PDA

View Full Version : Neuroendocrine response


Steven Low
07-06-2008, 10:12 PM
Just curious to see what you guys thought since no one has really talked to me about it yet.

Questions? Comments? Feedback?

I may actually research into it a bit more if I have more time (specifically on testosterone and perhaps others which I will post here), but I thought the 3 responses I covered would be sufficient since the article was getting pretty long as it was.

Peter Dell'Orto
07-06-2008, 11:18 PM
I've read it twice, and what I learned is I don't know enough about the subject.

I think you clearly put a lot of work into the article, and it's not that your writing is opaque. The topic is a bit opaque to me at this point. I feel like I need the executive summary - "It's not EPOC that makes Tabata Sprints better for fat loss, it's the neuroendocrine response that does so. Here is how your training should reflect that."

But it's a dense article, and I've printed it out and keep referring to it, trying to get a handle on the information included. I think I better understand what's going on in my body when I do my workouts that have this effect, but I'm not quite sure what to do about. I'm happy to keep trying to understand it better and I think the article will help me once I get a better handle on what's in it.

Executive Summary of my post: "Thanks for the article, but it's a little technical for someone like me with limited technical understanding of the body's systems."

:D

Steven Low
07-07-2008, 01:38 AM
Yeah, I completely understand that I didn't actually delve into the "how [it can be applied]" as much as the "what [is neuroendocrine]", "why [neuroendocrine occurs]" and "when [neuroendocrine occurs]" here.

If you want a summary of the "how" we can hash things out in this thread if you want.

Allen Yeh
07-07-2008, 05:30 AM
To be honest I keep meaning to read the article but I've been swamped with moving preparations and then the actual moving.

I'll get to it this week.

Colm OReilly
07-07-2008, 06:29 AM
Way over my head but I really enjoyed it. Thank you.

Colm
-Not that smrat

Pat McElhone
07-07-2008, 06:29 AM
I have read the article. It is a good review of some of the things that happen when we train. It does get very detailed in the paragraphs, and this may cause readers to get lost. A diagram or cartoon showing what happens physiologically would have helped. Also, table of the hormones discusses and their actions would allow the read to keep track of the various roles each hormone played.

I do applaud your effort. This is complex stuff and it is nice to see someone trying to get it out there for everyone to understand.

Mike ODonnell
07-07-2008, 07:42 AM
Haven't read it yet....but that reminds me to print it out, as I do not like reading longer articles on a computer screen.

Gant Grimes
07-07-2008, 08:00 AM
Haven't read it yet....but that reminds me to print it out, as I do not reading longer articles on a computer screen.

Me too. I always run out of screen. WTF?

Look forward to reading it.

Steven Low
07-07-2008, 09:54 AM
I have read the article. It is a good review of some of the things that happen when we train. It does get very detailed in the paragraphs, and this may cause readers to get lost. A diagram or cartoon showing what happens physiologically would have helped. Also, table of the hormones discusses and their actions would allow the read to keep track of the various roles each hormone played.

I do applaud your effort. This is complex stuff and it is nice to see someone trying to get it out there for everyone to understand.

That's a good idea as well.

I'll try to make something up a bit later in the week when I'm not as busy for this.

Craig Snyder
07-07-2008, 08:29 PM
I do agree that EPOC is overblown in it's effect, but if it has such a small effect, how did it ever get such a large amount of the credit for fat loss for HIIT?


(Copied from article)
Similarly, in 2006 Laforgia et al. comes to the same
conclusion as their data indicates that “EPOC
comprises only 6 - 15% of the net total oxygen cost
of the exercise [3].” This data agrees with an earlier
study in 1997 by Laforgia et al., contrasting 60 minutes
of HIIT comprised of 1 minute at 105% VO2max running
with 2 minutes active recovery, and 30 minutes of ET
was composed of 70% VO2max running where they
determined that there was <100 kcal burned in EPOC
[4]. These values were 7.1% and 13.8% of net oxygen
cost for ET and HIIT respectively.


As far as the studies you listed, isn't 105% above VO2 max a little low for HIIT? I believe I have read Tabata intervals reaching in the 150-170s% of Vo2. Or was it low like that to sustain that effort for the duration of the hour?

Thanks for writing this. I have been in an arguement with an exercise physiogolist for a while now about HIIT vs aerobic training and this gives me a lot more ammo and angles that I didn't know about.

Craig

Kevin Perry
07-07-2008, 09:28 PM
Steven,

Is this an article in the latest PMenu? If it is im not sure if I have recieved that issue yet o not but I would be interested in reading it since I have my head deep right now in my Exercise physiology text for class and some of this stuff is hard to grasp.

Steven Low
07-07-2008, 09:40 PM
Craig, good points.

From what I looked through in pubmed and google/google scholar basically pretty much none of the HIIT studies are done near max intensity (because then it would be unsustainable). For any of the ones that go over 20 minutes the intensity is markedly lower. There's very few besides tabatas that look at intervals of <=5-10 minutes which is unfortunate.

For example, I think the only one I could find that was relevant to the article that was on REAL sprinting (12s & 24s bouts) is this, but it didn't discuss EPOC or anything just GH/glycerol/etc. (FYI this is reference #24)
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/6/R2370

I know extrapolation is a bit weak, but even assuming higher intensity sprints it should be negligible because of these three points. For example, (1) with the higher intensity sprints we cannot sustain that as long and thus we have to cut short our workout quicker. Also, (2) recovery periods for higher intensity exercise needs to be longer than lower intensity HIIT counterparts otherwise lactate threshold/metabolic "burnout" is reached much quicker (aka short rest periods are used for better metabolic conditioning a la CF). Indeed, (3) the higher the intensity the shorter the distance run must also be because higher intensity is also unsustainable short term (not to mention as was previously indicated with intervals & recovery periods). This means there are decreases the calories burned although this may be canceled out by increases in power (work/time) as higher power requires more energy.

When adding up the total sum of these effects, I would project somewhat of a bell curve in regards to intensity increases in HIIT VO2max. In regards to the quote in my sig... some parts of the body also operate on a bell shaped curve such as optimal weight for your genetics, regulation of homeostasis, etc. Like quantum mechanics I really find it funny that if you look deeply into things there's a lot of statistical distribution, logarithmic function or linear increases (such as GH to intensity and IL-6 to duratin of exercise) with regards to living creatures. Though this last paragraph kinda got slightly off topic -_-.


Kevin:

Yes, this is in the latest issue.

Peter Dell'Orto
07-07-2008, 09:51 PM
If you want a summary of the "how" we can hash things out in this thread if you want.

The "How" would be a nice followup article. If I understood correctly, the "how" pretty much comes down to doing Tabatas and ME lifting and short metcons, anyway, so it won't change so much about what I do, now. Which is Tabatas and ME lifting and short metcons...

:)

Steven Low
07-07-2008, 10:42 PM
The "How" would be a nice followup article. If I understood correctly, the "how" pretty much comes down to doing Tabatas and ME lifting and short metcons, anyway, so it won't change so much about what I do, now. Which is Tabatas and ME lifting and short metcons...

:)
Well, it generally comes down to your goals.

But if you're in it to get stronger and fit (although fit does include strength.. more strength biased fit that is then I guess), then that will work.

Peter Dell'Orto
07-08-2008, 12:00 AM
Well, it generally comes down to your goals.

Basically, increase my overall strength, and my strength-endurance, for MMA.

But if you're in it to get stronger and fit (although fit does include strength.. more strength biased fit that is then I guess), then that will work.

"Strength-biased fit" is a good description, I think.

Like I said, the "how" would be a good discussion. Taken that EPOC is not as significant a factor as it's generally though, and that neuroendocrine response is, how should that affect your training? Goals are critical, of course, but you could break it up by broad goals. Say, if your goal is maximum strength, how does this understanding of the neuroendocrine response inform your training? What if fat loss is your primary goal, is your training going to be different than if you think EPOC is the answer?

Just more article potential. I'd ask more direct questions here, but I think I don't know enough to ask a really useful and specific question.

Craig Snyder
07-08-2008, 06:29 AM
Thanks for your responses. That does help. Do you know if there is any current research going for shorter duration HIIT?

For direct relavent questions:

Can you outline for us all what is happen to our bodies on an neuroendocrine level when we do the CA WOD? It obviously combines strength training and HIT, which as far as I can understand should make me a testosterone and GH factory. But that is about all that I understand about it.

Is there much of a neuroendocrine change after we switch each 4 week cycle?

Thanks,
Craig

Mike ODonnell
07-08-2008, 07:02 AM
Good technical article....hard to read just once and suck it all in...as it's just not an easy subject to tackle with all the possible variations in training and nutrition. I liked the "death of EPOC"....so sick of hearing that. That and was interested to see the whole SNS being brought in. Good stuff.....the more I look into all that, the more I am starting to think that the success of IF and non-metabolic slowdown is all about sustained SNS in the morning hours.....add in a cold shower and some coffee and you have a powerful fat burning environment.

Steven Low
07-08-2008, 06:53 PM
Thanks for your responses. That does help. Do you know if there is any current research going for shorter duration HIIT?

For direct relavent questions:

Can you outline for us all what is happen to our bodies on an neuroendocrine level when we do the CA WOD? It obviously combines strength training and HIT, which as far as I can understand should make me a testosterone and GH factory. But that is about all that I understand about it.

Is there much of a neuroendocrine change after we switch each 4 week cycle?

Thanks,
Craig
I don't know of much research with shorter duration HIIT. Only stuff I can think of is only generally anecdotal stuff with people in the fitness community, heh.

As for CA WOD.. depends what you're actually doing. I can't really produce any numbers or anything if that's what you're asking but generally if you're lifting high intensity (closer towards 1 RM) the more response you get... but volume as to be higher to elicit a stronger volume response.

As far as 4 week cycle, the way I can generally tell if something is happening is if facial hair is growing faster or getting more acne. That generally means more testosterone/GH production. Noticable hypertrophy is also a good indicator. At least that's from observation. It really depends on how tough the cycle is and how you back off it; if you're getting beat down and feeling like crap generally you get a good supercompensation effect during a "rest" week.

--------------


Yeah MOD I agree. Relating it specifically to different workouts... I don't think there is a point to that. It's generally a cumulative effect much like you can't see noticable strength results from just one session (except if you're doing like SS or something). It's more of a combination of workouts giving an effect... combined with sleep and nutrition factors.

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-08-2008, 09:25 PM
I love the information in the article. It seems like an instructional guide to metabolic hormone release across variouse exercise platforms.

I wondered though why is it that HIIT is so much better at burning fat?

I understand the difference in the hormone release between it and EF and why each of them are capable of burning fat. However the article speaks of IL-6 and the multitude of hormones increased in resistance training at higher intensity. but it dosen't offer why the increased IL-6 of EF is so much less effective in fat burning than the hormones involved with HIIT.

Now i did get that it is the case and have found it to be so in my own experience but I would love any information you may have as to why.

Steven Low
07-08-2008, 09:41 PM
I love the information in the article. It seems like an instructional guide to metabolic hormone release across variouse exercise platforms.

I wondered though why is it that HIIT is so much better at burning fat?

I understand the difference in the hormone release between it and EF and why each of them are capable of burning fat. However the article speaks of IL-6 and the multitude of hormones increased in resistance training at higher intensity. but it dosen't offer why the increased IL-6 of EF is so much less effective in fat burning than the hormones involved with HIIT.

Now i did get that it is the case and have found it to be so in my own experience but I would love any information you may have as to why.
"although overproduction of IL-6 is related to muscle atrophy due to increases in a class of lysosomal proteases (protein breakdown) [31]. These effects are due to both direct and indirect responses such as a balance between stimulation of anabolic processes like the myoblast proliferation and hormones such as vascular endothelial growth factor (capillary vascularization) juxtaposed against catabolic processes like the aforementioned lysosomal proteases."

I'd check out source 31 for more info. I think that was a full text article so check it out; the whole thing is pretty good and A LOT more in depth than I went into obviously.

Craig Loizides
07-11-2008, 08:45 PM
I enjoyed the article. I agree with you on EPOC. My opinion is that fat gain/loss is largely hormonally controlled in which case the main role of exercise is to help shift the hormonal balance in the right direction.

You wrote that little glycogen is used at lactate threshold pace and slower. I seem to remember reading some studies showing that lactate threshold pace used fat for only 30% of energy and the "fat burning zone" (50-60% VO2max) used roughly a 50-50 split. I can try to dig up some articles if your numbers are very different. Of course none of this affects any of the conclusions you make.

"If glycogen levels are low during exercise then there is a strong activation of IL-6 gene".
Is this a good reason to avoid replenishing carbs after every workout?

"It has been shown that recovery sleep after a period of exercise and sleep deprivation induces stronger GH production that normal."
Crazy thought here - should I cycle sleep duration in an attempt to induce a stronger response? I mean I already cycle calories, eating window, macronutrient ratios, workout intensities. Why not sleep? It sounds more harmful than beneficial, but I would have said the same thing about IF a year ago.

Additional questions (future article?):
This article focused on catecholamines, IL-6, and GH. What happens if we throw insulin, IGF-1, and testosterone (and others) into the mix? Which are most important for fat loss / muscle gain? What does this say about nutrition and exercise?

Thanks.

Steven Low
07-11-2008, 10:27 PM
I enjoyed the article. I agree with you on EPOC. My opinion is that fat gain/loss is largely hormonally controlled in which case the main role of exercise is to help shift the hormonal balance in the right direction.

Agreed.

You wrote that little glycogen is used at lactate threshold pace and slower. I seem to remember reading some studies showing that lactate threshold pace used fat for only 30% of energy and the "fat burning zone" (50-60% VO2max) used roughly a 50-50 split. I can try to dig up some articles if your numbers are very different. Of course none of this affects any of the conclusions you make.

Hmm, well certainly some glycogen is being used [in the muscles] and replenished with stores from the liver. But yes, free fatty acid mobilization from adipose tissue stores and probably some protein and nucleic acid breakdown are also involved. Biased towards the two former of course. Pretty much all energy pathways are mobilized as you know... it's not an "either or" situation just that I believe the studies I read said maximum fat burning was at that 60% range which is below lac threshold.

If it is an actual 50-50 split at 60% that's pretty interesting to know. I assume they were comparing little glycogen (cause I was just more or less repeating what the study told me) to total body glycogen stores. For example, in a marathon the body runs out of glycogen at approximately like 20-22 miles. So comparatively it's very little glycogen being used at 60% if you're not running for hours.

"If glycogen levels are low during exercise then there is a strong activation of IL-6 gene".
Is this a good reason to avoid replenishing carbs after every workout?

I would say no as workout performance degrades with glycogen depletion. Well, this is only really relevant if you're training multiple workouts in a day really so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

This is important though with above lactate threshold exercise which rapidly depletes intramuscular glycogen stores such as your HIIT intervals, metcons, tabata, etc. as IL-6 is also responsible for the mobilization of fat stores.

"It has been shown that recovery sleep after a period of exercise and sleep deprivation induces stronger GH production that normal."
Crazy thought here - should I cycle sleep duration in an attempt to induce a stronger response? I mean I already cycle calories, eating window, macronutrient ratios, workout intensities. Why not sleep? It sounds more harmful than beneficial, but I would have said the same thing about IF a year ago.

I'm not quite sure. I've had experiences with college and working out hard (training for iron cross along with sprinting and such) where I would workout hard... be sleep deprived because of exams and then take a long sleep and I would wake up with increased facial hair/acne/etc. signifying at least an "observation" spike in GH/test. This is, subsequently, how I test my body's hormonal output now by trying to hit overreaching effects such that I can induce faster facial hair growth & acne, lol.

In any case, I think it's easier (and possibly better) to induce such an effect with your training instead of trying to mess around with your recovery. One less thing to worry about and most people don't get enough sleep as it is. If you do decide to mess around with it keep a journal so we can all learn from your probably terrible experience. :)

Additional questions (future article?):
This article focused on catecholamines, IL-6, and GH. What happens if we throw insulin, IGF-1, and testosterone (and others) into the mix? Which are most important for fat loss / muscle gain? What does this say about nutrition and exercise?

Thanks.

Test from what I've read is pretty correlative to GH.

Insulin is it's own thing. I, along with many others, try to keep it limited. It's not necessary for growth (see insulin knockout mice) and hardly as anabolic as GH or test. Plus, it's not specific to induction of nutrients into muscles and also does it for adipose tissue. On the other hand, GH and test both have lipolytic activity as you know so they're much better overall for your body (hence why when people look for an edge they supplement steroids/GH rather than insulin).

IGF-1 is primarily produced as a response to fluctuation GH levels. You can think of it as one of the mechanisms by which GH carries out it's strong anabolic activity.

Um, might try to follow up with something as I already said in this thread... not sure what on besides maybe test at the moment. Maybe a look into specific IGF-1 function... probably not insulin too much in depth as there is already tons and tons of info out there on insulin.

Craig Loizides
07-13-2008, 08:51 PM
Here's one article:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0690.htm

At 50% VO2max fat provides about half the calories for the first hour, 70% after 2 hours and 80% after 3 hours.
At 75%, fat provides about 1/3.
At 89% (a little slower than 10k pace) fat provides none of the energy.
There is a pretty large variation between different people though.

I agree that some workouts should be done fully recovered and replenished, but I've been wondering lately if all should be. Can working out in a low glycogen state result in a larger hormonal response and if so does this outweigh the decreased performance in the workout? I'm wondering if this might be similar to overreaching to induce supercompensation.

I'll experiment with the sleep thing at some point and let you know how badly it goes.

Steven Low
07-13-2008, 09:51 PM
That's interesting about that 89% average. I suspect that the elite runners are the ones that can utilize both glycogen and fat (up to that 99% VO2max referenced) during those 10k runs. The more ways you can utilize energy the higher intensity you can sustain.

I actually wish they included more data with their study though such as the tendency of different demographics. Not to be racist or anything but if they did a comparison of like 5k runners to marathoners to your common layperson it would make the study more interesting. Plus, I'd like to know how the say 10k runners from Africa (Ethiopia & Nigeria especially) compare to say 10k runners from Europe, Asia, etc.

Anyway, with the glycogen depletion I mean it's kinda like doing a workout right after the other. The quality suffers because you reach "fatigue" earlier even if your muscles aren't that taxed. Well, they're taxed moreso metabolically than actual stress/damage put on them. I dunno I've done workouts when exhausted (physically) and they tend to end up poor in quality... and subsequent workouts have not had an extra boost. Now, something like planned overreaching may be beneficial, but it does not necessarily have to be glycogen depletion induced workouts; overreaching will work regardless with a supercompensatory effect.

Sounds good on the sleep thing. :D Definitely log your results.

Steven Low
08-07-2008, 02:41 AM
Found a more thorough look at IL-6 if anyone is interested. It's VERY dense though.

http://www.trainwiser.com/f109/interleukin-6-catabolic-agent-growth-factor-5859/??

Summary:

Conclusion

EXERCISE activates the immune system, which then cycles through an abbreviated version of the acute phase response. Damage to muscles results in IL-6 secretion, which signals the body to produce acute phase proteins. Depending on the amount of muscle damage, the acute phase response will terminate sooner or later, by the action of cortisol and anti-inflammatory cytokines.

IL-6 is the main mediator of muscle wasting. It may have some beneficial actions at the onset of the acute phase response, but chronically high IL-6 levels must be avoided for good health and optimum muscular development. We have a number of ways to accomplish that, from the simple use of antioxidants to specially designed antibodies. Through the use of these agents in coordination with training activity, we can effectively reduce the unnecessary muscle breakdown that normally follows intense exercise.

Basically, somewhat of what we already know for most hormones (well, this is cytokine but it acts similarly). Insulin is great after exercise, but not elevated levels all the time.. hence type II diabetes. More or less the same with IL-6 with it's "acute phase benefits" during exercise (lipolytic activity for one) but long term elevation (see: chronic STRESS) leads to muscle wasting just like with elevated cortisol levels.

John Schneider
08-07-2008, 06:47 AM
It was a fantastic article and I appreciated that it was well cited. I was in a debate on the judoforum on this topic or rather the importance for weight control of aerobic training vs anaerobic training. My opponent contested that since EPOC was over rated, and muscle mass was over rated, it didn't make sense for anyone to lost more weight doing anaerobic training. I countered with that being fine, but real life observations proved otherwise. I also came across an article by Alwyn Cosgrove that said the same thing, essentially, "We don't know why it works, but it's clear that it does."

Your article on neuroendocrine response has me thinking that may be the missing link, or at least another piece of the puzzle. Even if this turns out to be over rated at some point, a little hormonal response, a little EPOC, a little lean muscle mass, a little of whatever else is out there, all adds up.

Steven Low
08-07-2008, 12:12 PM
John:

Yeah, it's probably a little of everything. I do this it's of the components that hormones are probably the major component though... namely because small increases in GH/Test give HUGE body comp and performance changes (hence why people dope).

Dave Van Skike
08-07-2008, 01:45 PM
John:

Yeah, it's probably a little of everything. I do this it's of the components that hormones are probably the major component though... namely because small increases in GH/Test give HUGE body comp and performance changes (hence why people dope).


reverse that.....HUGE amounts of exegenous therapy results in MINOR changes.....

huge amounts of dope and huge amounts of work result in huge amounts of body comp and performance changes.

Gant Grimes
08-07-2008, 01:59 PM
reverse that.....HUGE amounts of exegenous therapy results in MINOR changes.....

huge amounts of dope and huge amounts of work result in huge amounts of body comp and performance changes.

Down the road, sure. But drugs have the novice effect, too, especially on a young mesomorph with hot receptor sites.

Steven Low
08-07-2008, 02:03 PM
Well, I agree with that. Test/GH let you recover better (which is when all the great strength/cond changes take place). It's not like you can just take steroids without working out and get significantly bigger...

Kinda like trying to lose weight. Diet is the major factor (like training is in this case), but that little extra boost of training (anabolics in this case) is going to result in better composition changes.

-------------------


Anyway, I was reading Lyle's new blog:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/08/04/back-to-the-dieting-series-psychology-versus-physiology/

which was pretty good and related to this study (on cytokines like IL-6):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10694113?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Very interesting tie in to one of the possible causes of overtraining syndrome which does result in a sickness-like state as well as muscle wasting. Well, that and relating it all back to stress/cortisol on both the mind and the body.

Crazy how everything is tying together (at least in my mind). Hopefully you guys too. :D

Dave Van Skike
08-07-2008, 02:15 PM
Down the road, sure. But drugs have the novice effect, too, especially on a young mesomorph with hot receptor sites.

Novices get a novice effect in general.


well I'm not speaking for a huge fount of personal knowledge admittedly, but I've seen "supplementation" up close in two sports and I don't know that I've ever seen anyone make huge changes from anything other than food +work...yeah the supplements do work...really really well...but not without massive volumes of work.

But then again...I think all the nueroendocrine blather is just that.