Three minutes of exercise is not enough

BBC Horizon recently discussed the recent burst of activity surrounding claims that just 3 minutes of very intense exercise (HIT high intensity training), done in 3×20 second sessions three times each week is enough to improve various health factors (such as insulin sensitivity and lung capacity).

The program’s presenter Michael Mosely is a medical doctor and on the basis of an MRI scan from a previous TV show that showed up to be a bit fat around his inner organs and some mention of his father having type 2(?) diabetes he wanted to try this exercise regime to see if it would work for him.

Apparently, it can sometimes be an uphill battle to get media interest in physical activity research as it is often seen as being more of the same and that people already know they should be exercising more. Indeed, just last week the National Health Service started promoting a 150-minutes a week exercise campaign. So, it’s interesting that the BBC should time this show to highlight this particular piece of research and so grab people’s attention. But, where was the context? They did include some sedentary behaviour research, but there wasn’t a lot of context regarding what is known about the field of physical activity and sedentary behaviour. There is a danger that people will go away thinking that a few minutes a week is all they need to do for exercise, or that if you are a genetic ‘non-responder’ as it turned out Moseley is, then there is little point in exercising at all, which is, of course, wrong.

The worrying thing about the show though is that they did two experiments with Moseley in parallel. They had him do the intense bursts regime for a month at the same time he was concentrating on walking more and not sitting at his desk continuously for hours on end every day. They said that during the experiment time that he was burning an extra 500 calories (kcal) per day because of being less sedentary. Then they told us that his insulin sensitivity had improved by about 23% but his lung capacity didn’t change at all (the non-responder bit). But, now there is no way to know whether that 23% improvement was down to him walking and fidgeting more and burning those extra calories each day or the intense burst regime. It could have been that it was the increased calorie burning that had that effect as his respiratory fitness didn’t change at all, as he wasn’t doing any substantial extra cardiovascular exercise. Mosely says that the regime goes against the medical received wisdom. It does, but does it stack up?

There really ought to have been some more information on all the other benefits of exercise (when done for longer). They claimed that personal exercise is like personal medicine and that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to exercise. As if not responding to a drug because of genetics is somehow analogous it’s not. Even if it’s harder for some people to benefit from exercise, you honestly don’t ever see obese, fast marathon runners. Even if you’re a non-responder genetically, exercise comes with many more benefits than increasing VO2 max in some people. Cardio-respiratory fitness is just one aspect of health, physical activity is still really important for a host of other health benefits such as metabolic risk, weight management, maintenance of lean tissue, bone health etc, let alone the beneficial affects on mental well-being that come from exercise. Mood enhancement, normalization of circadian rhythms and stress reduction are just a few of the many mental health benefits exercise can have. Evidence is mounting for the benefits of exercise on mental health but psychologists are only now beginning to add it to their treatment regimes for their patients.

There was some suggestion that even if you got to the gym every day but sit at a desk for 12 hours you are somehow doing yourself harm. I suspect that much of that research has been hyped by the makers of standing workstations and treadmill desk attachments, to be frank. It would very disheartening to learn that my daily hour walking the dog and 2-3 trips to the gym each week are cancelled out by the fact that I work sat down at a desk much of the working day.

Thankfully, a paper just published in JAMA looked at the physical activity levels in 20,000 children and adolescents and suggests that being active may be more important than how much time you spend being sedentary. I hope they have a cohort to show that the same applies in adulthood.

The third aspect of the Horizon episode demonstrated that the brain has a cut-out switch that stops you exercising if your muscles tell you it might cause damage, i.e. pedal on a bicycle really hard for too long and it gets painful and your brain won’t let you continue. However, this isn’t a physical limitation and the threshold is set rather low for most people. Without causing actual damage it seems that you can workout through that barrier and get fitter still.

I will be following up this post with some thoughts from Soren Brage, an Investigator Scientist in Physical Activity at the MRC Epidemiology Unit in Cambridge. Watch this space.

This week’s (al)chemical happenings

The Alchemist learns this week how phosphorus atoms might be perfectly placed to build a quantum computer and how fluorescent gel and filter paper might put explosive sniffer dogs out of work. In environmental remediation the reverse of gold-digging could be used to remove toxic mercury ions from contaminated water while across the universe it could be that Earth-like planets are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to chemical composition. In elemental discoveries, the possibility of making a pure, metastable “arsenic black” could be possible thanks to energetic calculations. This week’s award comes from Pittcon and is awarded posthumously to father than son Genzo Shimadzu, Sr. and Genzo Shimadzu, Jr. founders of the Shimadzu company famed for its analytical instruments.

The Alchemist Newsletter.

Rock on @GulliverTurtle

Gulliver Turtle was checking out my guitars and stuff yesterday, making sure I’d turned everything up to 11…there he is, third shelf up, on the right, next to my wife’s copy of Streitwieser & Heathcock “Introduction to Organic Chemistry” (2nd edn 1981) and just below the 1st edition of “A Brief History of Science”, which I co-authored with John Gribbin, Richard Dawkins, Ian Stewart and others back in 1998.

Making scientific peer review open

Scientific reputation is essential to researchers for their academic advancement, tenure, research grants and fellowships. It relies, most of the times, on quantitative metrics such as the H Index, citation counts, article counts etc. And, of course, getting published in a journal in the first place is down to the age-old tradition of anonymous peer review.

The community has begun to struggle with this approach for many years now. The likes of arXiv (for physics), open access journals and other efforts have begun to look at alternative publishing models, but anonymous referees have remained at the heart of the process.

A new site – Peer Evaluation – hopes to complement the conventional quantitative metric system with a whole new set of qualitative indicators that are comprehensive, transparent and immediately verifiable by researchers and funding institutions, allowing scientists themselves to curate the peer reviewing of their own papers.

Will it succeed? Are we about to see a new dawn for science? Or, will tradition hold sway?

Shy showoffs sitting on the social spectrum

UPDATE: 27 July 2019 I don’t think I’d formed my band C5 at the time I wrote this, with it my shy extroversion/showy introversion expanded a little more as we have ended up playing in front of half-decent crowds at pub gigs, various outdoor festivals, England’s oldest village fair (Reach Fair), several significant birthday parties and weddings, and I’ve organised and the band has headlined at four big fund-raising events in the Cottenham Community Centre. I’ve played probably a dozen or more times solo at various events too. Playing solo at a birthday bash this evening and in The Hop Bind pub, Cottenham on Sunday afternoon.


I’ve always thought of myself as a shy showoff…others may disagree, especially my fellow singers in the choir bigMouth and those with whom I jam on guitars and sing etc. But, nevertheless, to my mind, it explains why you’ve probably never seen me give a lecture a science or journalism conference but you may have heard me sing and play guitar in front of 600 people at West Road Concert Hall in Cambridge or perform at the Royal Albert Hall in front of quite a few more than that. Anyway, character traits are almost always spectral. Some people are highly extrovert, exhibitionists, hankering after fame and celebrity, others prefer the quiet life and their books illuminated with a comforting reading light rather than the sulfurous glow of limelight.

I was intrigued to watch a recent TED Talk by Susan Cain on the subject of the power of introverts, then that discusses how there are many people who are neither extro- nor intro-, but ambi-verts. As with those of us almost equally happy to use left or right hand for countless tasks, an ambivert is equally happy to be chatting and laughing out loud (or playing guitar in front of a crowd) as alone musing on the meaning of liff. All of us, wherever we turn on the character spectrum should recognise that others may be on a different wavelength and that there are benefits to learning how each perspective can benefit the others.

In a culture where being social and outgoing are prized above all else, it can be difficult, even shameful, to be an introvert. But, as Susan Cain argues in this passionate talk, introverts bring extraordinary talents and abilities to the world, and should be encouraged and celebrated.

The Sciencebase Twitter Spike

UPDATE: 2022-11-17 I got to about 55000 followers ultimately, but that number has been falling for about 7 or 8 years through natural attrition and followers being closed down. Currently, just under 40000 just at the point everyone is worried that twitter will go down the tubes because of the Leon Umsk purchase in October.

Twitter Counter tracks statistics of more than 10 million Twitter users, it’s always interesting for us uber-geeks to take a look at such stats and having made The Independent’s Top 100 British Twitter users (at #73 this year, down from #47 in 2011), I thought I’d show you the enormous impact such a placement can have, or not, as the case may be. Sciencebase did gain several hundred new followers on Twitter and Twitter counter reckons we’ll have 16k within a week or so. 100k within a mere five years! Thanks for joining us to those who came along after The Independent published their list.

You can see from the 3-month rolling chart that the impact of a British national newspaper on a site like this is not enormous…

 

Social X-ray specs

You’ve heard of rose-tinted spectacles, red lenses as it were., but how about a pair of glasses that gives you the edge on assessing a person’s inner emotions or helps medics work out who is truly ill.

A rosy blush or the sickly green colour of one’s skin can reveal different aspects of mood and health, as I discussed in a review of Mark Changizi’s recent book. It’s deceptively powerful and socially insightful aspect of vision and the reason that there is no single word for the colour of your skin, regardless of your race.

A startup company is hoping to exploit this in a product that reveals a person’s true colours. Changizi told Sciencebase he has patent pending on the system.

Twitter Top 10 of science by The Independent

1. Brian Cox
2. Ben Goldacre
3. Richard Dawkins
4. Neil DeGrasse Tyson
5. David Bradley
6. Robin Ince
7=. Andy Lewis
7=. Mo Costandi
9. Roger Highfield
10. Tim Berners-Lee

You can subscribe to them via my Twitter list.

via The Twitter 100: Top 10 science – News – People – The Independent. Nice to have beaten Robin Ince, maybe he’ll respond to my tweets now! I made it to joint #73 in the Top 100 “Titans of the Twittersphere” overall, sandwiched between journalist India Knight and politician Louise Mensch and sharing the slot with those two and journalist and entrepeneur Alberto Nardelli. I always thought it was Blogosphere and Twitterhood.

Sardines for fertility, a red herring?

Odd search phrase popped up in the Sciencebase logs today. Unfortunately, there isn’t an item in the archives that’s particularly relevant other than a story about a baseline analytical study that looked at arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury content of tinned sardines using spectroscopy. I was intrigued, is there some advocacy (perhaps initiated by the fishing industry) to the idea that sardines can boost fertility. A PubMed search with surrounding terms: pilchards, fertility, sperm, sardines, brought up just one research paper: “Reproduction of the Spanish sardine, Sardinella aurita (Clupeiformes: Clupeidae) from the south-eastern area of Margarita Island, Venezuela”. Probably not entirely relevant.

The nutrient coenzyme Q10 (ubiquinone), which is found in beef, soy, mackerel, sardines, spinach, peanuts and vegetable oil is purportedly linked to increased sperm count and sperm motility although it is present mainly in the mitochondria and is linked to cellular energy from ATP. Research has suggested that it has a positive impact on seminal oxidative defence but doesn’t affect sperm number nor motility. So, maybe that’s a red herring (pardon the pun). A slightly more recent paper suggests it does have a positive effect, however.

There is a lot of spurious information on so-called “natural” fertility improving sites. Several of which mention sardines in a long list of foods that are supposed to be beneficial. Others simply say that it cannot hurt to eat healthily and cite the fact that sardines contain healthy fats (polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids: eicosapentaenoic acid, EPA, and docosahexaenoic acid, DHA) that might improve insulin sensitivity and reduce inflammation, which are “critical to fertility”. So, just generic and general advice there with no specific scientific support for sperm. There also wild claims that the omega-3 in sardines boost libido…

I wonder whether Oprah is a fan or they featured on Letterman or got a celebrity endorsement. That might explain the sudden rush of visitors to Sciencebase searching for “sardines for fertility”? Anyone know?

As an aside, is my photo of gutted trout a red herring too?

Can LED earbuds brighten up your winter?

Finnish company Valkee has promoted a device that looks like an mp3 player but where the earbuds have bright LED lights that are there to allegedly stimulate the brain via the ear canal. The company suggests that the light simulates the mood-elevating effects of the sun, by channeling safe bright light directly to photosensitive regions of the brain through the ear canal.

The company suggests that the device can be used to treat seasonal affective disorder (SAD), or what is often referred to as the winter blues, the feeling of lethargy and depressiveness experienced by people during the winter months when there is less sunlight exposure. A small trial from Oulu University suggests that the claims made by the company before the research was done might warrant further investigation.

However, there is scant evidence that the brain responds to light in the way the company suggests, the trial involved just 13 people, there was no control. Moreover, the light from the LEDs is very weak, can it really penetrate to the surface of the brain?

The company says, “Valkee increases energy, and can act as a preventative or treatment of mood swings.” I’m never sure what alternative medicine practitioners actually mean by “energy”, they’re either talking about some spurious mystical nonsense like Qi (pronounced “chee”) or they just mean feelings of well-being. Either way, if it cannot be measured in Joules it’s not energy.

For some reason, The Guardian Technology Podcast picked up on the existence of Valkee a short time ago (presumably because their correspondent Charles Arthur just happened to be visiting Finland and needed a local company to talk about). He did ask about placebos and controls and I am sure I heard the company representative say that they couldn’t do placebo controlled tests without lying to the subjects. My curiosity was piqued at the time but having received a test gadget I really am even less convinced, especially as it seems SAD is not really a winter-time “depression” at all, but can occur any time of the year and moreover depression, and general misery seem not to be seasonal despite the claims of those hoping to medicalize melancholy.

Valkee’s chief executive Timo Ahopelto told me that depression is a disease that takes a long time to develop and a long time to cure. “Many antidepressants take 3-6 months to have an effect,” he says. “Although with some SAD sufferers we see an immediate effect after 1-3 days of usage, most typically the symptoms resolve after 1-2 weeks.” He adds that, “As the light has an immediate effect, it can cure mood states like jetlag and act as a preventative to migraine. For disorders that by their nature have longer mechanisms, it takes longer.”

I am still not convinced that SAD is really anything more than what the Victorians referred to as suffering from malaise or melancholy. Indeed, some light therapy companies claim benefits can be achieved after just one session whereas the little bits of research that have been done suggest it takes weeks of daily use of the light source. To my mind, the best answer if you’ve got the winter blues and are able is to grab your hat and coat and get yourself outside into the fresh air and take a nice long walk. Get the available sunlight on your face.

Research Blogging IconTimonen M, Nissilä J, Liettu A, Jokelainen J, Jurvelin H, Aunio A, Räsänen P, & Takala T (2012). Can transcranial brain-targeted bright light treatment via ear canals be effective in relieving symptoms in seasonal affective disorder? – A pilot study. Medical hypotheses PMID: 22296809

The Valkee device costs an astounding GBP185 but seems to be nothing more than two LEDs that produce the equivalent of a half-watt incandescent lightbulb each, a couple of bits of stiff and noisy (when the buds are in your ears) wire, and a little box with a USB slot, an on-off button and presumably a timer circuit to illuminate the LEDs. I reckon I could make one for about 20 quid with bits from Tandy/Radio Shack. The medical certification mentioned on the company’s website is all well and good but says nothing of therapeutic efficacy.

More in my February Pivot Points column in The Euroscientist.