[Closed] PSA: Horizon tonight about exercise

BBC2 at 9pm,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251

3 mins of exercise is all we need a week apparently.

So we need to come up with something energetic that we can do weekly, and lasts about three minutes? Whatever will we do?

Whatever will we do?

Can we do the same thing 6 times?

Whatever will we do?

Can we do the same thing 6 times?

I doubt it'd take 30 secs if I used a hoover.

Does insulin sensitivity = 'fitness'? No.

Does the individual with the 'best' insulin sensitivity win the race? No.

Will it help diabetics? Probably.

Will in make you faster on a bike? Unlikely (especially if you stop 'normal' training).

. It turns out that the genetic test they had done on me had suggested I was a non-responder and however much exercise I had done, and of whatever form, my aerobic fitness would not have improved.

really? this can't be right

3 mins of exercise is all we need a week apparently.

reminds me of this pearl!

how many minutes will i count in the office tomorrow before someone decides that they are most likely a non-responder, and reaches for the cake.

So, in a nutshell, doing just a little bit of exercise is better than doing no exercise?

Wow.

Who would have believed that.

Nobel Prize anyone?

Although if you're one of the non-responding 20% you might actually need to put some effort in to getting fitter. Heaven forbid.

It's about the nature of that little bit, jojo. So 3 mins of hard exercise can have a benefit whereas 3 mins of walking won't. It represents a short cut, where you can get say an hour's worth of exercise in 3 mins, and it could be scientifically sound.

That turns over decades of conventional thinking and is pretty much a newsflash in my book

Perhaps we should watch it and then have the debate?

For what it's worth I think the premise is that the 3 minutes is all one needs to get the health benefits associated with exercise, not to produce an athlete.

Copied from my post on the other thread ...

The World Health Organisation (who know a thing or two about these things ... although obviously not as much as the STW experts ) published their revised recommendations for adults last year:

150 minutes of moderate+ intensity activity per week (preferably upping to 300 minutes); or 75+ minutes of high intensity

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_adults/en/index.html

If you're not sure whether your activity counts as moderate or high intensity, you can always check in the Compendium of Physical Activities: http://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/

But basically, if you've increased youre breathing rate it counts as 'moderate', if you're panting and sweating it counts as 'high' intensity.

And if you wait a few weeks, I'll be publishing our research on the the data about the amount of physical activity people get from outdoor recreation (and yes that does include mountain biking!) Bet you can't wait for that exciting installment.

The relationship between physical activity and health is a complex one, and I must admit I'm concerned that the Horizon programme will do more harm than good, by leading people to think that if they just do 3 minutes activity a week they'll be 'healthy', which is not the case.

by leading people to think that if they just do 3 minutes activity a week they'll be 'healthy', which is not the case

I expect the programme to stress that it has to be very high intensity. If anyone's watching Horizon, I think they will be intelligent enough to take that on board.

I'm encouraged by it, I think that people currently are turned off the whole exercise thing because they think it's too much work and they have to commit loads of time.

Plus I'm not convinced the WHO are at the cutting edge of physiology research.

Or perhaps they don't know about these things.....

Another way of looking at the WHO is to say that since their inception in 1948 they have overseen the greatest increase in obesity, heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes and mental health problems in human history.

Er yeah, not sure that's their fault though!

macdonalds is better funded than the WHO, there is only going to be one winner in that battle.

molgrips: I was being a bit flippant, but they do have a massive amount to answer for. What I was trying to say, very bluntly, is that the advice and support given by governments and major health organisations like the WHO have contributed hugely to our current problems:

A classic example is the cholesterol hypothesis shown in the youtube clip below. Hands up who thinks that high cholesterol intake causes heart disease! They have the information, but don't get it out there because it disagrees with what they've said previously for years.

Don't even get me started on "healthy whole grains"......

[i]macdonalds is better funded than the WHO, there is only going to be one winner in that battle. [/i]

Well, theres certainly already one loser.
The public.
How ironic is it that the companies which pedal the crap thats making people obese, and so therefore assisting in bringing about their premature demise.
Looks to said customers for their profits.

Sorry, going OT there.
Carry on.

The relationship between physical activity and health is a complex one, and I must admit I'm concerned that the Horizon programme will do more harm than good, by leading people to think that if they just do 3 minutes activity a week they'll be 'healthy', which is not the case.

Another false hope for the magic fix groups.

I reckon it IS a magic fix. 3 mins very hard exercise is far easier than hours of 'cardio' that used to be prescribed.

[i]I reckon it IS a magic fix. 3 mins very hard exercise is far easier than hours of 'cardio' that used to be prescribed. [/i]

I believe HIIT is effective, for what thats worth.

But surely there must be a minimum, within the context of the goal to be achieved.
And who would choose to exercise more than is necessary to achieve your goal ?.

As we know, loads of people exercise, but they do not all share the same goals.

So, is 3 mins enough ?.
Well, that depends.

3 mins very hard (tabata style) exercise would kill about 20% of the population

Hmm, interesting, but I'd like to have seen more people doing the HIT stuff.

Watched the program. Three minutes * 4 times per week does not get you fitter - but it does have an impact on improving your bodies ability to deal with sugar

I liked the bit where it also said that for some people VO2 would never improve regardless of exercise

However the main point of the program was that our understanding of exercise it changing and that having the same recommendations for all us may not be appropriate.

, but I'd like to have seen more people doing the HIT stuff.

I think that is the point of the £5 million study that is following on

3 mins x 4 per week suits me well ...

How can you do 3 minutes of high intensity workout with warming up for a good ten minutes?

a three minute bike ride would probably suit most people.

If I do say 3x20 second flat-out sprints during the course of a 1 hour bike ride does that count as HIIT?

Well if anyone's considering buying an exercise bike - hold on for 3-4 weeks and there will be a whole load of "as-new" models on Ebay with about 12 mins use on them 😉

However the main point of the program was that our understanding of exercise it changing and that having the same recommendations for all us may not be appropriate.

totally agree, it applies to medication as well as exercise. We need to listen to our own bodies.

I think what they were saying was pretty valid - they didn't claim they were turning people into athletes but just giving most of the benefits of the traditional 3 hours per week recommendation in just 3 minutes per week.

Thing I found most interesting was the genetic test and how it indicated ability to train VO2 Max, that's kind of depressing if true (although potentially a useful excuse to :p ) - doubt joe public will be able to have the test any time soon though.

The inability to improve VO2 max won't stop you getting fitter or stronger, but it'll stop you becoming a top athlete.

This approach could make commutes a good way to get fitter.

I've decided I need to add some extra HIIT sessions in to my training.

The VO2 max thingy was interesting - I always assumed exercise leads to improved VO2 max.

If you're a 'non-responder' I guess you'll need to forget about becoming a world class marathon runner and concentrate on becoming a world class golfist or fisher ...

Very interesting programme, with lots of strands to it...

... I did think that the conclusions put an over-emphasis on the HIT strand, at the expense of re-enforcing the change of routine during his working day.

The chap with the rather strange dress sense said that the presenter had increased his daily calorie burn by 500 kCal - that's quite considerable, and probaly equates to an hour in the gym for a lot of folks

I think people underestimate just how physically hard HIIT/Tabata style training is.

I'm sure the "take home message" will be used by many couchers to justify doing less exercise and the content was a bit jumbled up but it's just good to see a subject like this getting any mainstream exposure at all...

...personally I would have liked to have seen more of a distinction made between biochemical/metabolic fitness (insulin repsonse), physiological fitness (VO2 max) and functional fitness (being able to perform a specific task more effectively)

The the fidgeting only the first, the HIIT will potentially improve the first two, and neither will necessarily improve your performance in a specific activity other than perhaps aiding recovery.

For me the most intersting point was the "brain Vs body" elemnts to fatigue which only seemed to get a footnote at the end....

For me the most intersting point was the "brain Vs body" elemnts to fatigue which only seemed to get a footnote at the end....

Agreed. MAN THE F~@# UP!

I mentioned on the other thread that they didn't mention healthy eating at all. I was watching this with a mate who does no real exersize and eats pretty badly (she bought her KFC round with her) her take on this was

"Great, I sit on a bike for 3 minutes I get to eat what I want"

I was just confused by it all, I didn't get the 'non-responder' bit, does that mean hat for some people, doing any exersize at all, won't make any difference? that can't be right, can it?

I watched it but I was so distracted by the bloke wearing his clothes inside out that I can't remember what it was about.

I didn't get the 'non-responder' bit, does that mean hat for some people, doing any exersize at all, won't make any difference? that can't be right, can it?

I'd read that as non-responders to the exercise programme and indicators being used...

He did respond to the insulin indicator, just didn't increase total aerobic capacity in the VO2max test. He was able to maintain effort for longer in that test - which I would say is a valid "fitness" response

I didn't get the 'non-responder' bit

I think it means that your potential to increase the VO2 part of your fitness is genetically determined, other aspects will be improved by the right type of exercise....

I was just confused by it all, I didn't get the 'non-responder' bit, does that mean hat for some people, doing any exersize at all, won't make any difference?

No, it jsut means you won't increase your VO2 max. You can increase all kinds of other things that will make you 'fitter'.

No TV for me, but I've just hit it up on the iplayer.

The blood fat thing.
Was the chap in the lab suggesting that there was less fat in the presenter's blood as a function of the long walk he had the evening before.
And that this was due to the process of his body replenishing the glycogen store in his nuscles ?.

Also, they seemed to be saying that fat in your blood is a bad thing, but we need fat in our blood.

Double post, sorry.

I didn't get the 'non-responder' bit, does that mean hat for some people, doing any exersize at all, won't make any difference? that can't be right, can it?

I think the reasons are probably fairly complex, but one of the problems of using VO2max as a measurement is that it's often mistaken as a limitation of potential fitness. So a fast cyclist will tend to have a higher vo2max than a slower one. What it doesn't tell you is if the limitation on that figure is from you heart and lungs, or from lack of muscle recruitment to exploit those hearts and lungs. So for instance Chris Hoy who can ride far far faster than me will have a higher VO2max. But the reason he can ride faster is not that he has a higher VO2max, but that he has a lot more muscle which produces a lot more speed. That muscle needs more oxygen, hence he has a higher VO2max.

That doesn't really answer your question though, cos I don't know the answer 🙂

However if you google

heritage research vo2max

Somewhere hopefully the answer about the non-responders is addressed.

The blood fat thing.
Was the chap in the lab suggesting that there was less fat in the presenter's blood as a function of the long walk he had the evening before.

Yes.

And that this was due to the process of his body replenishing the glycogen store in his nuscles ?.

No. The glycogen thing was related to the blood sugar and insulin response. If you use the glycogen stored in your muscles, the muscles will pull sugar from your blodstream to replace it.

The blood fat was to do with an enzyme produced during light exercise.

I took the non-responder to mean that he did not gain any fitness benefit, using VO2 max as an indicator to doing just the HIIT. I would think he would see a benefit by having a varied training program including a variety of different intensities.

I just took the non-responder thing to describe the people whom during the test, didn't, err, show any significant response or [i]imporvement[/i] to the exercise they were undertaking.

I certainly feel like a non-responder.
In that I never seem to improve.
But then, I don't measure / monitor myself.

[i]The blood fat was to do with an enzyme produced during light exercise.[/i]

Ah, yes, I remember that now.
Lipase

Ta.

😉

Was the chap in the lab suggesting that there was less fat in the presenter's blood as a function of the long walk he had the evening before.

Yes, I think so - all a bit jumbled though with vague references to DNA to "sex it up" a bit....

.....something to do with lipase induction so more of the Scottish breakfast was used to replenish glycogen than would be without the evening exercise.

Could always try eating something a bit more healthy though - that breakfast really looked J Arthur, what was the yellow stuff meant to be egg, mash or something else 😕

[i].....something to do with lipase induction so more of the Scottish breakfast was used to replenish glycogen than would be without the evening exercise[/i]

Thats what was kinda going through my mind, along with whether fat in the blood would be re-processed by the liver back to glycogen.
But that sounds a bit simple.

Way I understood it was, blood sugar, sent to the liver becomes glycogen. If theres enough glycogen, then the surplus is stored as good ole fat, visceral or under the skin.

What surprised me was the presence of fat in the blood at all.

I'd have thought that the digestive processes would have converted the fat to a water soluble form for transport around the body - with the conversion back to fat coming into play as it was laid down as "reserves".

quite an eye opener

Yeah solo, I agree. I'd have liked him to go into a little more explanation of the blood fat part. He just did the test, then moved onto another new theory and university.

[i]I'd have thought that the digestive processes would have converted the fat to a water soluble form for transport around the body - with the conversion to fat coming into play as it was laid down as "reserves".[/i]

Apparently the Lipoprotein Lipase assits with making blood fat available for either energy use or for storage.

So, if I'm seeing this correctly, although his activity ( long walk the evening before ) had taken place some time before his 2nd blood test AND after he had eaten that English breakfast for a second time.

The Lipase was still preforming its role to meet a need to provide blood fat for energy or for storage.
To greater effect than on the first occassion when he had eaten the first breakfast without any prior exercise.

rkk01 - Member
What surprised me was the presence of fat in the blood at all.

Tis true, when I worked in a clinical lab we could always tell the patients who hadn't stuck to the "overnight fast" rule - couple of mm thick layer of fat (well lipoprotein really, not 'raw fat') on top of their plasma after spinning down 😕

Blood fat (lipid) is transported in a complex with proteins = lipoproteins,
the LPL enzyme removes the lipid element from the protein element so making it available for uptake and subsequent processing (to glycogen or glucose phosphate) by the liver...

..it's a long time since I did any of this kind of stuff so I'll back away slowly now 😳

I just took the non-responder thing to describe the people whom during the test, didn't, err, show any significant response or imporvement to the exercise they were undertaking.

My understanding of that bit was he was genetically disposed to be a non-responder, as the scientist said he had predicted that before the test started. I presume (but it wasn't clear) based on some sort of test before the exercise regime started.

[i]Blood fat (lipid) is transported in a complex with proteins = lipoproteins,
the LPL enzyme removes the lipid element from the protein element so making it available for uptake and subsequent processing (to glycogen or glucose phosphate) by the liver...

..it's a long time since I did any of this kind of stuff so I'll back away slowly now
[/i]

Yes, I've been reading that.
Might be the basics for you, but I find it to be fascinating stuff.
🙂

[i]My understanding of that bit was he was genetically disposed to be a non-responder, as the scientist said he had predicted that before the test started. I presume (but it wasn't clear) based on some sort of test before the exercise regime started. [/i]

Yes, he is in the non-responder category.
But as for what a non-responder is.
Then it would seem that some folk wont get much from their gym membership.
Of course, the first step was to find the non-responders and then to profile them genetically to see if there was a genetic basis for it.

What still fascinates me is that the presenter exercised the previous evening.
Then sleept, got up the mext morning, had breakfast [u]and[/u] then four hours later, his blood fat was still visibly at a lower in the blood.
This demonstrated for me that the body's processes and systems operate with lag / momentum.
🙂

What still fascinates me is that the presenter exercised the previous evening.
Then sleept, got up the mext morning, had breakfast and then four hours later, his blood fat was still visibly at a lower in the blood.

The exercise induced the LPL enzyme, I assume by that time the blood lipoprotein levels were low(ish) so the enzyme had no substrate to "work" on, when the high fat brekky came in the morning the unused enzyme then has something to act upon.

I reckon if the presenter had pigged out at evening meal the "next morning" effect may not happen.....

...I'll try to remember to do some reading and see what the current opinions on this are, unless there's some further contributions to the thread from the more well informed....

But as for what a non-responder is.

I'm going to try and find the Nottingham group's work, it must be published somewhere, can't recall the chaps name though - guess BBC website may have it in the program credits......

[i]The exercise induced the LPL enzyme, I assume by that time the blood lipoprotein levels were low(ish) so the enzyme had no substrate to "work" on, when the high fat brekky came in the morning the unused enzyme then has something to act upon.

I reckon if the presenter had pigged out at evening meal the "next morning" effect may not happen.....
[/i]

Good point, we weren't told when and what he had for his evening meal.

The LPL works with apolipoprotein to chisel-off the fat from the carrier protein.

I'm viewing this with what that Lustig fella was explaining in that " Sugar, the bitter truth " video iDave posted a few days ago.
How low blood triglicerides and high HDL are considered to indicate that most of the LDL is the low density LDL, which is supposed to be preferred, wrt to the accumilation of arterial plaque.

I'm going to try and find the Nottingham group's work, it must be published somewhere, can't recall the chaps name though - guess BBC website may have it in the program credits......

I've just been looking this up myself. His name is Prof. James Timmons but it looks he works at Birmingham now.
These seem to be the two most pertinent references:

Variability in training-induced skeletal muscle adaptation
J Appl Physiol 110:846-853, 2011. First published 28 October 2010;
James A. Timmons

Using molecular classification to predict gains in maximal aerobic capacity following endurance exercise training in humans
James A. Timmons et al
Journal of Applied Physiology June 2010 vol. 108 no. 6 1487-1496

The first one is a short review the second has all the details.

I might have to go order some primers to find out where I am on the response to exercise scale 😉

So does intense exercise also generate LPL whatever it was?

onewheeltoofew - Member

I might have to go order some primers to find out where I am on the response to exercise scale

thinking exactly the same, have a small amount of funding for "miscellaneous PCR method development" that I haven't decided what to do with - now I know 😀

Whaddya reckon, £50 (cash or PP only, no cheques) a sample sound a good price for STWers ??

molgrips - Member
So does intense exercise also generate LPL whatever it was?

Can't remember, sorry 🙁

The enzyme will degrade with "physiological time" so I think the idea may be to perform exercise sufficient to induce the LPL synthesis but not of an intensity to significantly elevate the rate of metabolism & CV activity.
You would also want to stay aerobic as I'm pretty sure once you go anaerobic the enzyme levels & metabolism dramatically alters as the body's main "concern" is then to stabilise carb metabolism rather than regulate blood LipoProtein.
Hence the conventional wisdom that if you want to "burn fat" you need to stay aerobic - so low intensity/high duration...

...As always, I defer to anyone whose information is more current than mine 😉

[i]So does [s]intense[/s] exercise also generate LPL whatever it was? [/i]

On the circumstantial evidence in that TV show, one might be forgiven for thinking it does.

As above, I'd have enjoyed a slightly deeper look at the result they observed wrt his blood tryglycerides, the exercise he undertook and the breakfast he consumed.

Also makes me think that particular Sat-Fats in your diet is desireable

Whaddya reckon, £50 (cash or PP only, no cheques) a sample sound a good price for STWers ??

I'm in, I've got a fantastically quick, easy and cheap protocol for extracting DNA from buccal cells. *kerching* 😉

So does intense exercise also generate LPL whatever it was?

[i]the actual amount used in a given time is much greater so pootling around in the 'fat burning zone' is a waste of precious time. It's really all about getting the body more efficient at recruiting fat as an energy source. Things like the idave diet work because it forces the body to to use more fat as a source of energy as all the processed, readily available carbohydrates have been removed from the diet[/i]

However, once you have [i]turned the corner[/i] wrt to your body reverting from relying on glucose/readily available Carbs, as its primary fuel, to burning fat.
Then [i]pootling around[/i] will burn fat and is sustainable for longer.
Hence I can walk a greater distance that I can run, by design.

Ref the LPL thing. It seems to be quite complicated, with a lot of the reading I've done being related to its role wrt atherosclerosis.
Quite what triggers the production of LPL I can't nail just yet.

However, once you have turned the corner wrt to your body reverting from relying on glucose/readily available Carbs, as its primary fuel, to burning fat.

Now I suspect that how easy it is to turn that corner, and how effective it is, varies from person to person - based on people's iDave stories on here.

varies from person to person

Where people store fat and how quickly they can draw on those stores have been assessed.

Maybe people can be "non-responders" to certain diet/food lyfestyle options too.
I think one of the main messages from the program was everybody is different.
Until the science becomes readily available for people to test and design personalised responsive diet and exercise plans, we all need to self experiment a little.

that Scots bloke recommending the exercise was deffo a responder to pies !

flap_jack - Member
that Scots bloke recommending the exercise was deffo a responder to pies !

Dam you Flap_jack I was just about to say

"If it's that good and easy to do how come the so called expert was a bit of a porker"

Dam you again Flap_jack 😉

you watching it on the iplayer too then ?

Something very fishy about the VO2 max test IMO, I've watched it a few times. Is the x axis HRM ? Wouldn't you expect a reduction as he will be fatigued from the HIIT ? SO if it's the same then it's an improvement ?

Not enough info. Grrr.

After all the threads on here with folk messing with the Tabata protocol then not getting results, letting this loose on the general public will be a disaster.