Thank you for sharing. Recipe will be helpful.
Being a cancer survivor, the veg and grains had put extra inches to my waist and early morning spike in BP, though blood glucose is still normal. Sadly, I've bought into the low protein and low fat diet for reducing cancer risk. Though it worked for the first 6 surviving years, but lately I am beginning to think that my high BP will put me to sleep for good at night. The peak BP is usually at 3am.

So I've already started ketogenic diet for last 7days, and already lost 4 inches from the waist. Your guidance will be helpful for me to maintain this low-carb way of eating. May God bless you for your work.

This looks delicious! We'll definitely going to try this out!

Dear Dr. Davis,

I have read  (Dr. Dayspring)  that the most important item a person look at for risk of CV disease is APO-B.  Also, is it true if someone has a low triglyceride ie; 50-70 that it can be assumed that their APO-B is in the safe zone as well.  Your thoughts on this really matter to me.

Best Regards

I will be trying this for sure. Who says that healthy food can't look great and taste good at the same time!

I can't believe that is a healthy food. It look pretty. I need to try the recipe.

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?

Any updates on this "niacin resistance" phenomenon? It's been awhile since this post, so maybe you've developed a better feel for what's going on and how to deal with it? Are you still recommending the 2 week break every three months or so?

Maybe revisiting this subject would be a good idea for a new post in the near future?

That was a lot of question marks.

David

My theory: I believe this is a limiting reagent type issue.  Niacin flushing is a histamine reaction that occurs with the conversion of niacin into nicotinamide. The histamine reaction itself is the cause of the lipid altering effects of niacin supplementation(no flush, no effect.) Chronic use of niacin can deplete histamine levels and people typically find that flushing lessens over time. No flush, no effect, lipids start going back out of whack.  A vacation would allow histamine levels to build back up. This would also help explain your hyper-responders.

To Pedro  (posted here since Server blocked),
Journal Biological Chemistry 2003,278:54-63  "A Type 1 Diabetes-related Protein from Wheat" that refers to globulin (a storage molecule of wheat) being antigenic for autoimmune problems was where I saw wheat genome estimated in 2002 to be 16.5 gigabase. I read that article when tried to track down Doc's reason to declare wheat implicated in Type 1 diabetes. Full article at www. jbc.org/content/278/1/54.full

A 2010 reference to wheat genome is in journal Cytogenic and Genome Research, Vol. 129, No. 1-3, 2010 abstract's 1st sentence refers to wheat genome as 1C-17Gbp. English abstract at http://content.karger.com/
produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=313072

As I understand it 1 giga-base   =  109 base pairs, and mega-base =  106 base pairs; it's not a formula like that used to compare computer bytes of giga-bytes and mega-bytes.

You might have research use for the Harvard Gene Index Project's Computational Biology & Functional Genomics Laboratory; if use link below look at top of page and see a category for "Gene Indices", click there to then choose from subjects "Plants", "Animal" or several other indices.
http://compbio.dfci.harvard.edu/tgi

To Pedro  (Server blocked elsewhere),
Journal Biological Chemistry 2003,278:54-63  "A Type 1 Diabetes-related Protein from Wheat" that refers to globulin (a storage molecule of wheat) being antigenic for autoimmune problems was where I saw wheat genome estimated in 2002 to be 16.5 gigabase. I read that article when tried to track down Doc's reason to declare wheat implicated in Type 1 diabetes. Full article at www. jbc.org/content/278/1/54.full

Dr.Davis,

Just listened to the podcast, that's fantastic !

I have been diagnosed with TD2 last Sept, and since then being on the very low carb. Everything went well except my total cholesterol went out of control, and in January it was 400.

What I don't understand is my Lp(a) is close to 0 ( less than 5.0 mg/dL as it was reported).

Here is my latest direct measurements from SPECTRACELL LAB in Huston.

VLDL Particels: 122 nmol/L (needs to be < 85)
Total LDL Particles : 1271 nmol/L (needs to be < 900)
Non-HDL Particles: 1394 nmol/L (needs to be < 1000)
RLP(Remnant Lipoprotein) 205 nmol/L (needs to be < 150)
Small Dense LDL III: 552 nmol/L (needs to be < 300, marked as very high risk right now)
Small Dense LDL IV: 96 nmol/L (needs to be  7000)
Large Buoyant HDL 2b: 2045 nmol/L (needs to be > 1500)

Apo B-100: 127 mg/dL (needs to be < 80)
Lp(a) : less than 5 mg/dL (needs to be < 30)
C-Reactive Protein-hs : 0.2 mg/L (needs to be < 1)
Insulin: less than 4.0 uIU/mL (needs to be < 35)
Homocycteine: 12.3 umol/L (needs to be < 11)

Total Cholesterol: 259 mg/dL
LDL: 159 mg/dL
HDL: 59 mg/dL
Triglycerides: 118 mg/dL
Non-HDL-Chol : 200 mg/dL


I already removed the cheese and eggs from the diet, I suspect I am APOE 4.

Any comments on my pattern ?

thanks!

otterotter

To DCMarc  (server blocked where belongs),
Benfotiamine, a synthetic thiamine used in diabetic neuropathy, increases enzyme trans-keto-lase inside a cell. The use in diabetics and neuro-degeneration may (?) require professional consideration in cancer cases. Trans-keto-lase spurs cells to go into aerobic glycolysis (aerobic here refers to cell performing glycolysis despite oxygen being around for performing normal mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation) for processing cells glucose; this aerobic glycolysis is the  famous Warburg effect and experimentally administering trans-keto-lase augments cancer cell proliferation (likewise experimentally spiking up thiamin increases trans-keto-lase).

Trans-keto-lase works for diabetics & in neuro-degeneration because  it pushes cell's glucose (via transcription once cAMP binds to it)  into the hexose mono-phosphate shunt ( of D-glucose-6p to D-glucono-lactone 6P to D-glycr-aldhehyde-3-phosphate) called the Pentose  Pathway (where hexose forms into pentose). This  process generates NADPH which boosts anti-oxidant glutathione ( & thioredoxin) production inside the cell. Also NADPH brings on the  activation of  the cell's endoplasmic reticulum's Unfolded Protein Response which helps the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) tolerate dangerous endoplasmic reticulum stress (ER stress is significant in diabetes and neuro-degeneration).

ER stress, with protein folding complications, sees NADP+ accumulate and so augmenting trans-keto-lase pushes quicker output of NADPH to keep pace; this  triggers the Unfolded Protein Response to induce Cu,ZnSOD expression that then alleviates the ER stress (ie: helps ER tolerate demanding conditions).  This helps in that it  keeps the stressed ER  ( a state that coincides with more local super-oxide O--),  from seeding the dangerous (and largely un-neutralizable) hydroxyl radicals (hydroxyl radicals come about when super-oxide related hydrogen peroxide  provokes Fenton  & Haber/Weiss reactions reducing Cu++ or Fe+++ ). This is similarly how trans-keto-lase also benefits cancer cells ( rampant cancer cell growth demands protein folding that formally stresses the ER); the prevention against reactive oxygen species means cancer cells don't suffer apoptosis (cell death).

Diabetics use of Befotiamine ( a dynamic fat soluble thiamine trans-keto-lase booster) will  help them similarly with their ER stress . In  their case the shift to using their regularly high glucose in the Pentose Pathway will mean quicker degradation of that glucose than if cells used mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. This also means the glycation (Doc warns against this from high glucose)  and thus tissue cells levels of advanced glycation end products (AGE) will be less; blunting the amount of AGE messing with monocytes and less endothelial dysfunction  amount to less inflammation, less diabetic oxidative stress and likewise less alteration of the vascular tissue such as atherosclerosis.

Experimentally induced diabetes is often done by feeding a very high  fat diet. Much of the fat in a very high fat diet  acts to drive down the level of trans-keto-lase due to a transcription adaptationum within 8 weeks in rodents. For humans thiamine (B1) is often recommended to diabetics; cauliflower is a nice thiamine source to make into trans-keto-lase.

To  B. Smith (Server won't post where belongs ),
Glutamine, an amino acid, is used by cancer cells to keep apoptosis (cell death) from happening in several ways. One way is how glutamine keeps the cell nucleus from condensing and stops the capsase 3 & capsase 8 cascades from starting apoptosis. The other way is how there is an increase in the  anti-oxidant glutathione synthesis when glutamine elevates NADPH (see comment above for ER stress).

Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF) works to destroy a cancer cell by running down that cell's mitochondrial glutathione level; this needs to be replenished with glutathione from that cell's cytosol. Once there is a 35% plunge in mitochondrial glutathione that  alters the mitochondrial membrane so that it stops bringing in glutathione to the mitochondria and starts leaking out cytochrome c into that cell's cytosol (which can jump start an apoptosis program). Cancer cells' rapid growth strains the normal oxidative stress limits of a cell, so cancer cells draw in lots of glutamine to boost the level of ready glutathione inside that cell; then the cytosol can continually shore up the mitochondrial glutathione levels to prevent one of the apoptosis scenarios from starting .

A cancer cell at some point has to "transform" to progress and needs lots of DNA at that stage; glutamine is needed for synthesis of cellular RNA & DNA. The bio-synthesis of nucleotides utilizes glutamine; and having lots of de-oxy-ribo-nucleotides around favors DNA replication at that cancer's key "transformation" stage (ie: S-phase). The use of glutamine by a cancer cell for converting into energy to run on, like some normal cells do, is not why cancer cells take up so much glutamine.

@ Might-o'chondri-AL
Dear Might, do you mind to tell what do you think about that cancer research result?
l http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3117136/?tool=pubmed

My cardiologist said, "look, I don't know about nutrition.  If you want to talk about nutrion, go talk to a nutritionist"

Hi GalinaL,
Cancer undergoes several oncongenic processes wherein the so-called epithelilial pheno-type cell (epithelial cells are +/-85% of cancer substrate cells) gets it's cell nucleus histones acetylated, which creates what is called "stemness"  (the ability of that cell to renew itself with potency, like our stem cells). This leads to a phase called epithelial-mesenchymal transition (where the morphing cell can go either way, either back to benign epithelial pheno-type or onward to dangerous mesenchymal pheno-type). It is when the enzyme histone acetyl-transferase no longer keeps that epithelial histone acetylated ( a sort of  limbo) that the epithelial cell's genetic expression gets knocked down permitting the further shift into full mesenchymal pheno-type .

What is important to realize about cancer cell's taking over a cell's nuclear DNA is that when the pheno-type goes from epithelial to mesenchymal the cancer cell's mesenchymal pheno-type somehow still retains the ability to perform the stem cell "stemness" of indefinite replication. Your cited authors point out that keotones boost tumor growth (+/-2.5 times) and lactate boosts tumor metastasis (+/- 10 times); and  also that their metabolic use raises a cell's Acetyl-CoA and this increases the acetylation of histones causing more gene expressio. And so authors report limiting ketones and lactate in cancer seem to be the "achilles heel" to cut off in order to stop cancer's "stemness" (ie: inherent potential); their extrapolation from this is interesting as a theory..

There are other processes beyond histone modification which show oncongenesis is not lineal. When the cancer cell is still just an epithelial pheno-type cell unit micro RNA (miRNA) of the miRNA-200 family group is un-methylated; and thus holds the epithelial pheno-type steady, because un-methylated miRNA isn't reactive enough for messenger RNA (mRNA) transcription. A 2nd stage is seen once hyper-methylation  occurs, while at the same time less miRNA is put out; this morphs the cancer cell into the mesenchymal pheno-type and at that stage metastasis is possible. While an advanced 3rd stage comes about when miRNA resurges somewhat; this is what makes extensive metastasis of cancer cells that have migrated start happening. (Lineal thinking about cancer is a trap, since it is methylation that lets cancer cells get going but later de-methylation that let's them thrive and patient outcome worsen).

Warburg effect is suggested, by cited study, to be almost a lineal concept; which they propose to re-define as desireable if it simply limits lactate and ketone production in a cell. This theory has it's own trap because in the Warburg effect +/-60% of the carbon from glucose undergoing aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells is actually being used by cancer cells as a carbon scaffolding for "de novo" fatty acid synthesis to feed into fatty acid oxidation. In other words the elevated amount of cancer cell's aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect) is really fostering fatty acid oxidation; and fatty acid oxidation increases cancer resistance.

The cancer cells uncouple the mitochondria oxidative phosphorylation of glucose so that the a lot of the processing of glucose doesn't go all the way to normal completion of ATP production; instead cancer cells use the initial steps that perform oxidation of glucose to cleave off the carbon atoms from that glucose to use. In other words it is the mitochondrial uncoupling protein up-regulated by that cancer cell's genetic  transcription which, down the line, forces that cell to continue to escalate Warburg's aerobic glycolysis in order to keep up with energy demands as carbon skeletons get used up.

Metaformin's use in cancer treatment was suggested by study's authors to support their "reverse Warburg" theory : that it is by forcing Warburg's aerobic glycolysis to occur, due to Metaformin,  which accounts for cancer control seen. This seems too lineal an interpretation of the events; especially with regard to preceding paragraph's explanation of how Warburg relates to unpredictable carbon molecule usage. Metaformin reliably does inhibit the mitochondrial complex 1; and this will stymie glucose (and also glutamate, which cancer cells prodigiously take in ) from going on to produce ATP. I would suggest that this also stops the oxidizing of glucose molecules and thus sparse carbon skeletons are available to make into fatty acids for burning.

In addition Metaformin inhibiting mitochondrial complex 1 will also reduce fatty acid oxidation; this is because  NADH oxidation at that complex needs to happen in fatty acid oxidation. NAD+ is a crucial rate limiter in  fatty acid oxidation , but unless NADH can subsequently be re-oxidized as a molecule in the mitochondrial complex 1 it can't keep on driving fatty acid oxidation by lending out NAD+.  Metaformin use in cancer is even more complicated, because if the cancer has p53 then when glucose supply is low it manages to actually use more fatty acids to run on and then use auto-phagy house cleaning to avoid apoptosis death. Whereas, if a cancer does not have much p53 then Metaformin seems to be more effective in treating cancer.

Yup, and the nutritionist hawks the usual "cut your fat, eat more whole grains" line.

It's a comedy of misinformation with advice from agencies paid for by your tax dollars.

Hi, otter--

Obviously, I can provide only limited advice in a blog post.

But I agree: Apo E4 is a prime consideration. However, keep in mind that small LDL remains the most atherogenic (plaque-causing) of all your patterns and still deserves the primary focus. Also, if this blood sample was drawn with ongoing weight loss, this alone can provide substantial distortions.

Wow! I don't know who else would dissect that article like you did! I really, really appreciate you decision to replay on my question. Looks like  Metaformin could be healthful in more than one way in treating cancer.