Okay guys, I usually try not to get too technical around here, but I was recently sent some material that combines science and running (my two loves) and saw it as a perfect opportunity to explain some things to you guys. Recently, an article in the news popped up titled "Can you get fit in six minutes a week?" Today we're going to discuss this here at FL.Before I begin, let me give you a brief science lesson. In our cells, we have tiny organelles. These organelles do different functions. As athletes, the most important organelle is Mitochondria. These puppies are known as the powerhouses of our cells, because they create something called ATP. ATP is used by our body to create energy. Think of mitochondria as an aid station in a marathon. Each aid station has GU and Gatorade (ATP) for you to consume to turn into energy. So....the more mitochondria you have, the more ATP you can generate, the more energy you can create (within reason). Got it? Okay, class, A+. Now, let's continue...
So within the mitochondria, there are various proteins and other chemicals that allow the mitochondria to do its thing. The one we're going to talk about now is PGC-1alpha. This protein is thought to be involved in the prevention of obesity and diabetes because it helps in insulin regulation. It is also thought to play a role in the creation of new mitochondria. Remember--the more mitochondria, the more energy. So---more mitochondria=good. And, more PGC-1alpha=more mitochondria. Are things starting to click now?
So, how do we increase our mitochondria and allow them to function as well as possible? It's simple. Exercise. We increase our aerobic capacity and help our cellular powerhouses function when we hit the road for long periods of time....or do we?
The following is directly taken from the New York Times Well Blog:
A few years ago, researchers at the National Institute of Health and Nutrition in Japan put rats through a series of swim tests with surprising results. They had one group of rodents paddle in a small pool for six hours, this long workout broken into two sessions of three hours each. A second group of rats were made to stroke furiously through short, intense bouts of swimming, while carrying ballast to increase their workload. After 20 seconds, the weighted rats were scooped out of the water and allowed to rest for 10 seconds, before being placed back in the pool for another 20 seconds of exertion.
The scientists had the rats repeat these brief, strenuous swims 14 times, for a total of about four-and-a-half minutes of swimming. Afterward, the researchers tested each rat’s muscle fibers and found that, as expected, the rats that had gone for the six-hour swim showed preliminary molecular changes that would increase endurance. But the second rodent group, which exercised for less than five minutes also showed the same molecular changes.
The potency of interval training is nothing new. Many athletes have been straining through interval sessions once or twice a week along with their regular workout for years. But what researchers have been looking at recently is whether humans, like that second group of rats, can increase endurance with only a few minutes of strenuous exercise, instead of hours? Could it be that most of us are spending more time than we need to trying to get fit?
The answer, a growing number of these sports scientists believe, may be yes.
“There was a time when the scientific literature suggested that the only way to achieve endurance was through endurance-type activities,” such as long runs or bike rides or, perhaps, six-hour swims, says Martin Gibala, PhD, chairman of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. But ongoing research from Gibala’s lab is turning that idea on its head. In one of the group’s recent studies, Gibala and his colleagues had a group of college students, who were healthy but not athletes, ride a stationary bike at a sustainable pace for between 90 and 120 minutes. Another set of students grunted through a series of short, strenuous intervals: 20 to 30 seconds of cycling at the highest intensity the riders could stand. After resting for four minutes, the students pedaled hard again for another 20 to 30 seconds, repeating the cycle four to six times (depending on how much each person could stand), “for a total of two to three minutes of very intense exercise per training session,” Gibala says.
Each of the two groups exercised three times a week. After two weeks, both groups showed almost identical increases in their endurance (as measured in a stationary bicycle time trial), even though the one group had exercised for six to nine minutes per week, and the other about five hours. Additionally, molecular changes that signal increased fitness were evident equally in both groups. “The number and size of the mitochondria within the muscles” of the students had increased significantly, Gibala says, a change that, before this work, had been associated almost exclusively with prolonged endurance training. Since mitochondria enable muscle cells to use oxygen to create energy, “changes in the volume of the mitochondria can have a big impact on endurance performance.” In other words, six minutes or so a week of hard exercise (plus the time spent warming up, cooling down, and resting between the bouts of intense work) had proven to be as good as multiple hours of working out for achieving fitness. The short, intense workouts aided in weight loss, too, although Gibala hadn’t been studying that effect. “The rate of energy expenditure remains higher longer into recovery” after brief, high-intensity exercise than after longer, easier workouts, Gibala says. Other researchers have found that similar, intense, brief sessions of exercise improve cardiac health, even among people with heart disease.
There’s a catch, though. Those six minutes, if they’re to be effective, must hurt. “We describe it as an ‘all-out’ effort,” Gibala says. You’ll be straying “well out of your comfort zone.” That level of discomfort makes some activities better-suited to intense training than others. “We haven’t studied runners,” Gibala says. The pounding involved in repeated sprinting could lead to injuries, depending on a runner’s experience and stride mechanics. But cycling and swimming work well. “I’m a terrible swimmer,” Gibala says, “so every session for me is intense, just because my technique is so awful.” Meanwhile, his lab is studying whether people could telescope their workouts into even less time. Could a single, two- to three-minute bout of intense exercise confer the same endurance and health benefits as those six minutes of multiple intervals? Gibala is hopeful. “I’m 41, with two young children,” he says. “I don’t have time to go out and exercise for hours.” The results should be available this fall.Okay, so I know what you're thinking: "Great! No more long runs for me!" Hold on there, cowboy. Let's break down this article a bit. First off, the swimming rat study. I tracked down the actual research paper. The "molecular changes" are increased levels of the PGC-1alpha I was mentioning earlier. Although the study is very interesting, what the NYT failed to mention was that the scientists only measured the PGC-1alpha levels up to 18 hours after exercise. We have no idea what happens to that protein in the long term. Sure, an increase is interesting, but if it doesn't increase in the long term, is it that significant?
The cycling study does prove to be interesting, but when you delve into the article the main picture you get is that short bursts of HIT (high intensity training) and ALMOST comparable to ET (endurance training). The HIT people exercised an average of 1.5 hours a week (1.5 hours of super intense, super painful cycling) and the ET people exercised an average of 4.5 hours a week (at typical aerobic pace). Now remember, the article says the results are almost identical. Here is a graph taken directly from the article.
It's showing protein content of two proteins involved in making the mitochondria function effectively. The graph is broken up into HIT and ET groups, and the protein content was measured before and after exercise. What you can see is that the ET groups had higher protein content than the HIT groups. The levels are very similar (and actually may not be statistically significant), but they are not identical. So...would you rather do 1.5 hours of sucky mcsucksuck, puke up a lung running....or 4.5 hours of relatively easy effort?Now, I'm not knocking speedwork or short interval sessions. We all know how beneficial they can be in a training plan. What I am trying to do is to open your eyes a bit to see how its very easy for you to pull the information you want out of a scientific study and ignore other factors that come into play. Don't get me wrong--I think these are great studies and the results are very, very interesting. But, with all things you read, it's important you read things with a critical eye. Do what you will, but I'm gonna keep chugging along with my long runs....and enjoy every minute of it.

















