HOME | Contact Editor | Add Comment | Forum | Directory | Search | Advertise | Tell-a-Friend
June 2, 2006 | South Carolina Headlines


Join us in
South Carolina Headlines

Sign up today to take part in the forums, interact with the content, receive South Carolina Headlines newsletters, display current weather conditions in your area, and more.

Already a member?



Support South Carolina Headlines - visit our advertisers


Author (last 7 days)

GoLower Bars Catching On With The American Low-Carb Consumer
Low-Carb Stabilizes Blood Sugar And Weight
Make My Blog One Of Your Technorati Favorites
Is The World Ready For 'The Great Cholesterol Con' Anthony Colpo Exposes?
Study: Low-Carb 'Beneficial' For Cholesterol
Dia Program Providing 'New Hope' For Diabetics
Lowering Cholesterol Through Better Choices
Study: Low-Carb Weight Loss Not Water Weight
Musings On Misleading Marketing Ads
Blown Away By Low-Carb Blueberry Syrup
Piping Hot Low-Carb Country Cheese Biscuits
Give Me Credit, Stop Plagiarizing My Blog!


 :: Jonathan Pait
 :: Benj Buck

 :: Mike Cubelo
 :: Doug Kendall
 :: Jimmy Moore
 :: Henri Thompson
Press Releases

 :: List All

Want to be a columnist? Contact the editor to learn how.

Gibala Claims Media 'Misinterpreted' Study On Interval-Based Training
Jimmy Moore
June 7, 2005

The following article is a reprint from my new blog called "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb":

Dr. Martin J. Gibala

Of the thousands of people who read my blog post from Monday entitled "Researcher Sending Wrong Message About Fitness," one of them just so happened to be the author of the study that newspapers reported people can be just as productive with six minutes of vigorous exercise per week compared with hours of moderate exercise.

Dr. Martin J. Gibala from McMaster University was kind enough to respond to my blog entry to defend his work. You can tell from the language he uses in his response that he was not pleased with my analysis. Nevertheless, I am happy to oblige his request to print his response in this forum. However, I reserve the right to add my own comments where appropriate.

Here's what Dr. Gibala wrote:

Dear Mr. Moore,

I was interested to read your comments regarding our study that was published in the June issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology. While I am not in the habit of blogging, your misinformed rant about the implications of our work compelled me to reply.

While I am honored that you made "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" your first official act of blogging, I would not describe what I wrote on Monday as a "misinformed rant." Rather, I was simply expressing my concerns that the wrong message was being sent to the countless millions of people who are looking for professional advice about how much exercise is enough. If I was misinformed, then so was the entire published media.

"My initial response is, please READ our study. Obviously you have not; rather, you appear to be relying on second hand sources that have misinterpreted and/or overstated our findings. In fact, at no point in the article do we suggest that people should only perform 6 minutes of exercise per week."

So are you calling the media liars, Dr. Gibala? Every published news source I found on Monday was reporting that your research concluded that six minutes of "vigorous exercise" per week was equal to hours of moderate exercise. Is that wrong? While I admit I did not look at the actual research study myself, I'd be interested in knowing why all the media analysts got it wrong.

I referenced a WebMD story in my blog entry. Are you questioning the credibility of that reputable organization or its medical correspondent Daniel Denoon? Or perhaps you are questioning the Senior Medical Editor Dr. Michael W. Smith who reviewed the content of that story for its veracity? Are these men lying about your research, Dr. Gibala?

"You state, 'Combined with a healthy eating lifestyle, exercise can be a tremendous tool.' I completely agree, and recommend that everyone should heed the advice of leading public health agencies and perform 30-60 min of physical activity each day. However, the sad fact is that more than 50% of North Americans choose to ignore the recommended physical activity guidelines, despite extensive public health awareness campaigns. This fact has enormous social and economic consequences; for example, Booth et al. (2000) estimated that the health care burden of inactivity-related disorders in the U.S. is almost $1 trillion.

EXCELLENT! We've found some common ground at last. At least for the moment.

"It is fine to label people 'lazy' and bemoan their 'pitiful excuse(s)' for not exercising, but ranting from the soapbox about your own lifestyle conversion does little to address the problem of inactivity-related disorders."

Yeah, but maybe it can wake up people to the fact that they need to finally do something about their weight problem. That's what it took for me to finally realize it for myself. We are in a crisis in this country and around the world because of obesity and we need to start acting like it. If that means a few people like me become so passionate in our eagerness to help people overcome this awful condition that we seem to be "ranting," then so be it. Recommending people only exercise six minutes a week does nothing to help people start healthy fitness habits either.

Instead, perhaps we should consider other approaches, or at least offer credible alternatives that are based on sound science. There is an extensive body of scientific evidence that indicates interval-type training, or alternating bouts of high- and low-intensity exercise within a single training session, is effective for improving health and fitness."

I don't disagree that we need to look at other alternatives to get people to exercise. But my point is the rigors associated with "interval-type training" are not necessarily appropriate for people who weigh more than 300 pounds. As someone who used to weight 410, I shudder to think about even TRYING this method of exercise as a way to lose weight. It's a much better approach to get people to start exercising at their own pace and work their way up.

"Just because you 'disagree' with this approach and 'would have likely quit' is hardly reason for interval-based training to be dismissed outright. Indeed, I am utterly astounded by your arrogance, and the myopic manner in which you assume that your view is all-knowing."

Okay, now we're getting to the heart of the issue as Dr. Gibala's blood pressure begins to rise. I don't say that your approach should be "dismissed outright." I only said it would not be a good idea for someone who is not used to exercising to implement your strategy until he can better handle it. In fact, I even said that I could probably do your recommendation now that I am used to doing daily exercise.

As for my "arrogance" and "myopic" writing style that declares me as "all-knowing" (hey, that's God's job, buddy! LOL!), I think you have severely misinterpreted what I have written. I am merely someone who is confident about what livin' la vida low-carb has done for me and share my opinions on how my life has been transformed by this experience.

I don't even pretend to call myself an expert (nor do I play one on television) on the subject of health and weight loss. Instead, I can be described an enthusiastic layman ready and willing to share my anectodal experiences to help people relate to the information that is being distributed in the media about weight loss. My heartfelt desire is to help people better understand the information that is being spoon-fed to them by the media and to cut through the outright dishonesty that too often permeates from so-called stories on health.

In fact, you are claiming that the media "misinterpreted" your research in its reporting. That's my point entirely. They do it all the time to the low-carb lifestyle and yet nobody raises a stink about that. If it seems I'm attempting to make myself an "expert" on health and weight loss, then I cannot help that. All I can do is continue to share what I believe based on my own experience. That's what this blog is about from start to finish. If science backs up my opinion with facts, then I'll share those with you as well.

I do not have the time or space to review all of the evidence in support of interval-based training, but here are a few facts (backed by data from scientific studies published in highly-regarded journals):

1. Interval based training has been successfully applied to numerous populations including the elderly (Makrides et al., 1990) and even patients with heart disease (Rognmo et al., 2004). The latter study showed that high-intensity interval exercise training was superior to moderate exercise for improving cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with coronary artery disease.

2. Over the long term, people appear more willing to adhere or 'stick with' a higher-intensity, less frequent training program than a more frequent, less intense program. King et al. (1995) showed that, in previously sedentary 50 to 65 year old men and women, exercise adherences rates were significantly higher after two years of training in the higher intensity, less frequent exercise group.

3. Researchers are increasingly recognizing the important role of high intensity exercise for energy balance and weight control (Hunter et al., 1998). The reasons are numerous, but include the fact that higher-intensity exercise rapidly improves fitness, thus making low-intensity exercise less difficult and more easily tolerated.

4. It is possible to be 'overweight but fit' and active obese individuals can actually have lower morbidity and mortality rates than normal weight individuals who are sedentary (Blair and Brodney, 1999). Hence, strategies to improve fitness, such as interval-based training, can be effective regardless of weight loss.

5. Finally, one of the best predictors of insulin sensitivity and risk for Type 2 diabetes (an increasing epidemic in North American society) is the 'oxidative capacity' of the muscle (Bruce et al., 2003). Our study showed that interval-based training rapidly increased muscle oxidative capacity to an extent normally associated with traditional endurance training. Our data are consistent with other high-intensity, short-duration exercise training studies (MacDougall et al., 1998) and indicate that this type of training is effective for rapidly improving muscle health."

Okay, so you've presented your evidence for your exercise approach. Does that change what I wrote about it? Not one bit. I still think we are sending the wrong message to people that they can get away with doing considerably less exercise and expect to make that a regular habit in their lives. And I still haven't seen the part of your research where the media got it all wrong yet? Where did they get the notion of six minutes per week, Dr. Gibala? Did they make it up?

In closing, I reiterate that I wholeheartedly endorse the current physical activity (and dietary) guidelines put forth by leading public health agencies. However, your accusation that we are sending the wrong message in unfounded (again, please READ our study). The message from our study is not that 'you should only perform 6 minutes of exercise per week'; rather, our findings are a reminder of the potency of interval-based training for health and fitness. This form of training represents an option, or an alternative to the type of traditional endurance training that over half of the North American population appears unable or unwilling to adopt. Interval-based training is highly effective and can be adopted by a wide range of individuals (not just young healthy athletes, as you imply). It may represent a palatable alternative to those who cite 'lack of time' as a major impediment to exercise, and should hardly be dismissed outright based on the 'firsthand' knowledge of single individual.

Sigh. I just think it's funny that a medical researcher thinks people who are doing absolutely ZERO exercise right now are all of a sudden going to want to go out for even six minutes in a week's time and workout. That's laughable! When I was an obese man, exercise was at the bottom of my list of priorities. Just getting around in life was exercise enough for me. While Dr. Gibala trumpets his research as the answer to the obesity problem in the world, in reality he is merely offering an unrealistic solution to a very real crisis.

Thanks for responding, Dr. Gibala. I appreciate healthy debate on the subject of obesity and weight management. While I may not have the medical degrees that you hold, I am certainly entitled to express my opinions and challenge your research with some common sense.

I think we both want the same end result, but we come at it from different perspectives. That's why we need more open discussion of methods for dealing with obesity rather than simply relying on the "experts" to tell us what we need to be doing. Obviously, that has not been working.

Comments anyone?

Post a comment for this column

You must be logged in to participate. You may use the MyVoice! area at the top of this page to log in, or you may set up a new account.


Use the partisanometer to put this columnist in his place - liberal or conservative? Just click left or right. First, you'll need to sign on.

Join in the fun! Sign on and give your rating on the partisanometer.


Join in the fun! Sign on and give this article a thumbs down or a thumbs up.


Refer Column

Refer this column to a friend. Highlight the fields below, fill them out and press "Send."



Send your comment to the author of this column.


Jimmy, I have been a lc'er for over 5 years!! I am 37 yr. old male and am 190 lbs. of solid muscle!! Am stronger than ever. My doctor is sold on this WOL and I will have it no other way. I commend you on your success and your espousing of low carb living. . . .

Read the rest.

Site Stuff

Sessions: 567674
Members: 763

  South Carolina Headlines
Made possible by The Worthwhile Company, Inc.