I consider myself practically a groupie of Fred's. You MUST get him on your podcast! He's conversant in so much more than just exercise physiology, and he's a total delight to talk to! You'll love him!

gharkness, thanks - you're super, and solved a problem for me. I wanted to know if Fred Hahn could talk, if you know what I mean, and I saw the Eades last night and I was so busy remembering to ask them about cancer treatment for a friend of mine that I forgot to ask them this.

Will have Fred on, thanks to you!

By the way, as I guessed and asked Mike and Mary Dan Eades about last night (and as they said on my radio show), only 15 minutes!! of this exercise is needed a week to be healthy. They had to say a half-hour in the book or it would sound too unbelievable, even though it's all well-backed up and well explained with science.

I took up SuperSlow which is similar. Not bad especially if you are a busy person and don't have much time for exercise.

I get put off by some of the body builders who say this isn't a good way. Maybe it's not the best way to become a meat head. (No offence to Meat Heads, you're beautiful in your own weird way) But that is not my goal. I just don't want to lose muscle mass over the years. Slow Burn / SuperSlow type exercises are more than enough for muscle maintenance and gain.

When you think about it, they say that 15 minutes a day is enough to dramatically reduce your chances of a heart attack. We really don't need much to be healthy.

I'm sorry, but I call BS on the slowburn/body by science/HIT stuff. First, the evidence is not there, regardless what these guys want to make you believe. Read the referenced studies, you'll see.

Second, I tried various approaches from these people. I did weightlifting before, the old fashioned way, multiple sets to failure. I tried slowburn for a while, which resulted in losses in lean mass and reduction in strength. HIT (one set to failure) seems to be sufficient to retain lean mass and strength but did not result in progress for me.

Just remember, telling everyone that the old fashioned way works (multiple sets and progressive loading) does little for your business - but telling people everything until now is wrong and that you alone have the answer (which must be purchased, funnily enough) will result in more sales - especially if you tell people they only need to invest minutes a week.

Investing 15 minutes every five days might be better than doing nothing at all, but the truth is that you have to invest more time if you want to build lean mass and retain it into old age, even if many people dont want to believe that.

Fred's do it at home program was too difficult for me to stay with, so I asked him if he recommended a trainer in the Seattle area.
He sent me to Greg Anderson of Ideal Exercise. Now I have someone who talks me though the training every week.
Much easier to push it, with support.

I've done Slow Burn for awhile now. I'd been doing Body for Life, and was up to what my joints, not my muscles, would take on the program. (BFL involves several reps with increasing amounts of weight.) Slow Burn was far more challenging and didn't hurt my joints at all. When I wrote a blog post about it, Fred was kind enough to make some suggestions for me:

http://relievemypain.blogspot.com/2010/07/exercise-without-joint-pain.html

Just recently turned onto this site by following Dr Eades and reading Amy's book .

I find her refreshing and smart though I don't always agree with her but that's life.

I am familiar with Fred's book and program and frankly, he'll probably tell you the same, Super Slow is really meant for people who either do not like exercising or ones whom make excuses that they just "don't have the time".

Is this the optimal of burning fat, keeping in shape, looking and feeling good?

Nopey.

But again, it's better than doing absolutely nothing I suppose.

Actually there are no references or citations at all by Fred in his book to support his claims.

Hard to believe, right.

It's true.

This is Freds' reasoning in his own words why nothing in that book is "well supported".

"First, the editor of our book chose NOT to put a bibliography in the book. She also did not want too many technical references. She also felt that since two physicians were writing the book, this was authority enough."

Fred's quote is just mind blowing.

Now I love the book Protein Power, turned my life around in 1999, but you have to have references and citations in a non fictional exercise/nutrition book.

I've been doing slow burn for years. I started out at Fred's NYC studio, and now I work out on my own. I actually don't know if some other method would work better, but I don't really care. I work out maybe once a week, often less frequently. I do maybe 5- 7 exercises and that's it. That's enough to keep me strong enough to ski for hours, surf for hours, with no other formal workouts whatsoever. At my age, 55, I think I'm doing pretty good!

Oh yeah, he cured my lower back pain issues, which were starting to get pretty severe.

Ron S. said:

"First, the editor of our book chose NOT to put a bibliography in the book. She also did not want too many technical references. She also felt that since two physicians were writing the book, this was authority enough." Fred's quote is just mind blowing."

Ron, how disingenuous of you. Your argument is a strawman. I've explained to anyone who has asked me that though our book did not include a bibliography of medical and scientific references, I would send you or anyone the literature that supports high intensity strength training. And the fact that the book was co-written by physicians does mean that it is authoritative. I'll bet you this - had we put a bibliography in the book you'd accuse of of cherry picking.

And if you are really interested in the subject (which doesn't seem to be the case - you seem more interested in just bashing me personally for whatever reason), you could do a quick Google search where you would find tons of support for high intensity strength training principles which Slow Burn falls under quite nicely.

But here - I did the work for you:

http://www.metrixpt.com/pdf/metrixstrength_research.pdf

And as I've said in the book and on my blog and website, fat loss is 99% what you eat. Exercise has almost no effect on fat loss. Keeping in shape is specific to the sport or activity you do and ALL sports and activities will be enhanced greatly by HIT strength training.

HIT strength training for as little as 30 minutes a week - if you actually do it right - will dramatically improve anyone's health and fitness.

"I'm sorry, but I call BS on the slowburn/body by science/HIT stuff. First, the evidence is not there, regardless what these guys want to make you believe."

Really?

http://www.metrixpt.com/pdf/metrixstrength_research.pdf

More:

SuperSlow or Hypertrophy Resistance Training: do they affect skeletal muscle mass and strength differently?

Foditsch E.E.1, A. Obermayer 1, P. Steinbacher 1, W. Stoiber1, J.R. Haslett1, S. Ring-Dimitriou2 and A.M. Sänger1
1Department of Organismic Biology, Vascular and Muscle Research, University of Salzburg, Austria
2Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Austria

Introduction:

One of the most conspicuous physiological changes of the human aging process is the progressive decline of muscle mass, strength and quality in combination with lower resistance to muscle fatigue. This change is termed sarcopenia (Doherty 2003, Macaluso & De Vito 2004, Edström & Ulfhake 2005, Marzetti & Leeuwenburgh 2006). Between the ages of 20 and 80, the loss of human skeletal muscle mass is approximately 20 – 30% (Carmeli et al. 2002, Edström & Ulfhake 2005). Causes for the loss of skeletal muscle power consist in a combination of muscle atrophy (loss and selective atrophy of fast type II fibers) and a reduced synthesis of muscle proteins such as myosin heavy chain. Moreover changes in muscle quality such as a fibre switch from fast twitch to slow twitch fibres can be observed (Welle et al. 1993, Larsson & Ansved 1995). Intracellular changes and altered biochemical mechanisms may not be overlooked. A reduction in the number and function of mitochondria (Greenlund & Nair 2003) and alterations in enzyme activities and impaired glucose metabolism leads to a reduced energy production in aged muscles which results in a lower muscle power, fatigability and reduced physical activity (Welle et al. 1993, Carmeli et al. 2002, Greenlund & Nair 2003). All these losses of the skeletal muscle system contribute to altered patterns of activity and have important implications for functional mobility and disability which can lead to falls and fractures in older humans (Doherty 2003).

This study now is part of a larger study examining the influence of different modes of physical activity on age-related changes of the musculoskeletal system in middle-aged women. Here, two strength- training methods (Hypertrophy and SuperSlow Resistance Training) are employed to test, if a specific training for older adults can reduce or reverse the patterns of sarcopenia and lower the risk of falls and fractures as well as lead to a higher quality of life in old age and furthermore, to increase our understanding on the age-related degenerative processes in the skeletal muscle system.

Methods:

Nineteen healthy women, aged 45 – 55, participated in this training study. The subjects followed the activities of daily life with no athletic history. All women underwent a thorough interview and a physical fitness testing prior to the first training unit. Maximum oxygen uptake (VOmax), maximum muscle force and muscle mass of the M. vastus lateralis were assessed to facilitate grouping, optimal training regiment and determination of the dominant leg. The subjects of the present study were assigned to either common Hypertrophy (HTR) or SuperSlow Training (SST). The training period lasted 12 weeks with 3 training sessions per week with focuse on the M. vastus lateralis. A training session lasted 50 min. with 5 min. warm up at the beginning. Both strength training groups performed the same exercises (multi-joint and single joint exercises). The HTR group had a repetition maximum of 60-80% with 3-5x 12-15 repetitions. The SST group had the same repetition maximum with only 1x 4-8 repetitions. Muscle biopsy samples were taken before (A) and after (E) the 12 - wk training period from the superficial region of M. vastus lateralis (approximately mid - shaft) of the non - dominant leg by means of a percutaneous needle biopsy (3 mm, Bergström technique). Samples were chemically fixated in 2.5% glutaraldehyde, postfixed in 1% OsO4 (3h at RT), dehydrated in a series of ethanols and embedded in Epon 812 epoxy resin. Semithin sections (1-1.5 µm) were stained with azure II-methylene blue and digitally photographed through a Reichert Polyvar microscope. Relative volumes of muscle, connective and adipose tissue and blood vessels were assessed by point counting stereology using a square lattice test system (Weibel 1979). Ultrathin sections (70-90 nm) were mounted on 75 - mesh copper grids, contrasted with 0.5% uranyl acetate and 3% lead citrate in a “Leica EM stain” autostainer and viewed in a Zeiss EM-910 transmission electron microscope.
Four fibres (two of each fibre type, I and IID) were photographed. Classification of fibre types was carried out using characteristics such as muscle fibre seize, capillary supply, amount of lipid droplets visible in low magnification and amount of mainly subsarcolemmal mitochondria in high magnified details.
42 micrographs (unbiased sampling, evenly distributed both at subsarcolemmally as well as more centrally located sites) were sampled for each fibre type. Volume densities of myofibrils, mitochondria, lipid droplets, glycogen granula, sarcotubular system and capillarization were determined stereologically as described above.
With regard to the above mentioned variables differences due to the training interventions (HTR vs. SST) were analyzed using a paired t-test and considered significant at P  0.05.

Results:

Light microscopical results show that women having a smaller baseline ratio of muscle tissue exhibit a significantly better response to both training interventions. Connective and adipose tissue as well as blood vessels did not differ significantly.
With respect to training mode the SuperSlow method positively affects muscle mass at the expense of connective and adipose tissue to a greater extent than the hypertrophy method (Table I).
On intracellular level the analysis of the various cell components demonstrates the following (Table II and III):
The myofibrillar content of type I muscle fibres declines with both modes of resistance training (thereby to a greater extent with the SuperSlow regime) whereas it levels off in type IID fibres (with even a light increase with the SuperSlow mode). Both fibre types significantly increase their mitochondrial content and with it their aerobic capacity. In type I fibres this is mainly due to both a highly significant increase of the intermyofibrillar mitochondria and the hypertrophy mode of resistance training. In type IID fibres both subpopulations of mitochondria contribute to the overall increase of the mitochondrial amount. Furthermore, this training effect on mitochondria may point to a fibre shift towards type IIA. The energy source in the form of lipid droplets significantly decreases in type I fibres (mainly due to the hypertrophy mode of training), indicating the utilisation of another energy source than lipid such as glycogen to meet the aerobic synthesis of ATP. With both training regimes as a whole the lipid content in type IID muscle fibres is unaffected. However, with the SuperSlow mode there is a slight increase of this energy source indicating its further usage for energy production and positive influence on the lipid metabolism. Once again, this too may be seen as an indication of fibre transformation. With respect to glycogen as alternative fuel and bearing in mind the issue of quantitative analyses with the presented method, an increase mainly with the hypertrophy regime may be observed. Together with the former the hypertrophy regime seems to bank mainly on glycogen as an energy source. Finally, due to the SuperSlow regime the sarcotubular system increases in type I and decreases in type IID fibres, indicating a fibre shift toward IIA.

In conclusion the SuperSlow mode appears to be more effective than the common hypertrophy resistance mode in
i) replacing connective and adipose tissue by muscle tissue
ii) maintaining muscular strength (myofibrillar content slightly increased in type IID fibres, moderate decline in type I fibres)
iii) increasing the aerobic capacity in both the type I and type IID fibres (subsarcolemmal mitochondria increased in both fibre types)
iv) positively affecting the lipid metabolism (even and slight increase of lipid in type I and type IID muscle fibres, respectively).
The SuperSlow method of resistance training appears to be an effective approach for the everyday use being a save exercise intervention to increase aerobic capacity without suffering the loss of muscle strength thus reducing the risks of falls and injury and significantly contributing to a better quality of life in older age.

References

CARMELI E., R. COLEMAN & A. Z. REZNICK (2002): The biochemistry of aging muscle. Experimental Gerontology. 37: 477-489.
DOHERTY T. J. (2003): Aging and sarcopenia. J Appl Physiol. 95: 1717-1727.
EDSTRÖM E. & B. ULFHAKE (2005): Sarcopenia is not due to lack regenerative drive in senescent skeletal muscle. Aging Cell. 4: 65-77.
GREENLUND L. J. S. & K. S. NAIR (2002): Sarcopenia-consequences, mechanisms, and potential therapies. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development. 124: 287-299.
LARSSON L. & T. ANSVED (1995): Effects of ageing on the motor unit. Prog.Neurobiol. 45: 397-458.
MACALUSO A. & G. DE VITO (2004): Muscle strength, power and adaptations to resistance training in older people. Eur J Appl Physiol. 91: 450-472.
WEIBEL E. R., G. S. KISTLER & N. F. SCHERLE (1966): Practical stereological methods for morphometric cytology. J Cell Biol. 30: 23-38.
WELLE S., C. THORNTON, R. JOZEFOURICZ & M. STATT (1993): Myofibrillar protein synthesis in young and old men. Am.J.Physiol. 264: E693-E698.

And more:

http://www.nursing2007criticalcare.com/pt/re/merck/fulltext.00149619-201007000-00009.pdf;jsessionid=Qxpp5HpVGnT2MgvQLGTQL2NyT52KynDJPPt6JLd0qDFJd1RV61sL!924315994!181195628!8091!-1

You're very welcome Amy. I was/am honored that you chose me to be part of your amazing lineup of experts. Keep up the great work!