the question is...to burn the most fat or to lose the most weight..."What is the ideal fat burning zone (IFBZ)?".
I have major issues with this question for a few specific reasons. Before I get into my objections to the "ideal fat burning zone", I'll go into some basics of bioenergetics.
In order for any muscle contraction to occur, energy must be freed from ATP (adenosine triphosphate). When one of the high energy phosphate bonds is broken from ATP, changing it to ADP (adenosine diphosphate), energy is freed up to allow muscle contraction to take place, and thus work can be done. There exists in each muscle cell a very limited supply of ATP (roughly enough for 10 seconds of maximal intensity exercise). Once this "fuel" is used up, the body can use 3 macronutrients to produce more ATP: carbohydrates, fats, and protein. I will focus primarily on the first two. At any given time, the body is using a percentage of carbs and fats to produce ATP through different metabolic mechanisms. The specific ratio of these two macronutrients is directly related to how intense the exercise is. The more intense the exercise, the higher the percentage of carbohydrates used to produce ATP. Conversely, the lower the intensity of exercise, the higher the percentage of fat used to produce ATP. Generally speaking, the higher the intensity of exercise, the shorter the duration of activity, and vice versa.
Individuals seeking to lose weight typically are not as concerned with the number of calories used, but the amount of fat they lose, as determined by their scale. Due to this, the traditional thinking is to focus on exercises that "burn" the most body fat. So...based on this premise...it makes sense that one should be doing low intensity exercise since this would result in a higher percentage of fats versus carbohydrates used to produce ATP. It is from this idea that the "ideal fat burning zone" has become so popular.
There are various equations and calculations, along with specific products, such as Newleaf, employed to figure out an individual's IFBZ. Since heart rate is closely linked to exercise intensity, this is the most common measure used to find the IFBZ. So...the IFBZ is the specific range (typically heart rate) at which the amount of fat, measured in calories, peaks. D.G. Carey explains this in his article, which can be viewed here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855335).
This seems like a great thing to know for someone wanting to lose weight...but I personally do not use this when training clients seeking to lose weight. I believe there are better ways to expend both total calories and the amount of fat "burned". Before I discuss what method I typically employ for weight loss, I'll explain why I don't think IFBZ isn't all it is cracked up to be.
The major problem I have with IFBZ is that maximal fat oxidation occurs around 54% of VO2 max, according to the D.G. Carey and the article cited earlier (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855335). According to Dr. Howard LeWine, this roughly equates to about 7-8 food calories burned per minute during exercise and typically matches up to about 70% of an individuals heart rate max (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35322/423294.html?d=dmtHMSContent). So...at the IFBZ...the amount of time necessary to burn a sufficient number of calories for legitimate body fat loss is...well...ALOT.
Before deeper investigation, I believed that the number of calories burned immediately following low intensity exercise and high intensity exercise were drastically different. Regardless of the type or intensity of exercise, the body uses primarily aerobic mechanisms (using fat as fuel) to return the body to a state of homeostasis, or recovery. The excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) required to bring the body back to homeostasis is directly related to the exercise intensity and duration. The higher the intensity, the more calories are required to bring the body to a "resting" level. However, the same is true regarding exercise duration. A study performed by J. Laforgia, R.T. Withers, and C.J. Gore has actually shown that the amount of calories burned due to EPOC when comparing high and low intensity exercise bouts, though the percentages were significantly different, were not practically significant (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101527). So basically regardless of exercise type...some fat calories will be used to return the body to "normal".
Sorry for that bit of a rabbit trail. Back to the point...
IFBZ is one way to elicit weight loss, however, I believe that high intensity interval training (HIIT) is a much more efficient way of achieving weight loss...and it provides a few other benefits as well!
HIIT has been used as a training tool for much longer than I've been alive, specifically for sports performance. It's effects on both athletic performance and weight loss have been researched, but its application to weight loss is only now becoming popular and a "buzz word" in the fitness industry. I'm not completely sure why this is, so I won't even begin to explain why. I will be a bit of a "prophet" and say it will be very much a fad in the fitness industry in the very near future. I'm calling it right now...HIIT is the next "step aerobics."
So what is HIIT exactly? Well, it is exactly that described by its name...High-intensity intervals. From a work to rest ratio stand point...it is on the other side of the spectrum with regards to traditional "weight-loss" aerobic exercise. Instead of a lower intensity "steady-state" cardio-type exercise bout, HIIT involves short, but very intense (perhaps even maximal effort) bouts of exercise paired with short rest intervals...typically to exhaustion.
The reason I prefer HIIT for weight loss comes from the outcome of multiple studies comparing the two forms of training. Just one example of this comes from a classic study conducted by A. Tremblay, J.A. Simoneau, and C. Bouchard at the Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory at Laval University in Quebec, Canada (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502). The study, executed all the way back in 1994 examined head to head 20 weeks of cardio (endurance training: 30-45 minutes of continuous cycling at 60-85% of heart rate reserve) versus 15 weeks of high intensity interval (they called it "intermittent": 10-15 bouts of 10-30 second intervals or 4-5 bouts of 30-90 second intervals with enough rest to return the heart rate to 120-130 bpm) training on measures of body fat (measured using skinfold calipers) and skeletal muscle metabolism (measured by levels of citric acid cycle markers, muscle glycolytic enzymes, and HADH). As one would assume, the endurance training resulted in over double the total calories burned during exercise when compared to HIIT...
BUT...
when it came to the skinfold measurements...the HIIT group experienced fat loss 9 times greater than the endurance training group. Muscle biopsies revealed that both groups experienced increases in citric acid cycle enzymatic activity, which is indicative of increases in fat metabolism. More interesting than this finding is that the HIIT group experienced increases in muscle glycolytic enzyme activity (while there was no significant change in the endurance group) as well as a significant increase in HADH (a marker of beta-oxidation...or fat metabolism). The drastic increase and adaptation in metabolic enzymatic activity results in more fat available for use once exercise is finished...and that over time, HIIT results in more fat burned during normal activity.
So put plainly... when used consistently, HIIT causes more adipose tissue (fat) to be available as fuel. The more fat used throughout the day...the more is lost over time.
My favorite HIIT protocol (Tabata http://www.tabataprotocol.com/) is one I learned from my strength and conditioning mentor while in grad school.
The original study on Tabata Protocol was performed by I. Tabata, K. Nishamura, M. Kouzaki, Y. Hirai, M. Miyachi, and K. Yamamoto in 1996 at the National Institute of Fitness and Sports, in the Department of Physiology and Biomechanics at Kogashima Prefecture, located in Japan (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392). Izumi Tabata, the lead investigator, explained that the 7-8 sets of 20 second exercise bouts at 170% of VO2 max with 10 seconds rest between sets results in improvements in both aerobic (14 % increase in VO2 max!!!) as well as anaerobic fitness (28% increase in anaerobic capacity!!!). This is ridiculous because a moderate intensity endurance training group used in the study to act as some what of a control group only had an increase of 10% with regards to aerobic fitness as measured by VO2 max...and no significant increase in anaerobic capacity. Izumi Tabata is therefore correct when he said in regards to only 6 weeks of Tabata Protocol that "...The fact is that the rate of increase in VO2 max is one of the highest ever reported in exercise science."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392
So...to sum it up in some simple bullet points:
-HIIT was found to be 9 x more effective at fat loss when compared to traditional cardio-training.
-HIIT (specifically Tabata) improves VO2 (measure of aerobic fitness) greater than cardio-training.
-HIIT (specifically Tabata) improves anaerobic capacity (measure of anaerobic fitness) while cardio-training has no significant effect on anaerobic capacity.
I hope I have shown that HIIT is not only better for fat loss, but from a sport performance/health point of view, it is more time efficient and effective for most, if not all, athletic/health/performance goals.
So go ahead and give Tabata Protocol a try. My favorite piece of equipment to use is a rowing machine, but this protocol can be done on an eliptical, a treadmill, or just about any other piece of equipment. Try easing into it, going near maximal effort for 2-4 cycles of 20 seconds of work and 10 seconds of rest. After a few of these sessions per week for a few weeks, bump up to 4-8 cycles. You'll probably hate all the work...but you'll love the results!
Thanks again for reading!!
KRK
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Beginnings...
This being my first blog, I thought I'd take just a little time to lay the foundation for what I hope to accomplish with this specific mode of expression. First, I humbly admit that I do not know everything. Though I often joke about being able to fix anyone with any specific athletic or movement pattern discrepancy, the fact is I am still learning. I hope to be a leader in the field of strength and conditioning as well as corrective exercise, and I genuinely believe this can only come about as a result of a hunger and drive to avoid "academic" complacency. Second, I do not want this to be a platform to berate or belittle aspects of the industry I don't agree with. Though no point of view can be entirely unbiased, I hope to present what I believe to be facts or principles based on 2 specific sources: Legitimate research, and experience I have gained on my own or while working with individuals I know to be credible sources of "physiological" wisdom. That being said, I do not wish to argue back and forth over specific topics. I will guarantee that if you think I am incorrect in my view of something, and you gracefully and appropriately tell me so, I will do my best to listen and then dive into the research and literature to better understand it. So...I hope that is adequate. Here we go.
The first topic I'd like to discuss is one of the major themes that continually moves around in my brain both while I train and while I prepare to develop training for a client. It is this: What must I do to advance this person towards "athletic wholeness"?
This was not always the case. When I was exposed to "functional" training by authors such as Mike Boyle, Mark Verstegen, and Gray Cook, I really only paid attention to the "sport-specific" movements and patterns that are associated with each sport or activity discussed. I now regret not paying more attention to the holistic approach to training each of these authors provided. The assumption I made at that time was that as long as I replicated the "sport-specific" movements (let's say unilateral triple extension necessary for running) in the weight room (let's say with a rear elevated split squat), then I was adequately and appropriately training my client to excel at his or her sport.
(Please keep in mind, most of my examples will deal with running, because it ranks the highest on the list of sports I am passionate about.)
Anyway...if this idea were all that is necessary for successful training, there would be no real need for formal education once one "earned" a weekend personal training certification... and just about anyone could be considered an "expert". Thank goodness I was incorrect in this early assumption.
I now know that in order maximize athletic potential, especially that of a runner, I must do more to "balance" him or her before I can strengthen and improve the movement patterns their sport demands of them. So...even though strengthening unilateral triple extension...or even bilateral triple extension...to improve running stride length and frequency...I first have to, for example, improve hip extension range of motion, lateral movements and abduction/adduction roles, and "correct" huge discrepancies with the entire posterior chain (specifically the hamstrings and glutes) before "sport-specific" training is even beneficial. The theory being...the more physiologically "balanced" an individual...the greater overall athletic potential, and thus a bigger window for adaptation and improvement with a simultaneous smaller window of injury risk.
I think I'll wrap things up there. So much of this topic has not been discussed, but I am eager to hear some feedback.
Thanks for reading!
KRK
The first topic I'd like to discuss is one of the major themes that continually moves around in my brain both while I train and while I prepare to develop training for a client. It is this: What must I do to advance this person towards "athletic wholeness"?
This was not always the case. When I was exposed to "functional" training by authors such as Mike Boyle, Mark Verstegen, and Gray Cook, I really only paid attention to the "sport-specific" movements and patterns that are associated with each sport or activity discussed. I now regret not paying more attention to the holistic approach to training each of these authors provided. The assumption I made at that time was that as long as I replicated the "sport-specific" movements (let's say unilateral triple extension necessary for running) in the weight room (let's say with a rear elevated split squat), then I was adequately and appropriately training my client to excel at his or her sport.
(Please keep in mind, most of my examples will deal with running, because it ranks the highest on the list of sports I am passionate about.)
Anyway...if this idea were all that is necessary for successful training, there would be no real need for formal education once one "earned" a weekend personal training certification... and just about anyone could be considered an "expert". Thank goodness I was incorrect in this early assumption.
I now know that in order maximize athletic potential, especially that of a runner, I must do more to "balance" him or her before I can strengthen and improve the movement patterns their sport demands of them. So...even though strengthening unilateral triple extension...or even bilateral triple extension...to improve running stride length and frequency...I first have to, for example, improve hip extension range of motion, lateral movements and abduction/adduction roles, and "correct" huge discrepancies with the entire posterior chain (specifically the hamstrings and glutes) before "sport-specific" training is even beneficial. The theory being...the more physiologically "balanced" an individual...the greater overall athletic potential, and thus a bigger window for adaptation and improvement with a simultaneous smaller window of injury risk.
I think I'll wrap things up there. So much of this topic has not been discussed, but I am eager to hear some feedback.
Thanks for reading!
KRK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)