Kettlebell AGT & Longevity

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Nate

Level 6 Valued Member
I think this study must be based on the Trondheim Protocol from Norway. The Dept of Sports Science there has been working on 4*4 mins with 3 mins rests for a good number of years, on regular people, and the obese, and has a good number of studies on it.

It's not quite a brutal as it sounds. For the first few weeks you are only doing 1x4 min session, then 2x4 min session, then three min session, then you work up to doing 4x4 mins session, with 3 mins rest.

Even the >90% of max is a little misleading. In the first few weeks, you hit >90% only in the final minute of the 4 mins. In the last few weeks, you only hit >90% of max for the last two mins or each 4 mins interval. Challenging, but doable and sustainable. Not as hard as you might think.

I've done the program in the past for 16 weeks on the treadmill. It's not super arduous. It led to significant gains in my 1 mile time, my 1.5 mile time (per the US Secret Service fitness standards, placing me in the top 'Excellent' category for my age -- FYI, I'm not in the Secret Service). My 5 k time also improved, despite not running for a continuous 5 k for the 16 week period.

One of the key benefits of the program was that people who don't like to exercise enjoyed it, as it felt quick and invigorating, and stuck to it. There was also a two day a week, mild, strength training component.
I believe this is the study used. Not sure if it's similar/same as Norway or not...
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2118940401/2087011773/mmc1.pdf
 

Bret S.

Level 7 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
Perhaps because of the time in which I grew up, but I remain jaded about much "science" - when it's funded by commercial interests, it's no longer science. "They" told us butter was bad for us and lots of refined carbs were good. "They" also put both my parents on various medicines towards the end of their lives that I'm convinced worsened, not helped, both their longevity and their quality of life. And I have my own - my long-term asthma "required" medicines, one of which I'm quite convinced was the cause of a case of pneumonia that came within a few days of killing me. "They" also tried to get me to take cholesterol-lowering medicines for years until they realized my cholesterol levels were actually very healthy in the last few years.

Just my opinion, of course, and I do realize that much good has come from science and medical research. I think my disagreements stem more from the questions they ask than from the answers they find. Again, just my opinion.
-S-
I'm with you on this one. A friend of mine recently went into the hospital for a minor prostate procedure and never came home, he called his daughter at 2 am and said, "you have to get me out of here, they're going to kill me". It was a month of one complication after another caused by who knows what. In the end I believe he would be alive and survived for many more years if he had just stayed home.
Personally my goal is to never have to take a prescription medication. I will trust my health "care" to myself. If I break a bone or burst an appendix take me to a doctor. Medicine has acccomplished some amazing things and I'm truly in awe of what they can do. However when it comes to my health I'll take care of that. So far I've been successful with the exception of the occasional antibiotic.
I think the pharma industry and doctors are pushing drugs on a lazy and too trusting population. I've never seen so much advertising for drugs. If I hear, "be sure to tell your doctor about all the medications your taking" again I think I'll gag.
My own mother had a tooth pulled and had a very bad sinus infection, the doctor put her on heavy antibiotics and it cleared. However her health was declining still and she told me she felt like dying it was so bad. The doctors checked her and had nothing to say, I had to step in and get her on a heavy probiotic and supplement regimen. Her health improved 50% within 24 hrs. Within a few weeks she was back to her old self.
Apparently the doctors knew how to help with her "sick care" but not her "health care"...
 

North Coast Miller

Level 8 Valued Member
Relative to science as it applies to the individual, always get a second opinion! Especially if going under the knife.

And yes I agree with a lot of the criticism about prescription meds. My father in law watched several of his friends die from complications stemming from blood thinners, and a good friend of mine's father died from complications involving blood thinners and pain killers in combination.

Personally I have had 5 surgical repairs and I came out the other side of all of them better for it, but I've had some very good doctors. I also had a very good doctor disqualify me for a surgical intervention ("if I were unethical I could make a case for surgery") and I healed up fine just with exercise.

It isn't the science that's reckless or dangerously misapplied, any more than the trade schools are teaching folks how NOT to fix your car right the first time. Some people are just not good at what they do. Personal referrals are worth a fortune - both for medical specialists AND mechanics.
 

CMarker

Level 5 Valued Member
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
Beware of accepting "Science" over practical experience. For example, there was a famous book written in the 80s called "The Exercise Myth", and if you google it, you can see a little bit written about it:

"While working on The Potbelly Syndrome, I found lots of evidence that exercise could not prevent or cure obesity, diabetes, or heart disease. When I read Dr. Solomon's excellent book The Exercise Myth, I learned that exercise was not only useless, it could be dangerous."

HAHAHA!

Lots of dangerous things have been justified with "science". "Social Science" in my opinion is one of the most nefarious examples of this. I remember even milk being declared by "Science" to be bad for your health - it "produces mucus and nothing else". Because of this nonsense, I stopped drinking milk for 3 years.

I appreciate your comments in this forum. I often bring up nutrition articles when I teach research and statistics. Eggs have gone from good to bad to everywhere in between. I think part of the issue is that the media needs a simple headline or take-away from the article. A headline can't have ambiguity. I go to the source of the article to judge its value. Each study investigates only a few outcomes. so we can only say that it is good or bad for only that outcome. Second, I need to know who it was good or bad for in the article. In older people, strong people, vegans, and ketogenic dieters the results may vary greatly. A simple question about whether eggs are good or bad for you leads to 1000s of articles on the topic. Each article provides a small piece to the puzzle.

Working with Pavel for the past few years, I have seen him digest a ton of the literature on conditioning. He has tried and thrown out 100s of endurance protocols. In the end, he uses intuition to guide him, reads what has been done before, and then tests out his ideas. In a way, that seems like a good strategy for all of us. Don't just take what someone tells us, but test it to see whether it works for ourselves.

Fun discussion. Thanks.
 

guardian7

Level 6 Valued Member
I appreciate your comments in this forum. I often bring up nutrition articles when I teach research and statistics. Eggs have gone from good to bad to everywhere in between. I think part of the issue is that the media needs a simple headline or take-away from the article. A headline can't have ambiguity. I go to the source of the article to judge its value. Each study investigates only a few outcomes. so we can only say that it is good or bad for only that outcome. Second, I need to know who it was good or bad for in the article. In older people, strong people, vegans, and ketogenic dieters the results may vary greatly. A simple question about whether eggs are good or bad for you leads to 1000s of articles on the topic. Each article provides a small piece to the puzzle.

Working with Pavel for the past few years, I have seen him digest a ton of the literature on conditioning. He has tried and thrown out 100s of endurance protocols. In the end, he uses intuition to guide him, reads what has been done before, and then tests out his ideas. In a way, that seems like a good strategy for all of us. Don't just take what someone tells us, but test it to see whether it works for ourselves.

Fun discussion. Thanks.

The words science and facts have become so loaded these days that I use the phrase, "the best available evidence" instead. I also ask people how did you arrive at that conclusion? This will prompt them to consider their sources and identify them for you so you know where they are coming from. It seems to work. Supporting your case with research is good, but research is based on averages and can be a population not representative of you, so testing the ideas out in practice is important too. Therefore, the ad-hoc approach that Craig Marker describes as how Pavel arrives at his conclusions, seems very sound to me and is how professionals really work balancing science and experience. I look forward to learning the results at PlanStrong soon.

There is an interesting book called "Practical Wisdom" which revisits the ancient idea of how applying knowledge in the best way in a particular situation only comes through experience and practice. We seem to have lost this middle ground these days.
 

Nate

Level 6 Valued Member
Still works, just realize what a hypothesis, test and conclusion says and what it doesn't.
 

Attachments

  • scientific_method.png
    scientific_method.png
    393.4 KB · Views: 5

jca17

Level 5 Valued Member
Wait, wheres the “get funding to test hypothesis” step?
:)
Scienctific interpretations (like diagrams) are models, and may not neatly map to reality
 

Nate

Level 6 Valued Member
Sounds like you've developed that theory by gathering data for your hypothesis... ;)
 

jca17

Level 5 Valued Member
Thats actually a presupposition of science, so it cant be proven or analyzed. We dont often deal with “truth” as scientists, because no matter how many times you repeat a result, you cant be sure it will always be so. Mathematical truths can be proven (on the basis of mathematical presuppositions, where we know the entire space of possibilities). Natural phenomenae can be modeled and accepted scientifically on the basis of the scientific method. This isnt a diss or smear on science! Does anyone have the capability or desire to record the state of all matter in the universe? Useful models it is then.
 

guardian7

Level 6 Valued Member
Thats actually a presupposition of science, so it cant be proven or analyzed. We dont often deal with “truth” as scientists, because no matter how many times you repeat a result, you cant be sure it will always be so. Mathematical truths can be proven (on the basis of mathematical presuppositions, where we know the entire space of possibilities). Natural phenomenae can be modeled and accepted scientifically on the basis of the scientific method. This isnt a diss or smear on science! Does anyone have the capability or desire to record the state of all matter in the universe? Useful models it is then.

Agreed, but when dealing with the media, people not in academia, without a science background, etc. such reasonable, rational, modesty is usually perceived as you not knowing what you are talking about or lacking confidence in your views. I almost always answer people, "It depends," and they hate that!
 

Nate

Level 6 Valued Member
Agreed, but when dealing with the media, people not in academia, without a science background, etc. such reasonable, rational, modesty is usually perceived as you not knowing what you are talking about or lacking confidence in your views. I almost always answer people, "It depends," and they hate that!
A sign of wisdom is realizing how little you know.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Top Bottom