« Even monkeys aren't the same | Main | Tough meat for vegetarians to swallow »
April 17, 2006
Slow Burn Fitness for boomers
I read a timely article in the New York Times yesterday about how baby boomers are showing up in emergency rooms in record numbers for fractures, dislocations, sprains, strains, and all kinds of other trauma thanks to their efforts to get in shape and delay the aging process. Orthopedic surgeons are doing a land office business replacing knees, hips, and a host of other parts on amateur jocks who are getting up in years.
"Boomers are the first generation that grew up exercising, and the first that expects, indeed demands, that they be able to exercise into their 70's," said Dr. Nicholas A. DiNubile, a Philadelphia-area orthopedic surgeon, who coined and trademarked the term boomeritis.
"But evolution doesn't work that quick. Physically, you can't necessarily do at 50 what you did at 25. We've worn out the warranty on some body parts. That's why so many boomers are breaking down. It ought to be called Generation Ouch."
Led by baby boomers, loosely defined as the 78 million Americans born from 1946 to 1964, sports injuries have become the No. 2 reason for visits to a doctor's office nationwide, behind the common cold, according to a 2003 survey by National Ambulatory Medical Care.
A Bureau of Labor Statistics study said infirmities associated with the athletic activities of middle-aged adults were the source of 488 million days of restricted work in 2002. When the Consumer Product Safety Commission examined emergency-room visits in 1998, it discovered that sports-related injuries to baby boomers had risen by 33 percent since 1991 and amounted to $18.7 billion in medical costs.
It appears from these statistics that you can't have it all. You can't stay in shape and keep your body from wearing out after you've put a few years on it, or so it seems. If you try to take it easy to spare your joints, you end up with a spare tire around your middle. What a choice to have to make.
But we really don't have to make that choice. We can both stay slim and fit and protect our joints, tendons and ligaments. How? By pursuing a type of exercise MD and I wrote about in the book Slow Burn.
Let me tell you how we came to write Slow Burn
Several years back an article appeared in Newsweek that our agent, Channa Taub, saw about a type of exercise that paid huge benefits but only required a few minutes per week. Channa, being totally exercise averse, figured that even she could endure 15-20 minutes per week, so she went to see visit the trainer who was the subject of the Newsweek piece and whose facility was in Manhattan. When she got there, she listened to the pitch from the trainer then asked if there was anyone closer to her home who did the same program. She was directed to a trainer named Fred Hahn, who had actually trained the trainers in the Newsweek article and who had a facility on the upper West side, much closer to where Channa lived.
Channa went to Fred's place on 78th Street, did a workout, and somewhere along the process she mentioned that she was a literary agent. Fred told Channa that he had been wanting to write a book about his methods. Channa told Fred that she represented a number of authors who wrote on health topics and mentioned MD and me. Fred was excited because he had been using our book Protein Power as the nutritional primer for all his clients and had been trying to arrange for us to come to New York and do a talk on low-carb dieting. Synchronicity again.
Channa called and told me about Fred and his methods and sent me a copy of the Newsweek article. She said that Fred was open to the idea of a collaboration with MD and me on a book about the subject. I read the Newsweek piece and thought it was okay, but nothing earth shattering. I told Channa that on our next trip to New York we would go with her to meet Fred and talk about his program.
Let me digress here to tell you that in both Protein Power
In due course we went to New York and found ourselves in Fred's facility. We all went to lunch and we spent the afternoon talking about Fred's program. Frankly, I took it all with more than a grain of salt.
Fred claimed that 15-20 minutes or so spent doing his program would increase muscle mass at anywhere from 100 to 150 percent faster than traditional strength training, that it would improve cardiovascular fitness (or what people think of as cardiovascular fitness) more than aerobic exercise, enhance flexibility, and increase bone density--all without risk to the joints, tendons, and ligaments. In other words, so Fred said, people could get more strength benefit from his method of training than they could from the three-times-per-week-in-the-gym pumping-iron workouts they were used to, more cardiovascular benefit than jogging or bouncing around in an aerobics class, more healthful joint flexibility than they could obtain from practicing yoga or Pilates, and strengthen their bones, all in 15-20 minutes per week. You can see why I was sceptical.
We told Fred we would think about the book project and left with a number of medical references he gave us. I was eager to get into the literature and see if there was anything to all the information he had given us.
I spent about two weeks poring over all the medical papers I could find, and it turned out that Fred was right. His method of slow training, which replaces quantity of exercise with quality, does tremendously reduce the risk for injury, increases strength and muscle mass faster than traditional weight training, improves flexibility and lives up to all the rest of his claims. I found it to be much like the low-carbohydrate diet--those who have done it swear by it; those who haven't poo poo it. And like the low-carbohydrate diet, there is a wealth of medical literature that supports all the claims.
I called Channa and told her to tell Fred we would co-author the book with him.
This post probably sounds like a Blogfomercial for Slow Burn, but it really isn't. I only wrote it because I read the piece in the New York Times and realized how many people were getting injured unnecessarily simply by following doctors' orders to exercise more. If you're one of those people, you can benefit from Slow Burn style training.
Here's what I learned in a nutshell in my medical research on Slow Burn:
The single best way to increase strength and muscle mass is to strength train.
The best way to strength train is to do resistance exercise, i.e., weight lifting.
The optimal way to lift weight--that which gives you the best result per time spent--is Slow Burn.
When I give talks on this subject almost everyone asks how Slow Burn training can increase cardio-pulmonary (heart and lung) fitness. That's the one idea that people have the most difficulty grasping. Let me tell you how it works.
When you run a few hundred yards (assuming you're out of shape) you end up puffing and panting and with your heart pounding. You assume that your heart and lungs aren't in good working order, and you assume that if you start a regimen of regular jogging or other aerobic exercise that in due course your heart and lungs will get in better shape. If you do pursue such a course, you will find that indeed you do breathe less hard and your heart doesn't pound, so you assume that both your heart and lungs are in better condition. The truth of the matter is that your heart and lungs are about the same as they were when you started--what has improved is your muscular fitness. Let me explain.
In the conditioning process the place where the rubber meets the road so to speak is at the level of oxygen entry into the muscle cells. As muscle cells work, they need oxygen. In an unconditioned muscle oxygen doesn't get into the cell particularly efficiently. Consequently, your body, in an effort to get more oxygen to the working muscle cells, pumps more blood (your heart pounds) that contains more oxygen (thanks to your huffing and puffing). As your muscles become more conditioned, what happens is that the body's ability to get oxygen into the muscle cells becomes much more efficient. After your muscles are conditioned and you run a few hundred yards, your heart doesn't pound and you don't pant because your muscles are getting plenty of oxygen because of the conditioning effect in the muscles themselves. It has nothing to do with your heart or lungs.
Much is made of the great bicyclist Lance Armstrongs cardio-pulmonary fitness, but let me ask you this: if I could transplant Lance Armstrong's heart and lungs into you, do you think you could win the Tour de France? It is doubtful. Lance Armstrong was born with an enormous heart and lung capacity that he uses to full advantage because of the conditioning of his muscles. If he let his muscles decondition, he would puff and pant after a short run just like we would.
If you enjoy exercise and are willing to pay the price for your enjoyment in the potential for bunged up hips, knees, and ankles, then by all means do it. If you are exercising because you want to stay fit and you do it grudgingly just because you think you ought to and figure that soreness and injury are part of the price you have to pay to stay fit as you age, then pick up a copy of Slow Burn
Posted by mreades at April 17, 2006 02:21 PM
Comments
I just checked my local library (I can do so online) and they do have a copy of the Eades' Slow Burn, along with 7 other books named Slow Burn. The Eades' book is checked out, so I will put a hold on it so that when it returns, I will be notified.
What I have found to be the best exercise for me is bicycling. It's non-impact, so I don't stress the joints. Hills are great for intervals and getting the heart rate high. It also is good for building the additional capillaries that bring the extra oxygen and energy source into the muscles.
Posted by: Mike Dodge at April 17, 2006 09:55 PM
I am 50 years old and I plan to do some triathlons in the future and also I want to learn how to surf... i really find it hard to believe that one short workout per week will give me the full range of benefits I get from my version of slow burn- (long, slow, steady workouts on land and in the pool, mixed with strength training and intervals). How could that possibly and prepare me adequately for these activities?
just don't buy it.
Posted by: skeptical at April 18, 2006 03:56 AM
This looks really interesting! I'm definitely going to check it out.
One question though. You note that apparent CV "fitness" results primarily from the muscles ability to better utilize oxygen, etc. Are there no effective ways to "exercise" the heart and lungs? Or is there little need for this?
Wouldn't interval training (e.g., wind sprints) be a useful complement to slow burn training?
Posted by: Beth at April 18, 2006 05:14 AM
Skeptical-
I am skeptical too, but I read Protein Power, it was 100% against what I believed as a 25 year vegetarian. But, I was sick, in big trouble, and PP worked. I have had 6 years of success on PP. Based on my success on PP, I am confident betting that Slow Burn is also a winner. Mr Skeptical, when the Eades say they have the research to back them up, you should have a mountain of research that you understand intimately before you decide to discard their advice.
My ski club has a wide age range of members, from young to very active 80+ year olds. Injuries to joints are frequent obstacles to continuing activity. One member, a physical thereapist, says that repairing old shoulders is very much like trying to patch old levi's. The ligaments are thin and weak, repairs are difficult. So injury is not surprising and often happens with minor falls. Like the Times articles reports, being active doesnt prevent injuries.
I am 67 years old, and Fred Hahn's web site predicts I wont get as good a benefit as a 40 year old. I think Fred Hahn might be wrong because Dr Eades protocol for maximizing growth hormone release works great for me. I have more muscle now than any time in my life-and I spend only 20 min 3 times a week on strength training.
So making sure that my ligaments are as strong as possible is my goal. And I am taking Fred Hahn and Dr Eades up on their promise Staying Power training will result in strong ligaments. Growth hormone release plus proper exercise should do the job.
I just bought Staying Power from Amazon. I am looking forward to learning how to benefit from the knowledge that the most flexible athletes are gymnasts and weight lifters. At the gym, I see one person doing gymnast training workouts. I am very impressed by his power, speed, and flexibility. Many of the weight lifters I see are not impressive, many of them are injury prone and have unbalanced muscle development. Some are not flexible, but others are surprisingly flexible. I see a chance for me to learn a lot more about strength training and flexibility.
I am having little success and satisfaction with the stretching movements I am now doing. Staying Powers promise to improve flexibility is very enticing.
Posted by: David Ellis at April 18, 2006 09:25 AM
I'm glad to see another discussion about the heart and lung benefits of slow burn exercise. This is the hardest part of the program to understand/accept. My husband has been a runner for many years, and he is convinced his heart is much stronger than the average person because of all his running. His resting heart rate is so low that it scares nurses when he goes in for a physical and they take his pulse. Doesn't his slow resting heart rate indicate a strong heart? BTW, I had him read this part of Slow Burn, which sounds logical to me, and he just can't believe it.
Posted by: Turtle at April 18, 2006 09:41 AM
Thanks, Dr. E., for your clarification on this... I've always been skeptical and a bit turned off by the whole slow burn concept (i.e., it's harder to lift weights using that method). Never really gave it a good chance to work with me. After reading the above, however, it's definitely worth a re-visit.
Posted by: mrstmitch at April 18, 2006 10:32 AM
I read "Slow Burn" back when I first started PP and although it sounded interesting, I had a hard time trying to follow an exercise program from a book. However, maybe it's time I give it another look. Right now, at age 43, I'm trying to find an exercise program that will keep me in reasonable shape without stressing out my already crummy knees that I inherited from my mom because I do not ever want to have replacement surgery. Both she and her sister have had bi-lateral knee replacements done (in fact, my mom's first replacement which was done over 12 years ago is now wearing out and she has to get a new one.) My aunt's doctor told her when she had hers done that she wouldn't even be on his operating table if she hadn't started to run and then do marathons when she was in her 60's. Currently I do a lot of walking, being fortunate to live close by the Cherry Creek path here in Denver. It's good for the soul, too, as I can listen to the running water, enjoy the ducks and watch the seasons change as I walk. Now it's time to get serious about strength training again. I used to do that at the gym but in all honesty, I hated the gym environment and the "hamster in a treadmill" effect was depressing. Thanks for mentioning "Slow Burn" which I had forgotten all about! It's definitely time to give it a second go.
Posted by: Esther Hoff at April 18, 2006 01:10 PM
My mom is 70 years old, lost 70 pounds on Weight Watchers (and has kept it off) and goes to the gym almost every day. Sure she can't do at 70 what I can do at 35, but she is in a seniors water fitness class and actually goes. And she's never hurt herself.
So it is possible to exercise, but no - you can't do at 50 (or 70) what you did at 25. It won't work.
I often see an elderly Chinese couple at my gym and they use the treadmills, but they walk very slowly. People need to go at the level that will work for their age and fitness level. I certainly hope to be around at 70 years old and I want to still be active then, but I'm not going to be able to do an hour of hard cardio then like I do now.
Posted by: Victoria at April 18, 2006 04:11 PM
Skeptical: Slow burn is a structured approach to strength training which is time-efficient--leaving more time and recovery ability for you to enjoy THE SPORT OF TRIATHOLON. You do not need to do strength training--Slow Burn version or otherwise--anymore than you need to do triatholons...or brush your teeth for that matter--but it could help....
Just make sure your concept of strength training is based upon Progressive Overload Principles--i.e.: GET STRONGER (measureably) over some time frame--vs. the "I do weights" mentality, which is what many people do. Further keep the pace between sets short enough while working hard enough to effect muscle AND heart.
Posted by: ttraynor at April 18, 2006 04:14 PM
I actually DO like working out - go figure. I do 30 minutes of weight followed by 40-60 minutes of cardio. I keep having to ramp up the time and difficulty because eventually the challenging exercise gets too easy. I think I'm addicted to the endorphine rush. Ok, I *know* I'm addicted to it. I actually look forward to my gym days now. Me - the woman who at 206 pounds never did any more exercise than she had to.
I love running, and look forward to the annual 12k race in this area (only a month away now!). I also anjoy short treadmill runs and long walks. On days I can't get to the gym (and if it's not raining), I walk the last leg to work (about a 25-30 minute walk from the train station).
Posted by: Victoria at April 18, 2006 04:26 PM
As a personal trainer, I often tell the story to clients of "cardio cats" I have taken through a STRENGTH TRAINING workout (though not classic slow burn--pretty close....) and blow their heart rate AND venelation rates through the roof. Some have actually gotten upset as the truth unfolds: Strength training CAN be structured to elicit a number of adaptive responses, depending on the goals at hand--EVEN cardiovascular.
In the old days befor e the running craze and treadmills/stairsteppers, body pump, step class, blah, blah, blah,... it was called PHYSICAL CONDITIONING. Period.
Virtually every sport we saw in the past olympics used--or can benefit from some intensive strength training to improve performance, guard against injury and prolong competitve careers. For regular folks it can result in better, faster changes in body composition, improvements in RATIONAL (who the heck NEEDS to run 26 miles--use your cell phone and call a wrecker!--or change the darn flat YOURSELF because you CAN get the lug nuts off AND lift the spare tire to your SUV onto the rim) and practical functionality.
For most people, every kind of other conditioning or sport should spin off of strength training--with some tailoring to the persons individual needs and desires.
If something else worked better, I'd be coaching THAT--but nothing else can provide the breadth and depth of benefits with so little risk to the body than properly conducted strength training. You don't have to love it--just do it!
Posted by: ttraynor at April 18, 2006 06:21 PM
TTraynor,
I never liked strength training until I ramped it up and started seeing results. Not that I can lift a whole lot more, but at my last body comp test the trainer ran the numbers and told me I has slightly increased my muscle mass (1.8 pounds). That gave me the incentive I needed to keep doing it and pushing myself and I hope the news will be even better next time. :)
Seeing the cold hard numbers of fat mass and lean mass was what did it for me. I started liking weight training a whole lot better after that. Now if I just had a little more testosterone so the buff guys around me wouldn't make me look like a weakling...
Posted by: Victoria at April 18, 2006 09:37 PM
I do a cardio workout sixty to 90 minutes per day, six days a week, without fail (unless something really unusual comes up) I avoid injury by keeping my heart rate low-around 125, based on the maffetone method (180-your age and adjusted for your fitness level), and also by starting out slow and easy and only very gradually increasing my workout times and pace.
why do I do this?
1) I love the endorphin rush, makes me feel better almost all day long.
2) I am building a base. In the near future, I'll be adding intervals, and strenght training.
3) according to the folks who wrote the book "Younger Next Year", your body responds to exercise at this level by creating anti-inflammatory chemicals that counter your bodies natural and steady production of the opposite. In other words, your body's natural thing is to slowy decay. That is the default mode. You can counter that only by daily exercise.
I find it very hard to believe that one work out session per week would provide the same benefits. I think there is a lot more going on when you work out than just strengthening your muscles and ligaments. but hey, I could be wrong!
Posted by: skeptical at April 19, 2006 07:59 AM
"We told Fred we would think about the book project and left with a number of medical references he gave us."
I don't suppose anyone (Fred included) could list the references he provided. Specifically those on slow speed training.
Posted by: Viking Dan at April 20, 2006 07:07 AM
yeah, I'd love to see references and actual evidence that this method works as described. I am sure it is a good method for strength training, but it's the skip the cardio workouts that I find hard to swallow. Someone running marathon using this method alone would convince me!
Posted by: mrfreddy at April 20, 2006 08:53 AM
"I don't suppose anyone (Fred included) could list the references he provided. Specifically those on slow speed training."
Viking Dan and others......Fred has additional information and articles posted on his website -
http://www.seriousstrength.com
Also some interesting articles at http://www.ultimate-exercise.com/
Skeptical.....there are many ways to do strength training and achieve goods results. IMHO using a 10/10 (a.k.a. SlowBurn,SuperSlow,Power of 10) exercise protocol is the most 'time efficient' method to strengthen/build muscle and achieve an optimum level of fitness. The only way you're going to find out is to give it a try. You'll either love it or hate it!
Posted by: alpdiver at April 20, 2006 03:58 PM
alpdiver,
I'm not skeptical about the effectiveness of slow burn as a strength training protocol, I actually dont know enough about that to have an opinion. Sounds like it could work, tho some reviews I've read suggest it might not be practical because it is very hard to do correctly on your own.
But anyway, it's the "you dont need to do cardio exercise" part of the story that I have trouble buying into. It could be true, but I need convincing.
Posted by: skeptical at April 21, 2006 06:29 AM
As I read the skeptics comments, I too found it hard to believe; until I tried a super slow workout. Try a set of squats (I use racks to catch the weights, safety at all times)moving ultra slow, you will be breathing hard and shaking. It's like doing sprints, and it will build you aerobically. I do want to point out that you CAN weight train and do a triathlon, if you like that kind of sport. Mark Allen, 6 time winner of the Ironman Championship in Hawaii started weight training and eating steak after his 3rd win, and IMPROVED his time, and became the oldest man to win the event. He did a whole body workout twice a week and had meat a couple of times per week. I understand he is retired from racing, but still lifts. I was a runner, then started lifting 20 years ago. On occasion, I do like to ride my mountain bike, hike, play hockey and softball, but I do those for fun. My endurance for those sports has been improved through weight training. I don't do the super slow all of the time, I do rotate a variety of routines. Weight training along with the high protein diet works.
Posted by: Audley at April 21, 2006 11:31 AM
This has ben a great series of comments and I've learned a lot!
Anyone who wants to see the research Dr. Eades mentioned in the Slow Burn post send me an email.
On flexibility: Flexibility has a huge genetic componant to it. AS I sit here and write this I can drop into a full split at 44 years old and I do not stretch at all, ever. Some people stretch day in and day out and never come close to what I can do with ease and without a warm up of any kind. Why is this so? GENETICS. Same goes for big muscles. How flexible are you supposed to be anyway? Did you know that the term 'muscular flexibility' is a misnomer?
As for the cardio issue, here's the deal:
If you want to become conditioned for a specific sport or endeavor, you must practice that sport or endeavor as perfectly as you can (just be careful and don't overdo it - rest and recovery are vital to best results). To put it bluntly, if you want to be a competitive triathlete, you bet your Buster Brown's you'll have to run, cycle and swim. Strength training is not enough. You can't get good at Golf either if all you do is strength train - capeesh? YES, it's the SAME thing.
BUT strength training will GREATLY aid you in your chosen endeavors. Moreso than most people have any idea.
But this is separate from enhancing every aspect of your health. Lance Armstrong's heart is NOT healtheir than my heart just because it beats slower. And his slow resting HR is due to shifts and specific adaptations in hormonal tone and the efficiency of his muscles (the amount of mitochondria specifically) to remove O2 not beacuse it is a stronger heart.
IMHO, hearts like Lance's are in worse shape - not better. But that is just my opinion. Forcing any internal organ to work extremely hard for long periods of time is never good for them. And yes, the heart is a muscle BUT even working your biceps very hard for long periods of time is not good. It will result in atrophy and inflammation. To my mind, the athlete's heart is overworked and overtaxed. We see the runner and think "Wow she must have a healthy cardio system." Think again.
It's the same when we (well, not US but the worldview) see people eat steak and eggs. We think "My god his heart is going to explode someday if he keeps eating all that fat." 'Course, nothing could be further from the truth.
So, no, you do not NEED traditonal cardio for keeping your ticker healthy and strong if you strength train properly 1-2 (at most 3) times a week for 15 -20 minutes each time. The science exists. Even the AHA admitted, no, sent out a scientific advisory in May of 2000 stating that strength training does in fact improve cardiovascular health all on it's own.
It's has been so hard for me over the years to explain to people the difference. Strength training, if you do it right, gives a person everything they need for health. Everything. Most people have been terribly brainwashed by the fitness industry - moreso than the diet industry I believe. Some people get so mad when I tell them they don't need aerobics it's like I said God doesn't exist.
BOTTOMLINE: Strength train properly to stay healthy and strong AND so that you can engage in your favorite pasttime activities (if that's your chioce) with more vim and vigor and for many more years than you would have been able to.
Posted by: Fred Hahn at April 23, 2006 03:58 AM