starting strength gym
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: FYI ... Cell magazine article about exercise & aging as described in NYTimes blog

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    94

    Default FYI ... Cell magazine article about exercise & aging as described in NYTimes blog

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    mountains out west
    Posts
    66

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlioTiberius View Post
    Free pdf of the full article:

    Service Unavailable
    can't get to it ... HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scted View Post
    can't get to it ... HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.
    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."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    The point is that a mere number of genes "changing their activity" doesnt say much about specific lest positive changes:
    that's why i was hoping to see the article ... hoping to be enlightened as to what 'changing their activity' entailed?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Check the link again, it was was working for me.
    Working now.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    33

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    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"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •