Horizon - 2011-2012 - 8. The Truth About Exercise 9pm BBC2
Discussion
).
grumbledoak said:
I thought it was interesting, but nothing to rave about. So HIT might improve your health markers, but I can't see it being much use if you want to do an Ironman. And, sitting on your arse all day isn't good for you? Well bugger me with a prize winning leek.
Your username is very apt isn't it?Of course the great unwashed who are slowly dying of malaise and want to up their odds of a longer and non-crippled life all want to do an Ironman. Just the target audience they had in mind I'm sure.
Missed it the first time round so thanks for the heads up.
Was very interesting but I'd like to see a comparison between the following two groups:
Group 1 - Resistance training+moderate cardio training+ the 3 minutes a week HIT.
Group 2 - 3 minutes a week HIT and nothing else.
The test where they looked at his fat levels in the bloodstream after a massive fry up was interesting. Just to actually see the fat in the blood was an eye opener. And exercising before a big meal really does help.
Was very interesting but I'd like to see a comparison between the following two groups:
Group 1 - Resistance training+moderate cardio training+ the 3 minutes a week HIT.
Group 2 - 3 minutes a week HIT and nothing else.
The test where they looked at his fat levels in the bloodstream after a massive fry up was interesting. Just to actually see the fat in the blood was an eye opener. And exercising before a big meal really does help.
Victor McDade said:
Missed it the first time round so thanks for the heads up.
Was very interesting but I'd like to see a comparison between the following two groups:
Group 1 - Resistance training+moderate cardio training+ the 3 minutes a week HIT.
Group 2 - 3 minutes a week HIT and nothing else.
Presumably, Group 1 would enjoy a healthier lifestyle than Group 2 plus look better. If Group 1 didn't do the HIT and Group 2 only did HIT, that'd be interesting to see who was deemed to be more healthy.Was very interesting but I'd like to see a comparison between the following two groups:
Group 1 - Resistance training+moderate cardio training+ the 3 minutes a week HIT.
Group 2 - 3 minutes a week HIT and nothing else.
Victor McDade said:
Missed it the first time round so thanks for the heads up.
Was very interesting but I'd like to see a comparison between the following two groups:
Group 1 - Resistance training+moderate cardio training+ the 3 minutes a week HIT.
Group 2 - 3 minutes a week HIT and nothing else.
The people in Group 2 would be fat and unfit. Except for the super responders: In a recent test of 1000 people only 15% were super responders. The link's on the beeb website.Was very interesting but I'd like to see a comparison between the following two groups:
Group 1 - Resistance training+moderate cardio training+ the 3 minutes a week HIT.
Group 2 - 3 minutes a week HIT and nothing else.
More interesting was the discovery that they can track a gene that shows whether a person is a super responder. That lead me to wondering about gene testing to see if a person could be a super responder, or just mid- responder, to weight training. And guess what? ..Some think they're on the cusp of finding a correlation between microRNAs and protein synthesis. As we know protein synthesis is a crucial part of muscle hypertrophy so if they can test for the vital miRNAs to guarantee protein synthesis then you could predict who might respond to RT and who might not. Of course there would still be a number of variables..
It would save the NHS millions forking out for the effects of muscle atrophy in the elderly (falls, broken bones etc.). It would also save some 'hard gainers' (lol) a lot of wasted effort if a simple test revealed whether they were genetically predisposed to put on muscle or not. And it would cost the supplement industry millions.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/110/2/309.full
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff