Re: EPOC - How much fat loss?

[Guest guest]

--- dogmama85712 wrote:

> I keep reading that Tabatas, etc., increase EPOC,

> thus enhancing fat

> loss. How much is metabolism actually increased

> after interval

> training - e.g., 10% for 5 hours?

>

> My musing stems from the cost/benefit ratio of this

> type of aerobic

> activity. Interval traing is difficult; therefore

> drop out rates and

> injury rates are potentially higher. My dark

> skeptical side also

> wonders if our over-scheduled, quick-fix society, is

> opting for a quick

> answer - in & out of the gym & back to the couch and

> Doritos.

>

> I perform Tabatas on a stair stepper, bike and

> eliptical. They are

> tough! If I'm going to go into the anaerobic torture

> chamber, I want to

> know that this is making a difference.

>

> Kim Barkman

> Tucson AZ

> USA

I have included the Tabata research articles (which

Hobman posted recently) concerning short

intervals. In neither study have the authors

discussed fat loss as an outcome of short interval

workouts.

Unfortunately it appears that some posters are

confusing the Tabata studies with the study done by

Dr. Boucher and the subsequent article titled How to

burn more fat, with less effort. (

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2007/jan/Fat_exercise.html)

That article was reviewed and critiqued by Christian

Finn in his article

Can You Really Lose More By Exercising Less?

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/8seconds.htm

Both article citations courtesy of .

Christian Finn pointed out the following concerning

Dr. Boucher's study:

The women in the study who followed an exercise

program in which they performed short bursts (8secs)

of sprinting with short periods of recovery (12) for

20 minutes , 3 times a week, each lost a total of

5lbs of fat over a 15 week periods of exercise. EPOC

was not evaluated in Boucher's study.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

[Guest guest]

I don't understand what the issue is here. The 8

seconds on 12 seconds off for 20 minutes protocol that

Boucher compared to a 40 minute continuous effort was

superior to the 40 minute effort in terms of fat loss.

Of course, neither protocol resulted in a significant

loss. Still, for half the time spent, one group lost

5 pounds more than the other. The message would seem

to be that a slight increase in effort allows one to

decrease the time in half and get equal if not better

results.

While the marketing of the study used the " three

times greater weight loss. " criticized by Christian

Finn in his review, the fact is that it was twice as

efficient in terms of time even if the overall weight

loss was not great.

What the people in the gym I go to ought to get out of

this is that the mindless pedaling away at pedestrian

paces that they do for long periods of time day after

day is pretty much a waste of time after the first

fews weeks. Crank up the intensity every so often.

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

--- Ralph Giarnella wrote:

>

> --- dogmama85712 wrote:

>

> > I keep reading that Tabatas, etc., increase EPOC,

> > thus enhancing fat

> > loss. How much is metabolism actually increased

> > after interval

> > training - e.g., 10% for 5 hours?

> >

> > My musing stems from the cost/benefit ratio of

> this

> > type of aerobic

> > activity. Interval traing is difficult; therefore

> > drop out rates and

> > injury rates are potentially higher. My dark

> > skeptical side also

> > wonders if our over-scheduled, quick-fix society,

> is

> > opting for a quick

> > answer - in & out of the gym & back to the couch

> and

> > Doritos.

> >

> > I perform Tabatas on a stair stepper, bike and

> > eliptical. They are

> > tough! If I'm going to go into the anaerobic

> torture

> > chamber, I want to

> > know that this is making a difference.

> >

> > Kim Barkman

> > Tucson AZ

> > USA

>

>

> I have included the Tabata research articles (which

> Hobman posted recently) concerning short

> intervals. In neither study have the authors

> discussed fat loss as an outcome of short interval

> workouts.

>

> Unfortunately it appears that some posters are

> confusing the Tabata studies with the study done by

> Dr. Boucher and the subsequent article titled How to

> burn more fat, with less effort. (

>

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2007/jan/Fat_exercise.html)

>

> That article was reviewed and critiqued by Christian

> Finn in his article

> Can You Really Lose More By Exercising Less?

>

>

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/8seconds.htm

>

> Both article citations courtesy of .

>

> Christian Finn pointed out the following concerning

> Dr. Boucher's study:

> The women in the study who followed an exercise

> program in which they performed short bursts (8secs)

>

> of sprinting with short periods of recovery (12) for

> 20 minutes , 3 times a week, each lost a total of

> 5lbs of fat over a 15 week periods of exercise.

> EPOC

> was not evaluated in Boucher's study.

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct USA

>

[Guest guest]

Kim, I think the answer to this is that there is no definitive answer

because of the number of variables. However, EPOC is a product of

intensity and time and is greater at higher intensities. Yet by far,

most exercise related energy expenditure is achieved *during*

exercise and not after.

If you want to get the best of EPOC and 'during exercise' total

expenditure, I would exercise at greater than about 75% heart rate

for 30 minutes or more (if you can). This could mean high-intensity

aerobic running or long intervals on the things you use - stepper,

cycle etc. The idea is not to exhaust yourself with short intervals

of very high intensity for trivial amounts of time -- like Tabatas.

Make the intervals longer and intensity lower and do them for a

longer elapsed time.

Just some ideas.

Gympie, Australia

>

> I keep reading that Tabatas, etc., increase EPOC, thus enhancing

fat

> loss. How much is metabolism actually increased after interval

> training - e.g., 10% for 5 hours?

>

> My musing stems from the cost/benefit ratio of this type of aerobic

> activity. Interval traing is difficult; therefore drop out rates

and

> injury rates are potentially higher. My dark skeptical side also

> wonders if our over-scheduled, quick-fix society, is opting for a

quick

> answer - in & out of the gym & back to the couch and Doritos.

>

> I perform Tabatas on a stair stepper, bike and eliptical. They are

> tough! If I'm going to go into the anaerobic torture chamber, I

want to

> know that this is making a difference.

>

> Kim Barkman

> Tucson AZ

> USA

>

[Guest guest]

--- Jon Haddan wrote:

> I don't understand what the issue is here. The 8

> seconds on 12 seconds off for 20 minutes protocol

> that

> Boucher compared to a 40 minute continuous effort

> was

> superior to the 40 minute effort in terms of fat

> loss.

> Of course, neither protocol resulted in a

> significant

> loss. Still, for half the time spent, one group

> lost

> 5 pounds more than the other. The message would seem

> to be that a slight increase in effort allows one to

> decrease the time in half and get equal if not

> better

> results. message truncated by Ralph Giarnella MD

My problem is as follows:

The Boutcher protocol has been presumed to be the

same as the Tabata protocol and since the Bouthcer

protocol apparently produces more of a fat loss than

steady state (at least in one of the Boutcher studies)

some have concluded that the Tabata protocol also

produces fat loss.

My contention is that the two protocols are

significantly different and we cannot assume that they

will both have the same outcomes.

I think that it is very important to point some very

fundamental differences between the two protocols.

At the end of this post I have included two of the

Tabata studies and a synopsis of the Boutcher study in

question ( unable to find the original study even

though the internet has numerous references to it with

just the synopsis). I have also included a second

Boutcher study which is similar to the first Boutcher

study but uses different subjects and compares two

similar but different intervals.

Interval to recovery time:

Tabata- study #1 (Metabolic profile of high intensity

intermittent exercises Tabata et al.)

Group 1-The high intensity group 20 seconds high

intensity with 10 second rest. 6-7 repeats for a

total of 2+ minutes total work with approximately 1+

minute recovery.

Ratio of intensity to recover 2:1

Intensity: 170% VO2 max

Control group: 30 seconds high intensity with 2

minutes recovery. 4-5 repeats

for a total of 2+ minutes work but with 8 minutes

recovery-

Ratio of intensity to recovery 1:4

Intensity 200% VO2 max.

The major difference between the two group was the

ratio of work to recovery.

********************

“ In conclusion, this study showed that

intermittent exercise defined by the IE1 protocol may

tax both the

anaerobic and aerobic energy releasing systems almost

maximally.” (Metabolic profile of high intensity

intermittent exercises Tabata et al.)

*****************************

Tabata - Study #2 (Effects of moderate-intensity

endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on

anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Tabata et al)

Group 1 High intensity: 20 seconds high intensity

(170% VO2 max with 10 second rest. 7-8 repeats for a

total of 2+ minutes of total work with 1+ minute of

total recovery.

these were one 5 d/week for 6 weeks.

Control group: moderate intensity training (70% VO2

max ) for 60 minutes 5 d/week for 6 weeks.

(note for an individual with Max HR of 180 70% VO2

max would be equivalent at training at 140 hr)

*******

“ Conclusion, this study showed that

moderate-intensity aerobic training

that improves the maximal aerobic power does not

change anaerobic

capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent

training may

improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying

systems

significantly, probably through imposing intensive

stimuli on both systems”

(Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and

high-intensity intermittent

training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Tabata et

al)

*************************

Please note that neither study indicates any fat loss

and that the conclusion in both is that high

intensity intermittent exercise MAY improve both

aerobic as well as the anaerobic energy supply

systems.

Now lets look at the much touted Boutcher protocol to

see if it can be equated to the Tabata protocol.

Unfortunately I do not have the original article

published by Boutcher et al. I only have available

the news summary of the article without the exact

particulars as well as another study in which he did a

study on a different group of individuals.

In the study often cited concerning intervals and fat

loss.

Interval group:

High intensity group: 8 second sprint followed by 12

sec of low intensity exercise for 20 minutes total

60 sprints = 480 = 8 minutes of sprints plus 12

minutes of low intensity work.

ratio of work to recovery 1:1.5- note that the

recovery is not rest but active recovery.

Intensity of the sprints ??? not quantified-

intensity of recovery ??? not quantified.

Control group. Steady pace for 40 minutes -

Intensity ??? not quantified.

There are a couple of glaring differences between the

Boutcher protocol and the Tabata protocol.

Most importantly is the ratio of work to recovery-

In the Tabata studies the High intensity group

sprinted for 20 seconds and rested only 10 seconds-

The sprint phase is double the recovery phase.

The intensity is high enough to use up the Phosopho

Creatine (alactic anaerobic) and begin to produce

lactate. The recovery (complete rest) was short

enough to prevent complete resupply of Phospho-

Creatine so that on subsequent sprints the sprinter

had to rely on the lactate phase of ATP production to

produce energy. As a result the sprinter is doing

lactate threshold work.

In both Tabata studies the high intensity group

performed only 7 +/- sprints. Most likely because it

was the most they could perform and still maintain

the same level of intensity.

It is important to note that the individuals in the

Tabata protocol were probably fairly fit to start with

since they had a VO2 max in the mid-50’s.

(Physiology of Exercise 3rd edition- Wilmore and

Costill pg 295 - for VO2 max values for various age

groups as well as athletes and non athletes)

In the Boutcher study: the recovery phase exceeds the

sprint phase and the sprint phase is short enough so

as not to tax the phospho-creatine stores.

Since the participants were able to complete 60

sprints in the Boutcher study as opposed to only 7+/-

in the Tabata study it is not likely that the

intensity during the sprint phase in the Boutcher

study was very high and the participants most likely

did not accumulate much lactate.

Unlike the Tabata study the participants in the

Boutcher study (the one which is referenced when

citing fat loss) are obese and presumably unfit to

begin with and with probably very low VO2max.

Based on this information it is most likely that in

the Boutcher study the participants did not perform

much anaerobic work and most of the work was aerobic

albeit at a higher level than the control group.

Anyone acquainted with interval training knows that

the key to this type of training is understanding how

to manipulate the work intensity/time to recovery

time in order to obtain the desired results.

In my opinion the Boutcher interval protocol in no way

resembles or should be mistaken for the Tabata

protocol. To do so indicates, in my opinion, a poor

understanding of the physiology of intervals.

It is also my opinion that there is no evidence that

the Tabata protocol promotes fat loss.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

******************************************************************

Tabata study #1

Metabolic profile of high intensity intermittent

exercises.Tabata, I.;

Irisawa, K.; Kouzaki, M.; Nishimura, K.; Ogita, F.;

Miyachi, M.,

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Mar 1997: Vol.

29 Issue 3. p.

390-395 (English Abstract Available)

Abstract: To evaluate the magnitude of the stress on

the aerobic and the

anaerobic energy release systems during high intensity

bicycle training,

two commonly used protocols (IE1 and IE2) were

examined during

bicycling.

IE1 consisted of one set of 6-7 bouts of 20-s exercise

at an

intensity of approximately 170 percent of the

subject's maximal oxygen

uptake (VO2max) with a 10-s rest between each bout.

IE2 involved one set

of 4-5 bouts of 30-s exercise at an intensity of

approximately 200

percent of the subject's VO2max and a 2-min rest

between each bout. The

accumulated oxygen deficit of IE1 (69 plus/minus 8

ml.kg-1, mean

plus/minus SD) was significantly higher than that of

IE2 (46 plus/minus

12 ml.kg-1, N = 9, p less than 0.01).

The accumulated oxygen deficit of IE1 was not

significantly different from the maximal accumulated

oxygen

deficit (the anaerobic capacity) of the subjects (69

plus/minus 10

ml.kg-1), whereas the corresponding value for IE2 was

less than the

subjects' maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (P less

than 0.01).

The peak oxygen uptake during the last 10 s of the

IE1 (55 plus/minus 6

ml.kg-1.min- 1) was not significantly less than the

VO2max of the

subjects (57 plus/minus 6 ml.kg-1.min- 1).

The peak oxygen uptake during

the last 10 s of IE2 (47 plus/minus 8 ml.kg-1.min- 1)

was lower than the

VO2max (P less than 0.01).

In conclusion, this study showed that

intermittent exercise defined by the IE1 protocol may

tax both the

anaerobic and aerobic energy releasing systems almost

maximally.

**************************************************************

Tabata study #2

Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and

high-intensity intermittent

training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. /

Effets d ' un entrainement

d ' endurance d ' intensite moderee et d ' un

entrainement fractionne de

forte intensite sur la capacite anaerobie et la VO2

max.Tabata, I.;

Nishimura, k.; Kouzaki, M.; Hirai, Y.; Ogita, F.;

Miyachi, M.; Yamamoto,

K., Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Oct 1996:

Vol. 28 Issue 10.

p. 1327-1330 (English Abstract Available)

Abstract: This study consists of two training

experiments using a

mechanically braked cycle ergometer.

First, the effect of 6 wk of moderate-intensity

endurance training (intensity: 70 percent of maximal

oxygen uptake (VO2max), 60 min.d-1, 5 d.wk-1) on the

anaerobic capacity

(the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) and VO2max

was evaluated.

After the training, the anaerobic capacity did not

increase significantly (P

greater than 0.10), while VO2max increased from 53

plus/minus 5

ml.kg-1.min- 1 to 58 plus/minus ml.kg-1.min- 1 (P less

than 0.01) (mean

plus/minus SD).

Second, to quantify the effect of high-intensity

intermittent training on energy release, seven

subjects performed an

intermittent training exercise 5 d.wk-1 for 6 wk.

The exhaustive

intermittent training consisted of seven to eight sets

of 20-s exercise

at an intensity of about 170 percent of VO2max with a

10-s rest between

each bout.

After the training period, VO2max increased by 7

ml.kg-1.min- 1, while the anaerobic capacity increased

by 28 percent. In

conclusion, this study showed that moderate-intensity

aerobic training

that improves the maximal aerobic power does not

change anaerobic

capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent

training may

improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying

systems

significantly, probably through imposing intensive

stimuli on both systems.

***********************************

Boutcher study showing fat loss.

8 seconds may be all that separates you from the body

you want

Tuesday, 23 January  2007 

Reporter: (online story) Kittel

Presenter: Close

8 seconds may be what separates you from the body you

want.

Scientists have devised a work-out that burns three

times the amount of energy than more conventional

work-outs.

Associate Professor Steve Boutcher is the Head of the

Health and Sports Science Program at the University of

New South Wales. Prof. Boutcher told 666 ABC Canberra

that a new type of interval training may be

responsible for greater levels of weight loss.

Professor Boutcher's studies observed two groups.

The first group engaged in short, high intensity, 8

second sprints followed by 12 second periods of lower

intensity exercise. This group exercised for a period

of 20 minutes.

The second group engaged in a steady pace of exercise

for a period of 40 minutes.

Both groups worked-out 3 times a week, for 15 weeks

and the results are quite astounding.

" The results came out that the sprinters lost

significantly more fat - just under three kilos - than

the steady state. Some women in the study lost over

eight-kilos, so there were individual differences, " he

said.

Prof. Boutcher believes that this fat loss is caused

by the hormone catecholamine, which is released in

higher levels during periods of sprint exercise. Prof.

Boutcher said that this may explain why a group that

exercised less lost more weight.

" They often don't breathe during the eight-second

sprints... and then doing the twelve-seconds they

breathe extensively... We know that we need chemicals

to go into our blood and tell the fat cells to

liberate their fatty acids so the body can actually

burn and oxidise fat and catecholamine are the most

powerful hormones to get what we call fat burning. "

***************************************************

The following is another study from the Boutcher

group- this one differs from the previous in that it

utilize fit college aged women and consists of only 3

different sessions using the same subjects and

compared intervals of short duration with intervals of

longer duration RG.

SHORT PERIOD ULTRA-SHORT TRAINING PRODUCES GREATER

ENERGY EXPENDITURE THAN LONGER PERIODS

Trapp, G., Boutcher, Y. N., & Boutcher, S. H. (2004).

Oxygen uptake response to high intensity intermittent

cycle exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and

Exercise, 36(5), Supplement abstract 1900.

This study determined the oxygen uptake response to

short and long intermittent high intensity cycle

exercise in average fit college aged women. Female

subjects (N = 6; 18-29 yr) underwent three exercise

cycle ergometer testing sessions: a peak oxygen uptake

and lactate test, 20 minutes of short high

intermittent intensity exercise (8-s sprint, 12-s

recovery), and 20 minutes of long high intermittent

intensity exercise (24-s sprint, 36-s recovery). On

separate days power outputs eliciting energy

expenditures at an RER of .93 were continued for 20

minutes in either the 8 s or 24 s sprint condition.

Blood samples were collected from an antecubital vein

at rest and every 5 minute during exercise.

Ventilatory, heart rate, and lactate measures were

recorded throughout the exercises.

Average exercise heart rate and lactate were similar

for both the 8- and 24-s conditions. However, for the

8-s sprint oxygen uptake was significantly higher than

that of the 24-s sprint. Twenty minutes of 8-s sprint,

12-s recovery high intermittent intensity cycle

exercise resulted in similar heart rate and lactate

responses but significantly greater oxygen uptake

compared to a 24-s sprint, 36-s recovery exercise

bout. Thus, despite both conditions having the same

total amount of exercise the shorter exercise bout

resulted in significantly greater energy expenditure.

Implication. Short work and rest ratios produce

greater energy expenditure than long work and rest

periods.

[Guest guest]

I agree that the Tabata and Broucher protocols are

quite different in intensity and the studies were

looking at different things, but the intervals are

similar in that they were of limited duration.

Broucher's study showed that interval work could

reduce the time needed to achieve fat loss. Even

though not studied, it is reasonable to assume that,

up to a point, further increases in intensity (and

reductions in time exercising) may produce similar

results as conditioning improves and some weight is

lost. The intensity used in the Boucher study was

obviously not ideal for weight loss.

There was a study referenced several months ago in the

LA Times about 15 minutes of 1 minute on 4 minute off

intervals compared to 30 minutes of continuous

running. My recollection was there was a conclusion

of superior weight loss, but it may have been superior

conditioning. Still, that is not bad.

Obviously, Tabata intervals are not well suited to fat

loss for the general public for the simple reason that

you have to be pretty fit to do them in the first

place. However, that does not mean that an athlete

could not use them instead of 1 hour runs to drop a

few pounds gained in the off season. True, the Tabata

study does not show that this will occur, but there

is a lot of anecdotal experience of football and

basketball players dropping weight during pre-season

conditioning.

Although the conclusion in the Tabata study says

" MAY " , the study results show that 60 minutes of

aerobic running increased VO2Max by 5 ml.kg-1.min and

the Tabata intervals increased it by 7 ml.kg-1.min,.

The intervals also increased anaerobic capacity 28

percent while the 60 minute runs did not produce any

improvement in anaerobic capacity. The use of the

word " may " seems to be rather conservative given the

actual results.

Jon Haddan

Irvine,CA

--- Ralph Giarnella wrote:

>

> --- Jon Haddan wrote:

>

> > I don't understand what the issue is here. The 8

> > seconds on 12 seconds off for 20 minutes protocol

> > that

> > Boucher compared to a 40 minute continuous effort

> > was

> > superior to the 40 minute effort in terms of fat

> > loss.

> > Of course, neither protocol resulted in a

> > significant

> > loss. Still, for half the time spent, one group

> > lost

> > 5 pounds more than the other. The message would

> seem

> > to be that a slight increase in effort allows one

> to

> > decrease the time in half and get equal if not

> > better

> > results. message truncated by Ralph Giarnella MD

>

>

> My problem is as follows:

> The Boutcher protocol has been presumed to be the

> same as the Tabata protocol and since the Bouthcer

> protocol apparently produces more of a fat loss than

> steady state (at least in one of the Boutcher

> studies)

> some have concluded that the Tabata protocol also

> produces fat loss.

>

> My contention is that the two protocols are

> significantly different and we cannot assume that

> they

> will both have the same outcomes.

>

> I think that it is very important to point some very

> fundamental differences between the two protocols.

>

> At the end of this post I have included two of the

> Tabata studies and a synopsis of the Boutcher study

> in

> question ( unable to find the original study even

> though the internet has numerous references to it

> with

> just the synopsis). I have also included a second

> Boutcher study which is similar to the first

> Boutcher

> study but uses different subjects and compares two

> similar but different intervals.

>

>

> Interval to recovery time:

> Tabata- study #1 (Metabolic profile of high

> intensity

> intermittent exercises Tabata et al.)

> Group 1-The high intensity group 20 seconds high

> intensity with 10 second rest. 6-7 repeats for a

> total of 2+ minutes total work with approximately

> 1+

> minute recovery.

> Ratio of intensity to recover 2:1

> Intensity: 170% VO2 max

>

> Control group: 30 seconds high intensity with 2

> minutes recovery. 4-5 repeats

> for a total of 2+ minutes work but with 8 minutes

> recovery-

> Ratio of intensity to recovery 1:4

>

> Intensity 200% VO2 max.

>

> The major difference between the two group was the

> ratio of work to recovery.

>

> ********************

> “ In conclusion, this study showed that

> intermittent exercise defined by the IE1 protocol

> may

> tax both the

> anaerobic and aerobic energy releasing systems

> almost

> maximally.” (Metabolic profile of high intensity

> intermittent exercises Tabata et al.)

> *****************************

>

>

>

> Tabata - Study #2 (Effects of moderate-intensity

> endurance and high-intensity intermittent training

> on

> anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Tabata et al)

>

> Group 1 High intensity: 20 seconds high intensity

> (170% VO2 max with 10 second rest. 7-8 repeats for a

> total of 2+ minutes of total work with 1+ minute

> of

> total recovery.

> these were one 5 d/week for 6 weeks.

>

> Control group: moderate intensity training (70% VO2

> max ) for 60 minutes 5 d/week for 6 weeks.

>

> (note for an individual with Max HR of 180 70% VO2

> max would be equivalent at training at 140 hr)

>

> *******

> “ Conclusion, this study showed that

> moderate-intensity aerobic training

> that improves the maximal aerobic power does not

> change anaerobic

> capacity and that adequate high-intensity

> intermittent

> training may

> improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying

> systems

> significantly, probably through imposing intensive

> stimuli on both systems”

>

> (Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and

> high-intensity intermittent

> training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Tabata et

> al)

>

> *************************

>

> Please note that neither study indicates any fat

> loss

> and that the conclusion in both is that high

> intensity intermittent exercise MAY improve both

> aerobic as well as the anaerobic energy supply

> systems.

>

>

> Now lets look at the much touted Boutcher protocol

> to

> see if it can be equated to the Tabata protocol.

>

> Unfortunately I do not have the original article

> published by Boutcher et al. I only have available

> the news summary of the article without the exact

> particulars as well as another study in which he did

> a

> study on a different group of individuals.

>

> In the study often cited concerning intervals and

> fat

> loss.

>

> Interval group:

> High intensity group: 8 second sprint followed by

> 12

> sec of low intensity exercise for 20 minutes total

>

> 60 sprints = 480 = 8 minutes of sprints plus 12

> minutes of low intensity work.

> ratio of work to recovery 1:1.5- note that the

> recovery is not rest but active recovery.

>

> Intensity of the sprints ??? not quantified-

> intensity of recovery ??? not quantified.

>

> Control group. Steady pace for 40 minutes -

> Intensity ??? not quantified.

>

> There are a couple of glaring differences between

> the

> Boutcher protocol and the Tabata protocol.

>

> Most importantly is the ratio of work to recovery-

>

> In the Tabata studies the High intensity group

> sprinted for 20 seconds and rested only 10 seconds-

> The sprint phase is double the recovery phase.

>

> The intensity is high enough to use up the Phosopho

> Creatine (alactic anaerobic) and begin to produce

> lactate. The recovery (complete rest) was short

> enough to prevent complete resupply of Phospho-

> Creatine so that on subsequent sprints the sprinter

> had to rely on the lactate phase of ATP production

> to

> produce energy. As a result the sprinter is doing

> lactate threshold work.

>

>

> In both Tabata studies the high intensity group

> performed only 7 +/- sprints. Most likely because

> it

> was the most they could perform and still maintain

> the same level of intensity.

>

> It is important to note that the individuals in the

> Tabata protocol were probably fairly fit to start

> with

> since they had a VO2 max in the mid-50’s.

> (Physiology of Exercise 3rd edition- Wilmore and

> Costill pg 295 - for VO2 max values for various age

> groups as well as athletes and non athletes)

>

>

=== message truncated ===

[Guest guest]

I agree that the Tabata and Broucher protocols are

quite different in intensity and the studies were

looking at different things, but the intervals are

similar in that they were of limited duration.

Broucher's study showed that interval work could

reduce the time needed to achieve fat loss. Even

though not studied, it is reasonable to assume that,

up to a point, further increases in intensity (and

reductions in time exercising) may produce similar

results as conditioning improves and some weight is

lost. The intensity used in the Boucher study was

obviously not ideal for weight loss.

There was a study referenced several months ago in the

LA Times about 15 minutes of 1 minute on 4 minute off

intervals compared to 30 minutes of continuous

running. My recollection was there was a conclusion

of superior weight loss, but it may have been superior

conditioning. Still, that is not bad.

Obviously, Tabata intervals are not well suited to fat

loss for the general public for the simple reason that

you have to be pretty fit to do them in the first

place. However, that does not mean that an athlete

could not use them instead of 1 hour runs to drop a

few pounds gained in the off season. True, the Tabata

study does not show that this will occur, but there

is a lot of anecdotal experience of football and

basketball players dropping weight during pre-season

conditioning.

Although the conclusion in the Tabata study says

" MAY " , the study results show that 60 minutes of

aerobic running increased VO2Max by 5 ml.kg-1.min and

the Tabata intervals increased it by 7 ml.kg-1.min,.

The intervals also increased anaerobic capacity 28

percent while the 60 minute runs did not produce any

improvement in anaerobic capacity. The use of the

word " may " seems to be rather conservative given the

actual results.

Jon Haddan

Irvine,CA

--- Ralph Giarnella wrote:

>

> --- Jon Haddan wrote:

>

> > I don't understand what the issue is here. The 8

> > seconds on 12 seconds off for 20 minutes protocol

> > that

> > Boucher compared to a 40 minute continuous effort

> > was

> > superior to the 40 minute effort in terms of fat

> > loss.

> > Of course, neither protocol resulted in a

> > significant

> > loss. Still, for half the time spent, one group

> > lost

> > 5 pounds more than the other. The message would

> seem

> > to be that a slight increase in effort allows one

> to

> > decrease the time in half and get equal if not

> > better

> > results. message truncated by Ralph Giarnella MD

>

>

> My problem is as follows:

> The Boutcher protocol has been presumed to be the

> same as the Tabata protocol and since the Bouthcer

> protocol apparently produces more of a fat loss than

> steady state (at least in one of the Boutcher

> studies)

> some have concluded that the Tabata protocol also

> produces fat loss.

>

> My contention is that the two protocols are

> significantly different and we cannot assume that

> they

> will both have the same outcomes.

>

> I think that it is very important to point some very

> fundamental differences between the two protocols.

>

> At the end of this post I have included two of the

> Tabata studies and a synopsis of the Boutcher study

> in

> question ( unable to find the original study even

> though the internet has numerous references to it

> with

> just the synopsis). I have also included a second

> Boutcher study which is similar to the first

> Boutcher

> study but uses different subjects and compares two

> similar but different intervals.

>

>

> Interval to recovery time:

> Tabata- study #1 (Metabolic profile of high

> intensity

> intermittent exercises Tabata et al.)

> Group 1-The high intensity group 20 seconds high

> intensity with 10 second rest. 6-7 repeats for a

> total of 2+ minutes total work with approximately

> 1+

> minute recovery.

> Ratio of intensity to recover 2:1

> Intensity: 170% VO2 max

>

> Control group: 30 seconds high intensity with 2

> minutes recovery. 4-5 repeats

> for a total of 2+ minutes work but with 8 minutes

> recovery-

> Ratio of intensity to recovery 1:4

>

> Intensity 200% VO2 max.

>

> The major difference between the two group was the

> ratio of work to recovery.

>

> ********************

> “ In conclusion, this study showed that

> intermittent exercise defined by the IE1 protocol

> may

> tax both the

> anaerobic and aerobic energy releasing systems

> almost

> maximally.” (Metabolic profile of high intensity

> intermittent exercises Tabata et al.)

> *****************************

>

>

>

> Tabata - Study #2 (Effects of moderate-intensity

> endurance and high-intensity intermittent training

> on

> anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Tabata et al)

>

> Group 1 High intensity: 20 seconds high intensity

> (170% VO2 max with 10 second rest. 7-8 repeats for a

> total of 2+ minutes of total work with 1+ minute

> of

> total recovery.

> these were one 5 d/week for 6 weeks.

>

> Control group: moderate intensity training (70% VO2

> max ) for 60 minutes 5 d/week for 6 weeks.

>

> (note for an individual with Max HR of 180 70% VO2

> max would be equivalent at training at 140 hr)

>

> *******

> “ Conclusion, this study showed that

> moderate-intensity aerobic training

> that improves the maximal aerobic power does not

> change anaerobic

> capacity and that adequate high-intensity

> intermittent

> training may

> improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying

> systems

> significantly, probably through imposing intensive

> stimuli on both systems”

>

> (Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and

> high-intensity intermittent

> training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Tabata et

> al)

>

> *************************

>

> Please note that neither study indicates any fat

> loss

> and that the conclusion in both is that high

> intensity intermittent exercise MAY improve both

> aerobic as well as the anaerobic energy supply

> systems.

>

>

> Now lets look at the much touted Boutcher protocol

> to

> see if it can be equated to the Tabata protocol.

>

> Unfortunately I do not have the original article

> published by Boutcher et al. I only have available

> the news summary of the article without the exact

> particulars as well as another study in which he did

> a

> study on a different group of individuals.

>

> In the study often cited concerning intervals and

> fat

> loss.

>

> Interval group:

> High intensity group: 8 second sprint followed by

> 12

> sec of low intensity exercise for 20 minutes total

>

> 60 sprints = 480 = 8 minutes of sprints plus 12

> minutes of low intensity work.

> ratio of work to recovery 1:1.5- note that the

> recovery is not rest but active recovery.

>

> Intensity of the sprints ??? not quantified-

> intensity of recovery ??? not quantified.

>

> Control group. Steady pace for 40 minutes -

> Intensity ??? not quantified.

>

> There are a couple of glaring differences between

> the

> Boutcher protocol and the Tabata protocol.

>

> Most importantly is the ratio of work to recovery-

>

> In the Tabata studies the High intensity group

> sprinted for 20 seconds and rested only 10 seconds-

> The sprint phase is double the recovery phase.

>

> The intensity is high enough to use up the Phosopho

> Creatine (alactic anaerobic) and begin to produce

> lactate. The recovery (complete rest) was short

> enough to prevent complete resupply of Phospho-

> Creatine so that on subsequent sprints the sprinter

> had to rely on the lactate phase of ATP production

> to

> produce energy. As a result the sprinter is doing

> lactate threshold work.

>

>

> In both Tabata studies the high intensity group

> performed only 7 +/- sprints. Most likely because

> it

> was the most they could perform and still maintain

> the same level of intensity.

>

> It is important to note that the individuals in the

> Tabata protocol were probably fairly fit to start

> with

> since they had a VO2 max in the mid-50’s.

> (Physiology of Exercise 3rd edition- Wilmore and

> Costill pg 295 - for VO2 max values for various age

> groups as well as athletes and non athletes)

>

>

=== message truncated ===

[Guest guest]

After having read through the information here on interval training, I would

like to ask two questions.

Are aerobic intervals, anaerobic intervals, or a combination of both, best for

fat loss?

My second question is in relation to the Tabata work intensity. " Intensity: 170%

VO2 max. " What does it mean: 170%? How can you have 170%? 170 out of 100? How

can you work at almost double your capacity? Obviously, I am not understanding

what this means. Can someone explain it?

Regards

Sharah

Sydney Australia

[Guest guest]

--- Sharah wrote:

> After having read through the information here on

> interval training, I would like to ask two

> questions.

>

> Are aerobic intervals, anaerobic intervals, or a

> combination of both, best for fat loss?

>

> My second question is in relation to the Tabata work

> intensity. " Intensity: 170% VO2 max. " What does it

> mean: 170%? How can you have 170%? 170 out of 100?

> How can you work at almost double your capacity?

> Obviously, I am not understanding what this means.

> Can someone explain it?

>

> Regards

> Sharah

> Sydney Australia

>

you asked two very good questions and I

believe that the answers are probably at the heart of

the differences between the Boutcher protocol and the

Tabata protocol.

In the Boutcher protocol the women are most likely

performing aerobic intervals. It is important to

realize that in this protocol the subjects are asked

to perform 60 sprints in twenty minutes and that

there is no rest in between the sprints just active

recovery.

While we don't have the original study I suspect that

the subjects are probably performing their sprints at

85-90% VO2 max and recovering at 50-60% VO2 max or

less. In all probability if they are able to

complete twenty minutes of intermittent sprints the

majority if not the entire exercise is aerobic.

They are, in effect, over time improving their aerobic

capacity and therefore improving their ability to

utilize fat as the primary fuel for their exercise.

In another study in which Boutcher used the same

protocol he was able to show that this type of

interval utilizes more Oxygen than the intervals of

longer duration. (see below as addendum)

The control group in the first Boutcher protocol

exercised at a steady pace, and again unfortunately I

have no way of knowing what that intensity was.

However, since they started out as obviously not very

fit individuals, my guess is that they probably were

exercising at about 50-60% or less of their VO2 max.

If they followed that same pace for the entire study

they most likely increased their aerobic capacity but

nowhere to the degree as the first group.

In the Tabata protocol on the other hand the high

intensity sprints are all anaerobic sprints with very

little time to recover between sprints. They are

designed primarily to raise the anaerobic power and as

pointed out by Tabata they were also able to raise the

VO2 max. The entire workout in the Tabata protocol

takes about 4 minutes. In order to achieve exercise

at 170-200% VO2 max the muscles have to use Phosopho

creatine and glucose as the major source of energy.

For reference I recommend you check out any exercise

physiology test i the chapters referring to energy

expendiure.

Studies have shown that trained athletes are able to

utilize fat as the primary source of energy up to

75-80% of VO2 max. Once the effort exceeds this level

the primary source is glucose.

So to answer your first question I would recommend

primarily aerobic intervals as outlined in the

Bouthcer protocol since your primary goal is to

utilize fat as the energy source. It is important

that your sprints are not so intense that you are

unable to complete the full 60 sprints in 20 minutes

without stopping.

The second question - How does one perform at 170-200%

VO2 max? To illustrate this I will introduce the term

watts. This is a measure of power and is becoming an

increasingly important measurement in those sports

where it can be easily measured such as cycling and

rowing (ergometer). In the Tabata protocol you will

note that they tell us the type of bike they used (

mechanically braked ergometer). That tells me that

they are able to measure the wattage of the effort.

Generally what is done is to first determine what

wattage equals the individuals VO2 max. Now this is

not the maximum wattage that the individual can work

at but the highest wattage that the individual can

sustain over a given period of time (generally more

than 20-30 minutes).

A trained cyclist can sustain an output of 300+ watts

for and hour or more.

Let us assume for our example that 300 watts equals an

individuals VO2 max. If that individual trains at 225

watts then he/she is training at 75% of VO2 max.

Trained cyclists are able to sustain maximum wattage

of 1200-1700 in short sprints (thanks to anaerobic

work). If the wattage at their VO2 max is 300 then

they are doing sprints at 400-600% of VO2 max.

These sprints last usually less than 10 s and I doubt

that they would be able to sustain that wattage for 20

s. Even if they could I doubt that they would be

able to recover in 10 s and repeat the same effort

another 6 times.

If we ask the individual in our example instead to

sprint at 600 watts, that is equivalent to 200% the

indivuals VO2 max (300 watts).

VO2 max defines your aerobic work capacity, work that

exceeds your aerobic capacity is done at the expense

of anaerobic energy production.

I hope that I have adequately answered your questions.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

*****************

SHORT PERIOD ULTRA-SHORT TRAINING PRODUCES GREATER

ENERGY EXPENDITURE THAN LONGER PERIODS

Trapp, G., Boutcher, Y. N., & Boutcher, S. H. (2004).

Oxygen uptake response to high intensity intermittent

cycle exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and

Exercise, 36(5), Supplement abstract 1900.

This study determined the oxygen uptake response to

short and long intermittent high intensity cycle

exercise in average fit college aged women. Female

subjects (N = 6; 18-29 yr) underwent three exercise

cycle ergometer testing sessions: a peak oxygen uptake

and lactate test, 20 minutes of short high

intermittent intensity exercise (8-s sprint, 12-s

recovery), and 20 minutes of long high intermittent

intensity exercise (24-s sprint, 36-s recovery). On

separate days power outputs eliciting energy

expenditures at an RER of .93 were continued for 20

minutes in either the 8 s or 24 s sprint condition.

Blood samples were collected from an antecubital vein

at rest and every 5 minute during exercise.

Ventilatory, heart rate, and lactate measures were

recorded throughout the exercises.

Average exercise heart rate and lactate were similar

for both the 8- and 24-s conditions. However, for the

8-s sprint oxygen uptake was significantly higher than

that of the 24-s sprint. Twenty minutes of 8-s sprint,

12-s recovery high intermittent intensity cycle

exercise resulted in similar heart rate and lactate

responses but significantly greater oxygen uptake

compared to a 24-s sprint, 36-s recovery exercise

bout. Thus, despite both conditions having the same

total amount of exercise the shorter exercise bout

resulted in significantly greater energy expenditure.

Implication. Short work and rest ratios produce

greater energy expenditure than long work and rest

periods.

>

[Guest guest]

--- Sharah wrote:

> After having read through the information here on

> interval training, I would like to ask two

> questions.

>

> Are aerobic intervals, anaerobic intervals, or a

> combination of both, best for fat loss?

>

> My second question is in relation to the Tabata work

> intensity. " Intensity: 170% VO2 max. " What does it

> mean: 170%? How can you have 170%? 170 out of 100?

> How can you work at almost double your capacity?

> Obviously, I am not understanding what this means.

> Can someone explain it?

>

> Regards

> Sharah

> Sydney Australia

>

you asked two very good questions and I

believe that the answers are probably at the heart of

the differences between the Boutcher protocol and the

Tabata protocol.

In the Boutcher protocol the women are most likely

performing aerobic intervals. It is important to

realize that in this protocol the subjects are asked

to perform 60 sprints in twenty minutes and that

there is no rest in between the sprints just active

recovery.

While we don't have the original study I suspect that

the subjects are probably performing their sprints at

85-90% VO2 max and recovering at 50-60% VO2 max or

less. In all probability if they are able to

complete twenty minutes of intermittent sprints the

majority if not the entire exercise is aerobic.

They are, in effect, over time improving their aerobic

capacity and therefore improving their ability to

utilize fat as the primary fuel for their exercise.

In another study in which Boutcher used the same

protocol he was able to show that this type of

interval utilizes more Oxygen than the intervals of

longer duration. (see below as addendum)

The control group in the first Boutcher protocol

exercised at a steady pace, and again unfortunately I

have no way of knowing what that intensity was.

However, since they started out as obviously not very

fit individuals, my guess is that they probably were

exercising at about 50-60% or less of their VO2 max.

If they followed that same pace for the entire study

they most likely increased their aerobic capacity but

nowhere to the degree as the first group.

In the Tabata protocol on the other hand the high

intensity sprints are all anaerobic sprints with very

little time to recover between sprints. They are

designed primarily to raise the anaerobic power and as

pointed out by Tabata they were also able to raise the

VO2 max. The entire workout in the Tabata protocol

takes about 4 minutes. In order to achieve exercise

at 170-200% VO2 max the muscles have to use Phosopho

creatine and glucose as the major source of energy.

For reference I recommend you check out any exercise

physiology test i the chapters referring to energy

expendiure.

Studies have shown that trained athletes are able to

utilize fat as the primary source of energy up to

75-80% of VO2 max. Once the effort exceeds this level

the primary source is glucose.

So to answer your first question I would recommend

primarily aerobic intervals as outlined in the

Bouthcer protocol since your primary goal is to

utilize fat as the energy source. It is important

that your sprints are not so intense that you are

unable to complete the full 60 sprints in 20 minutes

without stopping.

The second question - How does one perform at 170-200%

VO2 max? To illustrate this I will introduce the term

watts. This is a measure of power and is becoming an

increasingly important measurement in those sports

where it can be easily measured such as cycling and

rowing (ergometer). In the Tabata protocol you will

note that they tell us the type of bike they used (

mechanically braked ergometer). That tells me that

they are able to measure the wattage of the effort.

Generally what is done is to first determine what

wattage equals the individuals VO2 max. Now this is

not the maximum wattage that the individual can work

at but the highest wattage that the individual can

sustain over a given period of time (generally more

than 20-30 minutes).

A trained cyclist can sustain an output of 300+ watts

for and hour or more.

Let us assume for our example that 300 watts equals an

individuals VO2 max. If that individual trains at 225

watts then he/she is training at 75% of VO2 max.

Trained cyclists are able to sustain maximum wattage

of 1200-1700 in short sprints (thanks to anaerobic

work). If the wattage at their VO2 max is 300 then

they are doing sprints at 400-600% of VO2 max.

These sprints last usually less than 10 s and I doubt

that they would be able to sustain that wattage for 20

s. Even if they could I doubt that they would be

able to recover in 10 s and repeat the same effort

another 6 times.

If we ask the individual in our example instead to

sprint at 600 watts, that is equivalent to 200% the

indivuals VO2 max (300 watts).

VO2 max defines your aerobic work capacity, work that

exceeds your aerobic capacity is done at the expense

of anaerobic energy production.

I hope that I have adequately answered your questions.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

*****************

SHORT PERIOD ULTRA-SHORT TRAINING PRODUCES GREATER

ENERGY EXPENDITURE THAN LONGER PERIODS

Trapp, G., Boutcher, Y. N., & Boutcher, S. H. (2004).

Oxygen uptake response to high intensity intermittent

cycle exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and

Exercise, 36(5), Supplement abstract 1900.

This study determined the oxygen uptake response to

short and long intermittent high intensity cycle

exercise in average fit college aged women. Female

subjects (N = 6; 18-29 yr) underwent three exercise

cycle ergometer testing sessions: a peak oxygen uptake

and lactate test, 20 minutes of short high

intermittent intensity exercise (8-s sprint, 12-s

recovery), and 20 minutes of long high intermittent

intensity exercise (24-s sprint, 36-s recovery). On

separate days power outputs eliciting energy

expenditures at an RER of .93 were continued for 20

minutes in either the 8 s or 24 s sprint condition.

Blood samples were collected from an antecubital vein

at rest and every 5 minute during exercise.

Ventilatory, heart rate, and lactate measures were

recorded throughout the exercises.

Average exercise heart rate and lactate were similar

for both the 8- and 24-s conditions. However, for the

8-s sprint oxygen uptake was significantly higher than

that of the 24-s sprint. Twenty minutes of 8-s sprint,

12-s recovery high intermittent intensity cycle

exercise resulted in similar heart rate and lactate

responses but significantly greater oxygen uptake

compared to a 24-s sprint, 36-s recovery exercise

bout. Thus, despite both conditions having the same

total amount of exercise the shorter exercise bout

resulted in significantly greater energy expenditure.

Implication. Short work and rest ratios produce

greater energy expenditure than long work and rest

periods.

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Dr Ralph,

It makes perfect sense.

With the Boutcher protocol, subjects were untrained (overweight) and would have

been working at low intensity (unaccustomed to pushing themselves physically).

Would it not be fair to say, that any activity at all could well have caused the

relatively small amount of fat loss that these subjects experienced? If so, is

there anything we can salvage from this study?

So now I am awake to the fact that interval training can be conducted both

aerobic or anaerobically. What was the Boutcher protocol?

Dr. Ralph, you say it was most likely aerobic intervals. Can I ask what you are

basing this on? I would just like to get an idea of the thought processes. I am

thinking that if a future client needs one of the benefits of anaerobic work, I

would like to be comfortable in the knowledge that I indeed constructed an

anaerobic activity for him/her. How embarrassing to learn that I may have been

training him/her aerobically or vice versa.

A quote from Dr Seiler (http://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm): " For

a period of intermittent exercise that approximates a max VO2 workload to

overload the cardiovascular system effectively, it needs to be of at least 2

minutes duration due to 1) lag time in the cardiovascular response and 2) the

oxygen buffering effect of myoglobin. "

I have been training with the Boutcher protocol all year (end of January) at

about 80% of my predicted HRM for 40 minutes. I have had some fat loss but not

significant. I never experienced the lactic acid threshold, even though I

sprinted as hard as a I could. I made no change to my diet once I started this

training. It is the same as that which preceded the training.

My next question concerns the training length (for fat loss). In weight

training, we know that if you increase your volume, you decrease your intensity.

In my own training (Boutcher protocol ), I was overloading by increasing my

total training time. If I wanted to train anaerobically, say using the Tabata

protocol (20:10), for how long could I train until I moved from an anaerobic to

the aerobic energy system? I guess it depends on how fit I was, but how would I

know? Would I simply start to breath so hard, that I would fail to recover

sufficiently to carry out the next interval?

Having built my fitness level up to the point of completing the 8 sets of

Tabata; how would I overload while remaining in an anaerobic state? Add

additional sets; add weight (resistance); or increase the number of repetitions

(within the interval)? My concern would be to remain strictly in an anaerobic

state. I suspect that adding sets (time), would decrease the intensity, and a

lower intensity would mean being in an aerobic state? If I add resistance or

repetitions, then I will remain in the 8 set Tabata 4 minute limit. If that is

so, is there a limit to the length of time you can work anaerobically? Is it

possible to work for say 30 minutes or longer?

If I run away with this and take a guess, I would say that you can't work very

long anaerobically. If this is true, then would you say, that in order to lose

significant amounts of body fat, you would need to work aerobically? Of course

we still have the option of working both systems.

Also, I notice that many of the studies use a training duration of 20 minutes.

Is there any particular reason for this?

I intend to perform my own fat loss experiments (hopefully incorporating some of

your responses). I am thinking of using the kettlebell swing. This movement is

considered too slow I believe, to be considered effective for the Tabata

protocol. And I am thinking of 2 minute intervals (with 2 minute rest), to make

it firmly aerobic. For work intensity I will refer to a heart rate monitor with

the intension of working at a high percentage.

I would appreciate any comment.

Sharah

Sydney Australia

[Guest guest]

You have asked some very good questions and I will try

to answer them.

--- Sharah wrote:

> Thank you Dr Ralph,

>

> It makes perfect sense.

>

> With the Boutcher protocol, subjects were untrained

> (overweight) and would have been working at low

> intensity (unaccustomed to pushing themselves

> physically). Would it not be fair to say, that any

> activity at all could well have caused the

> relatively small amount of fat loss that these

> subjects experienced? If so, is there anything we

> can salvage from this study?

***********

On the contrary, what Boutcher illustrated is that

increasing the intensity is important in order to

utilize more calories in a shorter period of time.

There used to be a saying that in order to burn fat

you had to perform low intensity exercise (LSD).

That myth was dispelled many years ago. What Boutcher

showed is that you do not have to do high intensity

all the time either. You can intersperse low

intensity with high intensity through out your work

out and the overall effect will be improved weight

loss. What surprised me the most was that the

participants lost only 5 lbs in 15 weeks. I would

have expected at least 1 lb a week if not a little

more especially when starting out with obese subjects.

************

>

> So now I am awake to the fact that interval training

> can be conducted both aerobic or anaerobically.

> What was the Boutcher protocol?

>

> Dr. Ralph, you say it was most likely aerobic

> intervals. Can I ask what you are basing this on?

> I would just like to get an idea of the thought

> processes. I am thinking that if a future client

> needs one of the benefits of anaerobic work, I would

> like to be comfortable in the knowledge that I

> indeed constructed an anaerobic activity for

> him/her. How embarrassing to learn that I may have

> been training him/her aerobically or vice versa.

****************

I base my assumptions on the fact that the subjects

were able to perform 60 sprints with a relatively

short active recovery time (12 seconds) between

sprints over a period of 20 minutes. It is important

to note that this was 20 minutes of continuous

activity.

***************

> A quote from Dr Seiler

> (http://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm): " For a

> period of intermittent exercise that approximates a

> max VO2 workload to overload the cardiovascular

> system effectively, it needs to be of at least 2

> minutes duration due to 1) lag time in the

> cardiovascular response and 2) the oxygen buffering

> effect of myoglobin. "

>

> I have been training with the Boutcher protocol all

> year (end of January) at about 80% of my predicted

> HRM for 40 minutes. I have had some fat loss but

> not significant. I never experienced the lactic

> acid threshold, even though I sprinted as hard as a

> I could. I made no change to my diet once I started

> this training. It is the same as that which

> preceded the training.

*****************

First of all the predicted maximum HR based on

formulas is very inaccurate and is essentially

meaningless. Secondly 80% of maximum heart rate is

not the same as 80%VO2 max- 80% of maximum HR is

closer to 72% of VO2 max. You would probably have to

train closer to 85-90% of your actual maximum HR to

reach your Lactate threshold

*****************

> My next question concerns the training length (for

> fat loss). In weight training, we know that if you

> increase your volume, you decrease your intensity.

*********

The same goes for endurance sports such as running,

cycling etc.

*************

> In my own training (Boutcher protocol ), I was

> overloading by increasing my total training time.

> If I wanted to train anaerobically, say using the

> Tabata protocol (20:10), for how long could I train

> until I moved from an anaerobic to the aerobic

> energy system? I guess it depends on how fit I was,

> but how would I know? Would I simply start to

> breath so hard, that I would fail to recover

> sufficiently to carry out the next interval?

*********************

The Tabata protocol is designed intentionally to be

anaerobic. If you altered any thing in the Tabata

protocol it would no longer be the Tabata protocol.

In order to make the 20:10 aerobic you would probably

have to decrease the intensity from 170-200%VO2 max

to 85-90%VO2 max . If you changed the intensity it

would no longer be the Tabata protocol.

Everyone appears to be focusing on the length of the

sprint without realizing that the intensity is also

very important and the uniqueness of the Tabata

protocol is the brevity of the recovery period.

There is nothing new or unusual about doing high

intensity 20 second sprints. What was unique about

the protocol was the brevity of the recovery time.

If I remember correctly, the skating coach, who

initially utilized this technique, was criticized

because he was over stressing his skaters. The

criticism had more to do about the short recovery time

and not the length or intensity of the sprints.

********************

>

> Having built my fitness level up to the point of

> completing the 8 sets of Tabata; how would I

> overload while remaining in an anaerobic state? Add

> additional sets; add weight (resistance); or

> increase the number of repetitions (within the

> interval)? My concern would be to remain strictly

> in an anaerobic state.

****************************

As your fitness improves so will the intensity of work

you will be able to perform at your VO2 max. Using the

example of watts which I gave in my previous response

if an individual is able to produce 300 watts at

his/her VO2 max as his/her fitness improves the

athlete will be able to produce 320 watts at VO2 max.

As your fitness improves you will have to sprint

harder (faster) to reach 170-200% VO2 max. Any time

you sprint at 170-200% VO2 max you will be anaerobic

even if you are an Olympic sprint champion.

*******************

I suspect that adding sets

> (time), would decrease the intensity, and a lower

> intensity would mean being in an aerobic state? If

> I add resistance or repetitions, then I will remain

> in the 8 set Tabata 4 minute limit. If that is so,

> is there a limit to the length of time you can work

> anaerobically? Is it possible to work for say 30

> minutes or longer?

*********************

As you build up your lactate tolerance you might be

able to increase the number of sets you could perform

but I doubt that you could sustain 30 minutes of

anaerobic work. Anaerobic work is very inefficient

from an energy point. You would probably exhaust all

of your glycogen stores very quickly.

*******************

>

> If I run away with this and take a guess, I would

> say that you can't work very long anaerobically. If

> this is true, then would you say, that in order to

> lose significant amounts of body fat, you would need

> to work aerobically? Of course we still have the

> option of working both systems.

***************************

The short answer is yes, but remember there are

different levels of aerobic intensity. As I pointed

out in my previous post endurance training, if done

properly, allows an individual to use fat as the major

source of energy up to 80%+/- of VO2.

***************

> Also, I notice that many of the studies use a

> training duration of 20 minutes. Is there any

> particular reason for this?

********************

It is just probably easier for the scientists to study

subjects for 20 minutes rather than 60 minutes or more

***********************

>

> I intend to perform my own fat loss experiments

> (hopefully incorporating some of your responses). I

> am thinking of using the kettlebell swing. This

> movement is considered too slow I believe, to be

> considered effective for the Tabata protocol. And I

> am thinking of 2 minute intervals (with 2 minute

> rest), to make it firmly aerobic. For work

> intensity I will refer to a heart rate monitor with

> the intension of working at a high percentage.

**********************

For short interval work the heart rate monitor is

useless since there is a time lag from the time you

start you interval until the time the heart responds

to the level of the workout. The HRM has its place in

steady state or in long intervals.

If you have reached a plateau in your weight loss

program I would suggest a slight decrease in your

calorie intact and a slight increase in total work

done.

*************************

> I would appreciate any comment.

>

> Sharah

> Sydney Australia

I hope I answered your questions clearly enough

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA