Free pdf of the full article:
http://agingfree.org/Portals/0/xBlog...d%20Humans.pdf
NY Times Blog Post
Confusingly written ... main point is "Among the younger subjects who went through interval training, the activity levels had changed in 274 genes, compared with 170 genes for those who exercised more moderately and 74 for the weight lifters. Among the older cohort, almost 400 genes were working differently now, compared with 33 for the weight lifters and only 19 for the moderate exercisers."
Implying weight lifting has much smaller impact on 'activity levels' in genes than HIIT. The effect is lower in older population (>64) than younger (<30)
Not motivated to spend the $31 to purchase the referenced article
Here is the abstract though:
"The molecular transducers of benefits from different exercise modalities remain incompletely defined. Here we report that 12 weeks of high-intensity aerobic interval (HIIT), resistance (RT), and combined exercise training enhanced insulin sensitivity and lean mass, but only HIIT and combined training improved aerobic capacity and skeletal muscle mitochondrial respiration. HIIT revealed a more robust increase in gene transcripts than other exercise modalities, particularly in older adults, although little overlap with corresponding individual protein abundance was noted. HIIT reversed many age-related differences in the proteome, particularly of mitochondrial proteins in concert with increased mitochondrial protein synthesis. Both RT and HIIT enhanced proteins involved in translational machinery irrespective of age. Only small changes of methylation of DNA promoter regions were observed. We provide evidence for predominant exercise regulation at the translational level, enhancing translational capacity and proteome abundance to explain phenotypic gains in muscle mitochondrial function and hypertrophy in all ages."
Last edited by scted; 06-10-2017 at 12:51 PM.
Free pdf of the full article:
http://agingfree.org/Portals/0/xBlog...d%20Humans.pdf
I did read this study. It was hard to tell what the people actually "did" -- it sounded like the participants did bike "spinning" for HIIT, and for "resistance training" it was vague. They might have been doing circuits on machines.
I think one takeaway was that weight training with HIIT was actually better than the low-intensity exercise, which didn't do much of anything. There have been a couple of studies like this of late that had similar conclusions. What I get from it is that if you aren't actually exercising with some *Intensity* no matter what you do, you aren't getting that much of a benefit. If you're a runner, you need to be doing intervals and hill-repeats once in a while, same for sprinting on a bike, pushing a sled 40 yards, or what-have-you. Doing water aerobics and mall-walking is basically a waste of time, and is only a step above being totally sedentary.
Huh. Try it again--it still works for me.
The supplemental information, also free, actually describes the exercise protocols (see page 19 of the PDF):
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2...90709/mmc1.pdf
The "weight training" looks like a typical machine circuit--higher reps, minimal rest. The "High-intensity interval training" was "a 10-minute warm-up followed by 4 cycles of 4-minute high intervals (> 90%) with 3-minute rest (pedaling at no load) then a 5-minute cool down." The "combined protocol" isn't a combination of the two preceding protocols--it uses "a five-minute warm-up, 20 minutes at 70% VO2 peak, then 5 minutes of cool down."
The point is that a mere number of genes "changing their activity" doesnt say much about specific lest positive changes: Overfeed someone heavily, burn him severely or study someone in depression and count the number of genes with changing activity then...
Gene studies are therefore great as exploratory studies, but longitudinal training studies with useful outcome markers give much more applyable results.
Check the link again, it was was working for me.
For some markers (which were indeed more relevant and global ones like glucose, VO2max), they gave quantitative data, for others (single genes), they simply reported activity "up" or "down in a list.
I'd like to see this study done again with resistance training at the levels we're trying to do with Starting Strength, i.e. fucking hard, AND a decent HIIT component thrown in, whether it be sled pushes, HIIT intervals on the bike like I want to get into again, or what. I'd bet you'd get an entirely different picture. I mean, to lots of folks, "resistance training" means those little wimpy exercise bands, or a set of 10# dumbbells, or a circuit on those goofy machines at the local GloboGym. I haven't read the article yet, but sounds like they made a major procedural error in not defining one of their most important parameters, i.e. what exactly do they mean by "Resistance Training"