The remarkable science-backed ways to get fit as fast as possible (NewSci)

#1

Watching an athlete at their peak is thrilling. Fulfilling one’s own athletic potential, not so much. Getting fit is hard and painful – or so we assume.

But that isn’t necessarily the case. In fact, research shows that anyone just starting to exercise more than they are used to will see improvements surprisingly quickly, regardless of the workout they choose. Better yet is the discovery that there are ways to speed up the fitness journey.

The key to improving fitness is, in essence, simple. You need to exceed your “habitual load”, which is a fancy way of saying doing more activity than you are accustomed to. This will stress your body and force it to adapt.

When it comes to starting cardio exercise as a beginner, “one of the first things that happens is you get more blood volume”, says Abbi Lane at the University of Michigan. Within 24 hours of working out, this increases by up to 12 per cent due to water retention, which increases the amount of blood plasma, boosting the amount of oxygen that can be supplied to the muscles. After two weeks of training, peak blood volume is normally reached, which is about 15 to 20 per cent higher in athletes than in sedentary individuals.

Read the full story: The remarkable science-backed ways to get fit as fast as possible (NewSci)

3 Likes
#2

Perhaps we need to cycle our exercise routine, one month on, one month off, etc.
The reason I say one month off is because that is generally the area, from what I have read, where we start to lose muscle mass and strength.

Many different supplements and drugs work better cycling them on and off.
Perhaps exercise works the same.

3 Likes
#3

Trying to figure out how this makes sense?

1 Like
#4

It’s probably not about oxygen in that timeframe since red blood cells don’t increase that quickly. Temperature regulation? Moving more co2? Could the spleen release more red blood cells?

#5

There is good and bad remodeling of the heart. Among athletes involved in greater cardiovascular effort (let’s say rowing versus golf), there is typically hypertrophy that takes place-- that is the mass of the left ventricle (muscle) increases in order to pump more blood. There is also “bad” remodeling, such as a poorly functioning area of the heart secondary to a heart attack, or hypertrophy secondary to hypertension.
A consideration is for those who exercise at moderate intensity (I call long and slow), the number of capillaries surrounding each muscle cell increases, as does the number of mitochondria; stop the exercise and those decrease. A similar phenomenon occurs with hypertrophy of the heart. And the effect of detraining takes only weeks, not months. The problem with cycling the training/detraining is that getting “back into shape” is often a significant deterrent to resuming an exercise program.

2 Likes
#6

Or, on the other hand, cycling on and off might prevent one from becoming burnt out case.

#7

Burnout is an interesting topic. I work out at a local dam about 360 days per year. I miss only when I must. It’s the best part of my day (and I am retired, so everyday is Saturday). I have become the official greeter at 'the stairs". During the summer months, I greet new people almost daily. They run the stairs hard, rest at the top for minutes, do only 5-10 sets, and in all likelihood, I will never see them again. The ones who come back again and again are those who take the “long and slow” approach-- walk the stairs, turn and descend, no rest, just keep going but slower. There are these stair climbers who have done this for years. I think burnout is primarily from going too hard.

I’ve talked to scores of people at the stairs. Most say they wish to “get into shape”, but on closer questioning, they really want to lose wt. The problem with HIT, is that you burn primarily glycogen (faster burning energy, less abundant); with long-and-slow, you burn primarily fat (slower burning but plentiful stores in our bodies). And when questioned, most think they burn more energy by running the steps. Not true since the energy consumed is most simply length times incline times weight. When an equal wt individual reaches the top, whether by running or walking, we burn the same amount of energy.

As for cardiovascular benefit of long and slow, it’s enormous. At age 68, I hit 19.1 METS on the Bruce protocol done in the cardiology dept of a very large medical center. While the standard Bruce protocol is 7 steps (if you hit 7, “you’re not going to have a heart attack” and it is stopped), I had an extended protocol to step 12 in order to get to my HRmax. That was accomplished through years of “long and slow” stair climbing and hiking.

3 Likes
#8

I finished a sprint triathlon last weekend and was curious about the minimum training I could do to maintain that fitness. An interesting article @ Maintaining fitness at a decreased volume – Run Waterloo looked at the nuances of reduced training load primarily looking at VO2 max. The article was written when COVID hit so a lot of people training for races that were cancelled. But your cycling of routines conjecture seems to be right on with possible benefits.

This study looked at the impact of a 66% decrease in total training volume and a drop in frequency by 50%.

From an absolute number standpoint, the athletes went from about 72K/week down to 25K week. Even with my experience and knowledge base on this topic, I look at this as a training plan and think there’s no way that these athletes will maintain their performance or V02max. However, what they found included:

  • Virtually no change in V02max
  • A reduction in 5K performance by a mere 1.2%

So, if we look back to my last article, I discussed how 21 days of not training resulted in a 14% decrease in V02max. What studies like this one show is that if you are a 70-80K/week, 6 run/week athlete, you can completely maintain your V02max and almost all of your performance at less than half the volume and only 3 runs/week for a 4 week period!

3 Likes
#9

Rapamycin.news is basically a website for the monitoring and promotion of longevity, especially through the use of rapamycin. I take rapamycin, but perhaps not for the same reason that most on this website do. I hope to slow the onset of dementia. I am more concerned with mental decline than physical decline. I have less anxiety over physical decline most simply because I guard against that through daily exercise. As I stated above, I achieved 19.1 METS (metabolic equivalents on a standardized treadmill test) at age 68. That was referred to as “elite level” by my cardiologist. In short, I do not want to have my physical health to long outlast my mental health. Here is a ChatGPT summary of METS and longevity:

Conceptual Chart: METs versus Longevity

METs Achieved Description Associated Longevity / Mortality Risk
< 5 METs Low Fitness Higher mortality risk, lower longevity
5-7 METs Moderate Fitness Moderate mortality risk
7-10 METs Good Fitness Lower mortality risk, improved longevity
> 10 METs High Fitness Significantly lower mortality risk, highest longevity

Explanation:

  1. < 5 METs (Low Fitness):
  • Individuals who achieve less than 5 METs during exercise testing are generally considered to have low fitness levels. Studies have shown that this group has a higher risk of mortality compared to those with higher MET levels.
  1. 5-7 METs (Moderate Fitness):
  • Achieving 5-7 METs indicates a moderate level of fitness. Individuals in this range have a moderately reduced risk of mortality compared to those in the lower fitness category.
  1. 7-10 METs (Good Fitness):
  • A MET level of 7-10 reflects good physical fitness. People in this range experience a lower risk of mortality and better overall longevity. This level is often associated with regular physical activity and good cardiovascular health.
  1. > 10 METs (High Fitness):
  • Achieving more than 10 METs is indicative of high physical fitness. Individuals in this category have the lowest risk of mortality and the highest longevity. This level is often associated with athletes and highly active individuals.

Context for 19.1 METs

  • Running at 12 mph: Running at a speed of 12 miles per hour, or a pace of 5 minutes per mile, is an example of an activity that can achieve around 19 METs. This is an extremely fast pace, typically maintained by elite athletes during competitive events.

Can I run a 5 min mile? Of course not, but at the end of a 12-stage exercise test, I could achieve that speed equivalent on a treadmill at its highest speed and incline (at which point the test was terminated). Now 5 yrs later, I continue to do my daily “stairs” and worry about mental decline forerunning my physical decline.

2 Likes
#10

mchasemd, I like your response. Since you’re familiar with long and slow exercise vs. high intensity interval training I have questions. I’m not seeking medical advice, just your thoughts since you mentioned heart attack. On my “legs day,” usually twice a week, I walk 3 miles gradually getting faster. On the fourth mile I mix in a few short jogs and then I jog at a slow pace for 3 more miles. To end this routine I do a hundred yard dash at full speed, followed by a walk around the track. I repeat this sprint/walk routine three more times to complete the 7th and last mile. It’s the last mile of sprints that concerns me since you mentioned heart attack. During those sprints my heart rate is approaching the max (it gets to 145 BPM or so), but I feel fine, though winded. I enjoy the activity and feel good the rest of the day. Here’s the question: Is there danger in that last mile of 4 all-out sprints for someone in their seventies of having a heart attack doing this? By the way, I am purposely pushing my body to move toward the maximum BPM for my age. The endorphins kick in pretty well after this.

#11

Great question. Essentially, if you can reach 10 METS, your chances of an MI (heart attack) is very low. The Bruce protocol is typically stopped at 7 METS because if you can reach that, your chances of an MI are so slim. Here is the breakdown of speed and incline on a treadmill, with each step lasting 3 minutes (and no rest between steps):
• Stage 1: Treadmill speed is set at 1.7 mph with a 10% incline.

• Stage 2: Treadmill speed increases to 2.5 mph with a 12% incline.

• Stage 3: Treadmill speed increases to 3.4 mph with a 14% incline.

• Stage 4: Treadmill speed increases to 4.2 mph with a 16% incline.

• Stage 5: Treadmill speed increases to 5.0 mph with an 18% incline.

• Stage 6: Treadmill speed increases to 5.5 mph with a 20% incline.

• Stage 7: Treadmill speed increases to 6.0 mph with a 22% incline.

• Stage 8: Treadmill speed increases to 6.5 mph with a 24% incline.

• Stage 9: Treadmill speed increases to 7.0 mph with a 26% incline.

• Stage 10: Treadmill speed increases to 7.5 mph with a 28% incline.

• Stage 11: Treadmill speed increases to 8.0 mph with a 30% incline.

• Stage 12: Treadmill speed increases to 8.5 mph with a 32% incline.

So the important aspect is to reach the 10th stage, you need to complete all previous stages, so 7mph at 26% incline for 3 minutes before doing 7.5mph at a 28% incline. So 12 stages requires 36 minutes of walking, then running, for example. Of course, it starts at a conversational pace at 1.7mph at 10% incline. (The incline is given in percent so 10 units of incline for every 100 units of length, so this starts at 5.7 degrees of incline; doing my stairs, I would estimate as 66 units of incline for every 100 units of length, so 66% incline).

You can see that doing a sprint for 100 yards to reach HRmax is quite different than doing a stress test with a slower ramp-up. Nevertheless, reaching HRmax in your mid-70’s is not an inherent risk for having an MI, according to the AI-engine OpenEvidence provided by the Mayo Clinic. For me, I have a greater concern over tripping and falling down the stairs than having an MI :).

3 Likes
#12

My issue with these tests is the treadmill computer uses 220-age to determine MAXHR. My max is 30 higher so I can pass this test with ease.

1 Like
#13

mchasemd, Wow, reaching stage 10 would be impossible for me. Stage 7 would probably be a “yes.” Is there a way of correlating each stage with the METS it represents?

#14

Is it possible to exercise and replace bad hypertrophy with good? Or does it not work that way?

#15

That does not invalidate the test. The stage is based on speed of the treadmill and incline. The exercise physiologist doing my testing declared HRmax, for me, was when moving to an additional stage I could produce no further increase in HR as consecutive stages are expected to increase the HR. My HR when I reached stage 12 did not increase further despite me breathlessly telling him “I still have some left in the tank”, because I wanted to take it to absolute exhaustion. He said no and terminated the test. So if your actual HRmax is significantly greater than average for your age group, then you can expect to do better, but sufficient endurance is required for higher stages, as is respiratory capacity.

#16

Tables of METS versus Bruce protocol stages seem to be all over the place. I actually had a Nuclear Myocardial Perfusion Stress MIBI Exercise test ordered because I had a cardiac arrhythmia and a failed ablation. They were looking, I believe, for possible scarring that might lead to the arrhythmia. The 19.1 METS was recorded on the report. The exercise physiologist announced the stages as the test progressed (speed/incline increments) and 12 was last stage he announced, but he seemed a bit anxious as the steps progressed, as I remember.

Anyway, I increased my rapa today to 4mg. I continue to be concerned that my physical fitness will outlast my cognition. My father died at 96 with severe dementia, but at age 87 yrs, he set the world record for his age group in the hammer throw of 100’. As he said, “I outlived the Russian world record holder”.

1 Like
#17

Sprinting to raise your Heart rate improves your VO2 Max which is very good. However, this needs to be done twice per week, and you need to do zone 2 exercise 3 to 4 hours per week.
Regarding your concern of having heart attack, you need to have a basic heart checkup to rule out any issues. I am also 68, for last one year I was doing exercise touching 145 BPM. 3 months back I had a heart checkup and found some issues with my heart and the Cardiologist advised not do high intensity exercise.

2 Likes