"But too much is not good either. Some participants in Track Your Plaque, for instance, have experimented with very high doses of EPA + DHA in the 9000-10,000 per day range and witnessed dramatic increases in LDL."

So what?

Wolf, Sears, and Poliquin recommend a high fish oil dose of 0.5g-1.9g EPA/DHA per 10lbs BW; this generally equates to 9-10g range.  All three have had amazing success with sedentary, chronically ill individuals and elite level athletes.

I believe you yourself have stated in the past that fish oil causes a shift from VLDL and IDL to large particle LDL---a benign, if not beneficial action.

So is the raising of LDL in high dose fish oil even a concern?  Some clarification on this would be appreciated.

Gosh... what an ODD response to fish oil! *wink* Do you actually believe it?  The reports would be contrary to the literature.  At least fish oil would have a strong role in stabilizing plaque and prevents soft ruptures in growing plaque (just like the Tokelau and Masai, high carb H-G societies)!

Nowhere in the literature that I can find reports omega-3 increases dense LDL. Perhaps there is a TYP program-omega3 interaction? Or perhaps this only occurs in those who take high-dose statins and fail to convert to Pattern A (due to the overstatination phenomenon, as reported by researchers where TG <  150)) and complain annually about their EBCT plaque progression 10-25%??  I have tried to admonish the statin overuse but apparently that doen't go over well with this individuals as you are aware. Oh well.

I have noticed that in the summers people's HDLs drift down.  Have you Dr. Davis in your practice?  I suspect a strong fruit-effect on splaying out dense LDL. Thoughts?

IMHO many on the TYP members consume WAY way way too much grains, orange juice, oat bran, oatmeal, FRUITY SHAKES (e.g. JJ) and consume several servings of fruit all day (e.g Jeg). Do you think this may play any part of complaints related to higher dense LDL?  My first thoughts are ALWAYS... diet.  

Your observastions are always UNIQUE!!  Thank you putting the highlights on the omega-3 index and the role of n-6 to n-3 on inflammation, the root cause of CAD!  You are certainly the biggest quantum EVOLVER.

http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/search/label/Evolver

Gosh... what an ODD response to fish oil! *wink* Do you actually believe it?  The reports would be contrary to the literature.  At least fish oil would have a strong role in stabilizing plaque and prevents soft ruptures in growing plaque (just like the Tokelau and Masai, high carb H-G societies)!

Nowhere in the literature that I can find reports omega-3 increases dense LDL. Perhaps there is a TYP program-omega3 interaction? Or perhaps this only occurs in those who take high-dose statins and fail to convert to Pattern A (due to the overstatination phenomenon, as reported by researchers where TG <  150)) and complain annually about their EBCT plaque progression 10-25%??  I have tried to admonish the statin overuse but apparently that doen't go over well with this individuals as you are aware. Oh well.

I have noticed that in the summers people's HDLs drift down.  Have you Dr. Davis in your practice?  I suspect a strong fruit-effect on splaying out dense LDL. Thoughts?

IMHO many on the TYP members consume WAY way way too much grains, orange juice, oat bran, oatmeal, FRUITY SHAKES (e.g. JJ) and consume several servings of fruit all day (e.g Jeg). Do you think this may play any part of complaints related to higher dense LDL?  My first thoughts are ALWAYS... diet.  

Your observastions are always UNIQUE!!  Thank you putting the highlights on the omega-3 index and the role of n-6 to n-3 on inflammation, the root cause of CAD!  You are certainly the biggest quantum EVOLVER.

http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/search/label/Evolver

My EFA results showed an Omega3 index of 11.7% and a Omega 6:3 ratio of 2.3/1. I supplement with 1600mg EPA and 800mg DHA daily. I follow a low carb (high fat) I can't afford to eat "grass fed", but I do avoid processed foods whenever possible and my dietary fats are from coconut oil, lard, beef tallow, butter, olive oil and small amounts sesame oil. The Omega 3 Index test was a bit pricey, but...it did give me some comfort that I am on the right track.

For those who witnessed an increase in LDL, what was the profile of small, dense VLDL vs large, fluffy VLDL reflected in the increase?

Also, first-time commenter. Thank you for a great, informative blog.

"But too much is not good either. Some participants in Track Your Plaque, for instance, have experimented with very high doses of EPA + DHA in the 9000-10,000 per day range and witnessed dramatic increases in LDL."

I'm hoping (and wondering if...) that while those diligent enough to take that high a dose of omega-3's may have higher measured LDL levels, they indeed have much larger, fluffier particles now than when they began the megadosing.  That would be something marvelous to hear.
Good stuff here, as usual!
-Adam

If one's LDL's raise dramatically on omega-3's, without the corresponding increase in hdl, or decrease in trigs, is it better to lower the omega 3's?

Ex:

pre-omega
tc 240
hdl 45
ldl 165
tg 70

during 2000mg omega-3's
tc 320
hdl 58
ldl 240
tg 90

Also, the pattern size of the ldl's are type a with a low carb, no grain diet.

I'd very much like to know what subfraction of LDL was elevated in the TYP followers on 9,000 plus omega 3's a day.  My experience is that large fluffy LDL increases but not small dense.

What about lipid peroxidation on high dose of fish oil?

The form of LDL that increases depends.

It seems to depend on the genetic basis for small LDL. In other words, if the triggers of small LDL have been removed along with other efforts aimed at reducing small LDL like niacin, and there is no genetic basis for small LDL, then large LDL increases.

If small LDL is genetically programmed (a lot more common than many think), then small LDL can increase explosively.  

Having performed many thousands of lipoprotein panels, the latter situation in which small LDL increases is worrisome.

I am unsure of the implications of the first situation. Sure, we can extrapolate and speculate that it might not be related to increased risk. But I am not willing to gamble someone's health and life on pure speculation with no human data.

The only references to an increase in LDLC with fish oil supplementation is from WS Harris who authors 95% of the omega 3 index studies including a 2008 review which concludes that the omega 3 index is superior to omega 3/omega 6 ratio.  When 95% of literature comes from one man who promotes a pricey lab test I can't help but wonder if he gets part of the profits. I have no data to say he does though.

He has two 1997 publications,one showing that Omnacor given at 4 g epa/dha a day raised ldlc by 10%. 1997 was the predawn era of advanced lipids.  In his second publication individuals with severe hypertriglyceridemia (baseline fasting levels on statins of 500 to 2000) did have a 32% rise in LDLC.  
Harris has ties to Big Pharma (the maker of Lovasa/Omnacor) and to Monsanto.
Data that I can easily access ascide from Harris shows effecacy of fish oil supplementation up to 4 grams of epa/dha a day.  5 grams a day for plaque stabilization/ antiinflammatory effect.  9 or 10 grams a day only in obese heart failure patients.  
My bottom line:  if your baseline tg's are 500-2000, watch out for your ldlp on high dose fish oil.  If you are an obese heart failure patient, lose weight.

I believe that when people use theraputic levels of fish oil (more than 3gm EPA=DHA)  they should follow their omega profile and lipoprotein analysis closely.  It is possible to push the eicosanoid synthesis pathways toward the arachadonic acid side depending on your diet.   Once you know your optimal dose, then you can adjust it up in certain circumstances.  I attended a football tailgate and found some of the mixed nuts were cooked in soy oil, so I took an extra dose of fishoil when I got home to compensate.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.  Regarding LDL particle size, how dependable would TG/HDL ratio be?  Sears indicates a ratio less than 2 indicates large benign LDL.  In my own experience over the past few years, as I've increased my fish oil intake (along with a Paleo diet) my HDL has gone up, my LDL has gone up, and my TGs have decreased.

I have increased my intake of omega-3 since I answered the poll. My problem was that I couldn't take it all at once. Too much fish oil gave me a super upset stomach. Granted, it was the impure Nature Made brand sold at Walmart (34% pure). Now that I am using Omapure, I take one capsule with every meal and then one before bed time. It 6x more expensive than the Nature Made junk but I'm not getting sick from it.

Does it matter that I break up my intake over the course of the day rather than swallow four capsules all at once?

great information here, thanks all.

To follow on Dr.BG's note on statin overuse :  there is an interesting presentation of baylor college's lipidsonline.org with discussion of guidelines for statin dosage.  The presenter notes how very little value is obtained from subsequent doubling of a statin dose and the risks for side effects.

http://www.lipidsonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?tk=82

Dr. D.  Thank you for the caution on fish oil. I take 1650mgs EPA/DHA twice per day.  Might be a good idea to cut out a dose if I eat salmon or other oily fish.

Would love to see more info on MK4/Mk7 K2 and MCFAs like coconut oil.

Hi, Mike--

While the Triglyceride/HDL ratio can serve as a useful measure of small LDL in a population, it performs poorly when applied to specific individuals. This is because small LDl, while influenced by the situation creating low HDL and high triglycerides, can also behave independently.

Small LDL is, in my view, best measured specifically.

It's pretty straightforward to end up in the middle of the pack on that poll.  But don't take gels or you'll be there all day.  One tablespoon of Carlson's Finest has 4800mg O-3's with 2400mg EPA and 1500mg DHA.  One swallow just as I'm sitting down to breakfast makes for a great start to every day.

I was told than an ApoE 4 Patient should not be on therapeutic doses of fish oil (for reasons which you have stated- raising LDL).

Dr Davis:

I would like to know which WS Harris 2008 you referenced and the reference for the females in the Harvard School of Public Health please.
I also would like to know if there was a correlation between baseline tg levels and those who experienced a more marked elevation of sd LDL on fish oil.

I guess that this is my day to ask you questions.
When you read a MDCT, do you also measure pericardial fat?
What do you think of Dr. Ding's new MESA findings re pericardial fat.  Thanks in advance.

I take 6000 units daily or more, but I also consume a few tablespoons of ground flax seed daily as well.
AND still eat fish a few times a week, especially oil rich sardines.

Homertobias:

Lots of interesting work being done on pericardial adipose tissue (PAT) and using CT imaging done in conjunction with CAC scoring to more precisely determine the relationship between PAT and the development of CAD and calcified plaques, i.e., in order to more precisely "score" the level of PAT and to determine association and/or causality with calcific lesions.

Dr. Lerber at University Hospital in Munich, Germany has observed that PAT accumulation precedes the development of calcified plaques, that increased volume of PAT are associated with reduced levels of  adiponectin and higher CRP.   So the idea is that with more precise measurements and concomittant imaging of both PAT and CAC, we might be able to better detect the presence of disease in an earlier stage.   There is also some push among those doing such research to link PAT thickness assessment with administering routine echo stress testing but this hasn't gained much traction yet other than in a small circle of folks.   The hope though is that PAT can also be used as another surrogate marker for diagnosing preclinical atherosclerosis.

But as of now, I don't think anyone who does a routine CAC scan, whether with MDCT or EBT is doing any form of assessment of PAT, at least not until there is more data on the reliability of using this as a clinical marker of disease.

Personally, I think there's a lot of interesting info that can come from this, and the idea of deposition of fat into muscle tissue and necrosis of that tissue, inflammation and the relation to levels of saturated fats consumed from dietary sources is an area that is just begging to be better researched.

Oh, and by the way, don't believe everything you read here from BG about what foods I consume, how much statin I take, or much else when it comes to me.  In fact, I'd prefer that she simply not make references to me in her writings wherever they appear.  This will obviate the need for me to continue to correct her misstatements about me, my lipids, and drug and supplement usage, as well as the fact that she continues to misrepresent that I have not achieved plaque stability and/or demonstrated regression through serial MDCT CAC scoring over a period of three years despite very low dose use of rosuvastatin.

A correction....  My serial scan scores show that I have achieved stability and optimally regression of coronary calcium.   My point is that Dr. BG continues to claim that those taking rosuvastatin at doses of ~10mg daily cannot possibly achieve regression on EBT/MCDT scanning, and that just isn't so.

I happen to be one of those whom I believe Dr. Davis was referring to with "too much of a good thing" with reference to EPA/DHA dosing.  My dose was upped from ~1-2 grams per day (of EPA/DHA) to ~10 grams based on recommendations from Dr. BG.  This occurred in or around December 2008 and continued until very recently. Based on five consecutive, quarterly NMR's and VAP's, my sdLDL-P remained at >85% of LDL-P, and my trigs went from ~40 to ~75, and, more significantly, my overall LDL-P rose from ~1000 to ~1300.   No other significant impacts were noted, other than CRP dropping to 0.7, which I attribute not to the n-3's, but instead to continued use of rosuvastatin together with combined high dosing of both boswellia and 5-Loxin and large doses of aspirin (taken specifically as an anti-inflammatory due to nerve and muscle pain from a herniated cervical disc in the month immediately prior to the last VAP testing).

The point though is that in some, excess fish oil can convert to higher trigs and higher LDL, and will not improve the concentration or ratios of sdLDL-P/LDL-P.

Yes, n=1, but I'm the n, so that's really most important to me, not what Wolf, Sears or anyone else has to say about this.  After all, what we're after is personalized medicine, not epidemiological observations that may be valid in large population studies but which may have no relevance to a particular individual.

Hi JEG,
Thanks for the references.  I am truly upset that you andBG seem to be having a cybertiff.  She has a big heart, alot of enthusiasm, alot of intelligence and makes me laugh. You are a sincere intellectual, very bright, searching for truth in medicine and are doing a good job of it.  I can learn from both of you and want to continue to do so.
As to omega 3 and dosage.  I can't seem to find any solid benefit to doses over 4g to maybe 5g per day. This seems to max out tg lowering, ldl improvement in particle size, minimal increase in hdl, bp lowering, improvement in tnf alpha, interleukin 6.  Reports on irs effect on HSCRP are conflicting.  One interesting report, Thies F, in Lancet 2003 took 188 patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy and treated them with either DHA/EPA, sunflower oil, or placebo for an average duration of 42 days prior to surgery.  There was a significant difference in thickness of the fibrous cap over the plaque,the degree of monocyte  infiltration of the fibrous cap, percent DHA etc.  This directly addresses plaque stability.  I love it.

Homertobias,

That is a great plaque stablization article -- will have to ck out!



Jeq,

I must be correct again as indicated by the length and duration of the post!

Let me get this straight -- the lipoproteins were less than desirable for both you and JJ/Jim for the past 2008 to 2009 (you reported increased sdLDL?), yet both of you posted regression recently on BOTH of your EBCT/MDCT results....  

Gosh... I wonder if the high dose fish oil had anything to do with it?

EPA DHA get infiltrated directly locally into calcified plaque and has immense immeasurable benefits for regression BEYOND lipoproteins.  I think you have seen some them, personally IMHO.

-G

Homertobias,

That is a great plaque stablization article -- will have to ck out!



Jeq,

I must be correct again as indicated by the length and duration of the post!

Let me get this straight -- the lipoproteins were less than desirable for both you and JJ/Jim for the past 2008 to 2009 (you reported increased sdLDL?), yet both of you posted regression recently on BOTH of your EBCT/MDCT results....  

Gosh... I wonder if the high dose fish oil had anything to do with it?

EPA DHA get infiltrated directly locally into calcified plaque and has immense immeasurable benefits for regression BEYOND lipoproteins.  I think you have seen some them, personally IMHO.

-G

By the way, congratulations to you two gentleman, JJ and Jeg, for achieving regression with Pattern B! I have looked for regression in Pattern B forum posters, but turned up none. You two are the FIRST at TYP that I can find...

Do you think omega-3 had any role in your success since that appears to be the common link as well as major supplement change you guys identified?

I wonder what the omega-6:3 ratio is now off the fish oil?

By the way, congratulations to you two gentleman, JJ and Jeg, for achieving regression with Pattern B! I have looked for regression in Pattern B forum posters, but turned up none. You two are the FIRST at TYP that I can find...

Do you think omega-3 had any role in your success since that appears to be the common link as well as major supplement change you guys identified?

I wonder what the omega-6:3 ratio is now off the fish oil?

I think the key will be if you continue to see good results over a period of a year or so.  Changes in your workout approach, whether it is more volume, less volume, slower, more explosive etc. tend to produce good initial gains because you are doing something new and different, it's always good to mix it up once in a while.

"I think the key will be if you continue to see good results over a period of a year or so. Changes in your workout approach, whether it is more volume, less volume, slower, more explosive etc. tend to produce good initial gains because you are doing something new and different, it's always good to mix it up once in a while."

I beg to differ on this. When something works, it works. There is no reason to "mix it up" if results are what you are after. If exercise is something you are using for entertainment then yes you'll need a variety of things to keep you interested.

If you allow for recovery, sleep and eat healthfully, eventually strength gains slow to a crawl no matter what technique you use. In fact, once you see your strength gains slow and halt, you know you are on the RIGHT track. Sometimes it will take multiple attempts with the same weight load before progress resumes. Stay the course. Don't jump ship because you are not making the same gains you did early on in your training program - so long as your training is sound.

Here's a good paper discussing in part the non need for "mixing it up."

http://bit.ly/dIexZi

I had good results with slow burn after reading Fred's book. After a while, my strength gains stalled. Fred then recommended adding more fat to my diet and 'microloading'.  I got some 1.25 pound magnets and used those to more gradually increase the weight at each workout.  It worked very well and I lost another 10 pounds of fat and added another 30% of resistance across the board.

Doug McGuff's book Body by Science also has a lot of good information.

After many years of training to stay in shape, I think mixing it up is good for the mental part of it all, the "mo".
No doubt slow burn works and is very practical compared to the 90 minutes done 5 days or more a week of P90X which is quite popular right now.
In my teens I did a Bob Hoffman work out from Strength & Health Magazine, that consisted of very heavy weights, with low reps done slowly & breathing deeply. I gained a lot of muscle doing that, and could hardly walk after the squats.

I've been doing Fred's Slow Burn for over three and a half years now after a recommendation from  Dr Mike Eades and I love it. Also read Doug McGuff's book Body by Science a while back and it's a really useful addition. I follow a low carb Paleo diet. I have a diagnosis of osteoporosis and this was the initial reason I took up Slow Burn but it has improved my overall health no end. I used to do it at home but now at a gym so I can lift heavier weights. I must look strange - a middle aged woman doing her weight lifting in slow motion but I don't mind

I haven't tried Slow Burn, but I've had good results with Body by Science (which was my first introduction to HIT). I was impressed with how quickly it made my arms look more athletic (I'm female) and I was pretty surprised to get the metabolic training effect out of something so slow.

As far as "mixing it up" goes, as I understand it the concept of periodization came about to allow athletes to focus on strength, explosiveness, metabolic conditioning, etc. at different times so as to improve in multiple ways over the longer term without overtraining
(patterns like Westside Barbell training try to address the same problem a different way). If your goal is to maintain muscle mass for health and appearance, as Fred says you really don't need to worry about it even though your progress will eventually slow.

I've been doing a slightly modified version of 'Slow Burn' (modified to suit my own interests and physical needs), with great success.  I agree with Mr. Hahn that if one is following a properly designed routine, there is absolutely no need to "mix it up" every now and then, as the P90X ("muscle confusion) infomercials would maintain; there's simply no scientifically derived evidence to support the point.  That said, Dr. Davis, if you would be willing, I'd love to see a few of the specifics of your workout routine (e.g., exercises, exercise order, etc.).  Thanks for the blog.  Will.

Wow. After 15 years, you just caught up with it? Now you know why exercise science in college is terrible. No difference than nutrition. Most of information are from USSR or its surrounding area way back in time. Ever wonder why they used to dominate Olympic games? They were way way way ahead of USA in exercise science despite inferior genetics. After the break up of USSR, USA started to get all the information over exercise science but not everyone caught on quickly.

Anyway, it's good to mix things up mainly to beat boredom. It's different for everybody so go with whatever you want.

Slow burn will never work for athletes though. The movements demand quick sudden movement so it's good idea to mix things up, not solely on slow movement. It doesn't work in REAL LIFE. Basically, you're being taught to move slowly.... Not really a good idea.

I want to add one example of how learning USSR's exercise science and others will get you very far...

http://www.defrancostraining.com/index.php


VERY GOOD trainer for athletes.

I bought Mr. Hahn's book and was very interested in the assertion that slow burn is the only (or perhaps best way) to train fast twitch muscles. My cross-fit instructor is skeptical. Other than this book, does anyone know of additional research that supports this?

I tried "Slow Burn" at home, and frankly, it was too hard for me to keep doing. It is intense! Next I tried the children's versian, still couldn't make my self do it, even though I could tell it was working.
Finally, I asked Fred Hahn for a recommendation for a person trainer in this method in the Seattle area, and he gave me Greg Anderson's, Serious Strength gym. I've been training there since April and am very happy to go in and work out with personal attention and encouragement for about 10 minutes a week, and with the results.     Jeanne

"Basically, you're being taught to move slowly.... Not really a good idea."

I don't buy this notion. I use slow-burn to build strength, and it's the only formal exercise I do. I'm 54 yrs old and I indulge in two sports that require both stamina and speed-surfing and skiing, and I have plenty of both.

"Slow burn will never work for athletes though. The movements demand quick sudden movement so it's good idea to mix things up, not solely on slow movement. It doesn't work in REAL LIFE. Basically, you're being taught to move slowly.... Not really a good idea."

Slow Burn is a method of resistance training designed to build muscle and thus strength and endurance. Any athlete who becomes stronger than he is already will experience a benefit in her chosen sport.

A stronger athlete is a better athlete IOW.

The two requirements for improvements in a sport skill is the exact practice of that skill and improvements of the body (being stronger, leaner, etc.)

Training fast with weights does not make one faster on the field. Slow and fast twitch muscle fibers are both recruited towards the end of an intense set of an exercise. These terms slow twitch and fast twitch refer to the fibers fatigue characteristics not their ability to move the body slowly or quickly. Many coaches and trainers misunderstand this.

It's been said that the best program is the one you can stick with.  There is no single optimum system IMHO.  If one tries this system and enjoys it, it is a good system for that person.    Also, there is much written about the benefits of slow movement training, as related to central nervous system training.  The safety factor would also be attractive to middle-aged people to whom injury prevention is a priority. For serious athletes (probably 0% of commenters) training crossover is probably exaggerated. If you want to get good at football, play football.  If you want to get good at lifting weights slowly, lift weights slowly.

I get a lot of strange looks when I'm doing the slow burn at the gym.  I do an upper body workout one day and lower body/core two days later.  Three days I week I do Mercola 8's HIIT on a treadmill.  I'm already seeing improvements in my running but nothing new in the mirrors yet.

kevin

"The two requirements for improvements in a sport skill is the exact practice of that skill and improvements of the body"

I agree with this and I don't see the relation between "strength" training and other sports specific training. Strength is strength no matter how you get it.  To train "athletically" then you need to train as close as possible to that end which fits into other parts of a complete regimen. There are ways to train weights sports specific which would bring it closer to, and work more toward your chosen endeavor but then you would still need separate strength training. Or at least can benefit from it.  So when training for strength, what difference does it make how fast or how slow you lift (as it applies to your sport)?  None IMO. It only matters as far as "weight training" results are concerned.  And getting stronger and more fit never hurt any part of sport (IMO).

Kevin you said:

"I get a lot of strange looks when I'm doing the slow burn at the gym. I do an upper body workout one day and lower body/core two days later. Three days I week I do Mercola 8's HIIT on a treadmill. I'm already seeing improvements in my running but nothing new in the mirrors yet."

I really suggest that you consider ditching the HIIT stuff. You're hindering your ability to build muscle with that stuff.

As for looking leaner, that is diet. What is your diet like?

About the comment that slow burn teaches to move slowly. So what? That's how we learn motions. We learn motions independently of speed. As we repeat the motion, we become more proficient. As our proficiency increases, we can do the motion faster. But we learn the motion at slow speed first.

We don't learn to move slowly. We learn the motions slowly, then we can increase speed at will.

Once we've learned a motion, it's difficult to learn a similar but different motion at full speed. That's because the previous motion takes over as an automatism. Something like the golf swing for example. It's difficult to learn to swing a certain way when we've been swinging a different way for years. But it's possible, if we do the motions slowly first.

However, Slow Burn is not about learning the motions slowly, then increasing speed at will. Yet there is nothing preventing us from doing the same motions at full speed outside of the Slow Burn workout. If anything, since we've "practiced" the motions during the workout, we are now more proficient in these same motions and can execute them with more precision at higher speeds.

About the comment that slow burn teaches to move slowly I remember reading that chi kung standing meditation is suppost to be one of the most effective exercises to build speed. Not too fun to stand still for an hour a day though.
For me 2 workouts a week sound like too little, I don't doubt they're effective, I'm just sure I'd miss the activity the other 5 days of the week. Would probably feel lazy and tired. As a computer worker one of the reasons I enjoy working out is the high energy feeling it provides.
Is there a complementary activity that is suggested? I see in a previous comment that HIIT isn't.

The inevitable comments about a slow-movement workout making you slow always leave me puzzled. The slow movement makes your muscles work harder and prevents you from relying on momentum to move the weights. Your muscle memory of faster movements aren't erased.

My previous workout plan (Body for Life) consisted of more, faster reps. If the argument that slow workouts make you slow were true, my dancing would have gotten slower. It hasn't. I've built up strength with no joint pain and fewer workouts.

As for two workouts per week versus five being a problem--now I've heard everything. Go out and have some fun!

Muscle stem cells (in skeletal muscles) promotes a muscle transcription factor. With under use and age fast twitch fibers undergo more stem cell loss relative to the rate which slow twitch lose their % of stem cells.

Exerting the muscle to endure being used constantly over a time period increases the number of muscle stem cells. This applies to men and women. For both, fat and fibrosity infiltrated into muscle down regulates stem cells.

The anabolic effects of sex hormones show that endurance use at moderate intensity raises testosterone and the amount of muscle stem cells. Men lose +/- 1.6% testosterone annually after their very late 30's.

Women lose 90% of their estrogen at menopause, so their muscle loss pattern differs. Endurance training done by women to maximize anabolic bonus for stem cells is less simple. However, straining exertion at an incline triggers estrogen receptors and these instigate stem cell boost.

In both sexes the loss of non-postural fast twitch muscles is more rapid than the loss of slow twitch fibers. Yet not all human muscles lose stem cells at the same rate. These myogenic stem cells are called "satellite cells".

"anonymous'..... the Soviets excelled for years because their athletes were 'roided to the gills. C'mon, man, some of their women looked like Mad Dog Vachon, for cryin' out loud!

I'd like to give Slow Burn a try, but the Ken Hutchins-style workout places are usually located in tony 'hoods like Lake Forest, IL, out of reach for the majority of us. I'm also .... curious....I've hear that both the joints and nervous system can get fried over time with this method due to 'going to failure' all the time. Comments please.....

"I've hear that both the joints and nervous system can get fried over time with this method due to 'going to failure' all the time. Comments please....."

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

"As for two workouts per week versus five being a problem--now I've heard everything. "

Really? Never heard that before? ok then, go tell any of this kids he can exercise only 30 minutes per week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1malgZpYKn8

I enjoy the fact that I only need to do this once a week.
The rest of the week I figure skate and horseback ride, and enjoy the fact that I have a lot of energy and strength for my very physical job.
I don't want to spend my whole life in a gym.

Jeanne

Bingo Jeanne.

"Really? Never heard that before? ok then, go tell any of this kids he can exercise only 30 minutes per week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1malgZpYKn8"

We're talking about resistance training for 30 minutes a week not sports play. And these kids do not need ANY amount of exercise for sports play other than for skill practice of soccer.

Fred Hahn said...
Kevin you said:

. I'm already seeing improvements in my running but nothing new in the mirrors yet."

I really suggest that you consider ditching the HIIT stuff. You're hindering your ability to build muscle with that stuff.

As for looking leaner, that is diet. What is your diet like?


Fred, Thanks for the reply.  At my age--54--I have to reconcile myself to the inevitable slow physical decline.  Slow Burn keeps me from overdoing the weights and self-injury.  HIIT does the same for my cardio.  Dr Mercola wrote that his HIIT protocal stimulates over 500% increase in Growth Hormone.  

In part because of this website I've quit most all meat and dairy.  I admit to over-indulging in cookies and cakes this time of year.  In the past it didn't matter because running 50-80 miles every week kept my weight under control.  I've had to stop that due to a torn achilles;  Vibram Five-Finger Shoes were the cause.

A checkup and treadmill stress test last year showed I was at 20% body fat but a better stress-test number than 90% of men my age.  

My comment about nothing new in the mirrors yet was a joke but the point is I'm not seeing any new muscles yet from the Slow Burn.  But my resting heart rate has slowed since being on the Mercola 8's.  

Again, thanks for the note.

kevin

"Fred, Thanks for the reply. At my age--54--I have to reconcile myself to the inevitable slow physical decline. Slow Burn keeps me from overdoing the weights and self-injury. HIIT does the same for my cardio. Dr Mercola wrote that his HIIT protocal stimulates over 500% increase in Growth Hormone."

I don't believe that for a second. He would need to provide proof of this and you know he won't.

"In part because of this website I've quit most all meat and dairy."


WHAT? ALL meat?! That is an enormous mistake. Grass fed meats and wild caught fish are essential to your health. The dairy is fine.

"I admit to over-indulging in cookies and cakes this time of year. In the past it didn't matter because running 50-80 miles every week kept my weight under control. I've had to stop that due to a torn achilles; Vibram Five-Finger Shoes were the cause."

All I can say is running like that is terrible for your health hormonally and orthopedically.

"My comment about nothing new in the mirrors yet was a joke but the point is I'm not seeing any new muscles yet from the Slow Burn."

Your not eating any meat! How can you get benefits from any strength training program if you are not ingesting the necessary nutrients?

"But my resting heart rate has slowed since being on the Mercola 8's."

This doesn't mean a thing. I for one do not believe that a low RHR means improved health. In fact, I think quite the opposite.

I just tried doing push ups and body squats very slowly.  Although the body squats didn't seem very hard at all, after doing quite a few reps, I was sore.  I will continue this and see how it goes.

Fred Hahn said..  

I've quit most all meat and dairy."


WHAT? ALL meat?! That is an enormous mistake. Grass fed meats and wild caught fish are essential to your health. The dairy is fine.

"I admit to over-indulging in cookies and cakes this time of year. In the past it didn't matter because running 50-80 miles every week kept my weight under control. I've had to stop that due to a torn achilles; Vibram Five-Finger Shoes were the cause."

All I can say is running like that is terrible for your health hormonally and orthopedically.

"My comment about nothing new in the mirrors yet was a joke but the point is I'm not seeing any new muscles yet from the Slow Burn."

Your not eating any meat! How can you get benefits from any strength training program if you are not ingesting the necessary nutrients?

"But my resting heart rate has slowed since being on the Mercola 8's."

This doesn't mean a thing. I for one do not believe that a low RHR means improved health. In fact, I think quite the opposite.
  
Hi again Fred,

I'm sorry to argue but I could
cite plenty of studies showing the value of a lower resting heart rate.  That's basically the goal of all endurance athletes.  At high heart rates you're burning just glycogen.  At low heart rates you're burning mainly fats.  Trained marathon runners have such a low heart rate that they're burning mostly fat at speeds that have the rest of us still burning glycogen.  

I eat hi-protein veggies and supplement with B12 injections.  I'll have scrambled eggs once a week.  I'n not a tree-hugging vegan nutcase.  Like Clinton, I'm  trying to make up for a lifetime of poor eating habits.  For me that means no dairy,  no soy, very little sat fats, and once the silly season is over, no wheat products.  

kevin

"I'm sorry to argue but I could
cite plenty of studies showing the value of a lower resting heart rate."

Please do cite some.

"That's basically the goal of all endurance athletes. At high heart rates you're burning just glycogen. At low heart rates you're burning mainly fats. Trained marathon runners have such a low heart rate that they're burning mostly fat at speeds that have the rest of us still burning glycogen."

Please can you cite some full text papers that support this claim. Thanks.

Guys I've enjoyed the mental pingpong but it's lunch time and  the sun is shining for first time in weeks.  So I'm changing into my running shorts and going out to make some Vitamin D.  I just wish it wasn't 15 degrees but that's Wyoming.

kevin

Kevin - I don't think you're going to be able to make any vitamin D this time of year and at your latitude !

Anne, I got a 90 minute run, my face and legs are mildly sunburned.  At 7000ft altitude with no clouds or shade anywhere on the track I'm hoping for a lot of VitD.  But I wouldn't argue the point.  I run for other reasons and supplement with Vit D oil caps.

kevin

"@Anonymous said...
'As for two workouts per week versus five being a problem--now I've heard everything'.

Really? Never heard that before? ok then, go tell any of this kids he can exercise only 30 minutes per week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1malgZpYKn8"

Never heard of it--I guess I don't hang around a gym enough.

The little kids playing soccer is an example of what I meant when I said "go out and have some fun." Workout = strength training. Fun in this case = dance, soccer, skating, or whatever makes you enjoy working up a sweat.

I'm the only person at my gym doing slow, controlled lifts with my iPod tuned to a metronome. I get a lot of funny looks, which makes me chuckle to myself.

I'm happy with the results I've been getting in the two months I've been doing Fred's workout style, especially considering how little time it takes out of my week.

My one complaint is that it takes a lot of mental energy to be that focused for the duration of my workout. It was much easier to get to the gym when I knew I'd be doing a bunch of mindless reps and resting between sets while listening to music on my headphones. I'm also noticing how unfocused other people at the gym are, and the cardio people on the treadmills are suddenly driving me nuts.

I guess that's not really a complaint, just an observation. It makes me wonder what the atmosphere is like at Fred's gym. Too bad I don't live in New York.

Dr. Bill, I didn't know you were a Jersey boy. Gosh, we were practically neighbors back when you were young.

I've also been doing Fred's Slow Burn method for the last few months - only once a week, and I've only been doing it about 20 minutes. No changes on the scale (and I need changes, sob) but my jeans seem to get looser every day - and when I'm out going for birdwalks I find I have far more stamina than I have had in a long time.

Hi Kevin,

I'm sure the experts will correct me if I'm wrong, but the sun's ray's need to strike your skin at a particular angle for you to be able to make vitamin D, and that angle is not acute enough at northern latitudes in winter. Even though you can get sunburn in winter that is not the same part of the sun's rays which make vitamin D.

Hmm,  During the summer I run midday.  The sun is directly overhead and the tan is darkest on my shoulders and the tops of my feet;  I run in VFF sandals.  If an imaginary line directly overhead is zero degrees and the horizon is 90 degrees, this time of year the sun is never higher than about 45 degrees.  When running midday now the sun is hitting my face and legs at an angle similar to what it does during Summer.  I know I can have my Vit D levels tested.  I may do that soon.  

kevin

Appropriate to this Slow Burn thread, I'm a veterinarian practicing since 1984.

I was at the gym just finishing my SlowBurn arms and shoulders workout when the clinic called to say there was an emergency.  The workout involves using eight different machines.  When it's done I can barely lift my arms.  

I got to the clinic and found a patient I'd spayed two days ago had chewed out her stitches, all three layers and her intestines were hanging from the six inch long open wound.  The owner had come home for lunch and found her like that and rushed her to the clinic.

I took her right to surgery.  The owner stayed to watch.  Having just finished a Slow Burn workout I didn't have much control over my arms.  They shook like St Vitus Dance.  It took an effort of will it control my surgical tools as I debrided the raw wound, cleaned the exposed bowels and replaced them.  

As I worked I overheard the owner murmer to the nurse, "He really cares, doesn't he."

This morning, patient doing well.

I've done slow burn workouts - I've become convinced that the key is the amount of time that the muscle is working and to stimulate growth you need to work it until if is starting to fail.

If you do 10 quick reps you end up spending more of you time between reps rather than working out.

I do a mix these days - 8 quick reps followed by two ultra slow reps - until the muscle collapses.

Most of the folks in the gym are embarrassed to push to collapse - but that seems to be what stimulates growth.

Hi Fred:

I'm not familiar with your book but I plan on changing that.

I started resistance training for the first time 18 months ago.  I'm 54.  I apply the Body by Science concepts, however I've evolved my program to where I do one body part a week.  On a 6 week cycle I do lat pulldown, overhead press, leg press, seated row, chest press and leg press.  

I continue to see gains in TUL or load every workout.  

This with a paleo diet, has improved my overall fitness by an amazing degree.

Sifter said: I'd like to give Slow Burn a try, but the Ken Hutchins-style workout places are usually located in tony 'hoods like Lake Forest, IL, out of reach for the majority of us.

Exercise Coach has facilities in Lake Zurich, Buffalo Grove, and Arlington Heights IL, and features Super Slow style workouts.

I work out at a 24hr Fitness.  If there's an opposite to 'tony' that's probably it.

Fred,
How can 'slow burn' exercise benefit someone who is pre-diabetic, HAS NEVER BEEN OVERWEIGHT (and does not want to lose weight) but uses a combination of aerobic/resistance exercises along with low-carb eating to control blood sugar? Exercising only once or twice a week doesn't seem enough to do the job. I have never tried this type of exercise only read about it.

acanthusbk - I live in the the UK where there are no Slow Burn or Super Slow gym facilities. I just used Fred's book and asked him questions over the net, he was so helpful. When I went to a gym I found out how to use the machines correctly from a trainer there and then simply used the Slow Burn technique.

rmarie - in addition to other health problems I am atypical type 2 diabetic, thin, never been overweight, who eats very low carb Paleo diet. I do Slow Burn/Superslow twice a week and walk three or four miles a day. My blood glucose control is excellent.

Ann, thank you for your very helpful and informative answers! Maybe Fred has something to add as well.

"How can 'slow burn' exercise benefit someone who is pre-diabetic, HAS NEVER BEEN OVERWEIGHT (and does not want to lose weight) but uses a combination of aerobic/resistance exercises along with low-carb eating to control blood sugar?"

Well it helps the way any resistance training program helps. IMHO, SB is a better way to perform your resistance training program. I also strongly believe from years of experience that high intensity resistance training produces better results than high volume, low intensity training.

"Exercising only once or twice a week doesn't seem enough to do the job. I have never tried this type of exercise only read about it."

Twice a week, not once, is best. If you have never done it then how do you know it won't do the trick? And yes you should stay active too.

Now when you say low carb, how low carb are you? If you are pre-diabetic, I wouldn't go above 30-60 grams of carbs a day all from nonstarchy veggies.

45 year old Bernard Hopkin's bulky (but undefined) body boxed against the sculpted 18 year younger light heavy weight division champion in Canada Sat. night.

Many don't like boxing and have their reasons. The muscle response involved is very impressive though.

Maybe someone can tell me if any
of the boxers' important training steps would be akin to slow burns.

"45 year old Bernard Hopkin's bulky (but undefined) body boxed against the sculpted 18 year younger light heavy weight division champion in Canada Sat. night.

Many don't like boxing and have their reasons. The muscle response involved is very impressive though.

Maybe someone can tell me if any
of the boxers' important training "steps would be akin to slow burns.

Not sure what you mean by this Mito.

Slow Burn is a way to lift weights. Boxing is boxing.

I think this was addressed in the edition of Slow Burn that I have.  Weight lifters can become as large as NFL linemen but the weight lifters don't have the explosive power of those linemen.  The lineman are training those fast twitch fibers while weight lifters aren't.   Slow Burn works all muscle fibers.  I could be wrong.  I don't have the book handy.

I think this was addressed in the edition of Slow Burn that I have.  Weight lifters can become as large as NFL linemen but the weight lifters don't have the explosive power of those linemen.  The lineman are training those fast twitch fibers while weight lifters aren't.   Slow Burn works all muscle fibers.  I could be wrong.  I don't have the book handy.

Supposedly all boxers move weights around in some way sometimes in their training regimen. I've seen promotional shots of guys on their backs slowly pushing oversize tires up with their legs.

Explosive ability is a good description of a special capability they'd want to develop. A counter punch is often a fight changer. I'd like to hear if slow burn method might improve any aptitude over another weight technique.

If this is too far off topic or doen't merit discussion there is no need to respond. I don't box, but often see physique disparities in contenders in a match.

((I always think of lifting weights as a solution to our contemporary lifestyle - it meets a need and serves individual goals. Nobody considered it where I worked as a longshoreman; we man handled each sack and box in jumbles using giant rope nets inside and outside fetid holds of ships.))

You play Xbox?