All posts by seanwilso

Psychology, Strength, Weight/Fat loss, Nutrition, Endurance

The Unspoken Truth: Why People Struggle To Lose Weight

November 24, 2015 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

In my article titled “It can’t possibly be true, can it?” I questioned whether there was any foundation to the claim that inactivity is not a chief cause obesity and provided scientific evidence suggesting otherwise. Today I will try explain to you what the bottom-line is as to why exercise doesn’t work for everybody trying to lose weight. One thing I have noticed is that there isn’t enough time or effort – either in the media or on the net – dedicated to informing the public about why exercise does not work for some people and what can be done about.

Exercise has been successfully applied as an essential ingredient of many weight loss programs. By increasing total daily energy expenditure, creating a caloric deficit state is theoretically, at least, more likely. It naturally follows that the weight loss achieved will be correlated to the magnitude of the energy deficit created. In practice however this does not always happen. In fact, there are a number of studies and anecdotal evidence that show a significant proportion of exercisers eating an ad libitum diet (possibly as high as 50%) do not achieve the weight loss expected with as many as 15% actually gaining weight. These individuals are often referred to as ‘non–responders‘. Those on the other hand that do achieve weight loss from exercise are referred to as ‘responders‘. The question is, how is this possible and are there any practical solutions?

exercise doesn't work for everybody trying to lose weight — Energy compensation and exercise-induced fat loss

People respond differently to exercise:

Non-responders vs responders

These differences in response to exercise include:

Non-responders increase whilst responders decrease, total daily energy intake (all the food and drinks you consume on a daily basis).
Some of these differences apparently occur unbeknownst to the exerciser so there is some sort of compensation going on to offset the extra energy expended from exercise.
Non-responders increase their consumption of fat.
Non-responders experience much greater subjective sensations of fasted hunger (upon waking) and hunger across the day compared to responders.
Non-responders demonstrate an increased whereas responders show a decreased, desire to eat.
Non-responders satisfaction or feelings of fullness from meals is significantly reduced whilst there are no changes in responders.
Behavioural compensatory adjustments to exercise training in overweight women showed the loss of weight/fat mass or lack thereof, was attributable to an increase or decrease in spontaneous physical activity, respectively.
Resting metabolic rate may be reduced in non-responders but not in responders.

Appetite is controlled by the brain — Brain function and weight control is poorly understood

If you are struggling to lose weight after starting an exercise regimen then you could be classified as a non-responder and should consider the following:

If possible, have some measurements taken by a knowledgeable professional that includes girths (such as hips, waist, thighs etc) and skinfolds where the subcutaneous fat can be approximately measured by calipers. By doing this you will be able to work out more precisely what changes are actually taking place. This is pretty important because some ‘non-responders’ will lose a considerable amount of fat but total weight loss may be only slight or actually increase (see King et al 2008). This will affect roughly 10% of exercisers that are trying to lose weight but these body composition changes are in fact desirable and favourable.
Monitor energy intake more closely and consider recording actual food and beverage intakes so you can keep tabs on this as you go. Given that ad libitum diets don’t seem to work too well for non-responders, recording your intake is a good place to start. Assuringly, research shows that those that diarise what they are eating and drinking are much more successful at weight loss and weight management compared to those that don’t, so start recording.
Recognise that if you keep accurate records of these things and create an energy deficit – the research that has been conducted in metabolic-ward studies suggests – that weight loss is highly probable. Based on an account of energy intake and energy expenditure, if the creation of an energy deficit does not elicit any change in body composition, it is likely that there has been an over-estimation of energy expenditure or an under-estimation of energy intake, or a combination of both. However, this now allows subtle changes to be made to energy expenditure or intake so that body fat mass reduction can be realised (see here and here for great discussions on the crucial role calories play when it comes to fat loss or fat gain).
Ensure that your exercise program includes some resistance or weight training. The response to exercise of non-responders as outlined above is related specifically to 1-2 hours of aerobic exercise (i.e. walking, running, cycling etc). You may ironically achieve better weight loss if you back off the aerobic exercise but place a bit more emphasis on weight training or resistance-type exercise. Some research has shown that appetite is suppressed more so with resistance versus aerobic exercise and it is the changes of increased appetite in non-responders that presents a major problem when attempting to bring about sustainable weight loss. With respect to adults who are overweight or obese, Drenowatz & colleagues clearly demonstrated that resistance exercise but not aerobic exercise reduced fat mass.

Weight training and aging — Resistance training is very effective to facilitate fat loss

This form of activity also substantially reduces the risk of losing LBM (lean body mass = muscle tissue) in older adults (see Villareal et al). It is very common to see exercisers lose significant amounts of LBM when only aerobic exercise is undertaken while in an energy deficit state.
The loss of LBM is not desirable for 2 key reasons. Firstly, functional physical capacity could be affected in both the short and long term (see Villreal et al). Secondly, resting metabolic rate will be reduced thereby making weight loss more difficult and weight regain more likely (see here for further discussion).
“Don’t put the cart before the horse.” By that I mean, the quality of what you decide to eat will have a massive impact on your success. A caloric deficit is the goal but it should be achieved with a diet consisting of wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense foods. Not only is this essential to weight loss success but more importantly generating good health.

To lose weight you need to expend more than you eat — No caloric deficit = no fat loss

To combat increased subjective sensations of hunger, then, as a start please make sure that the diet is high in a variety of vegetables, has several serves of fruit each day, contains sufficient and varied sources of protein and includes things like nuts, seeds and oils. This is pretty commonsense stuff but you need to put into practice what actually works. The make-up or quality of the diet appears to impact on subsequent appetite, sensations of hunger and feelings of fullness, so anything that assists in keeping the physiological drives to eat at bay are only going to be helpful (see Blundell et al).

References (in no particular order)

Drenowatz, C. et al. (2015) “The prospective association between different types of exercise and body composition” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 47(12): 2535-2541.

Manthou, E. and Gill, J.M.R. and Wright, A. and Malkova, D. (2010) Behavioural compensatory adjustments to exercise training in overweight women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42 (6). pp. 1121- 1128.

Melanson, E.L. et al. (2013) “Resistance to exercise-induced weight loss: compensatory behavioural adaptations” Med Sci Sports Exerc.August; 45(8): 1600-1609.

King N.A. et al. (2008) “Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss.” International Journal of Obesity. 32: 177-184

King N.A. et al. (2009) “Dual-process action of exercise on appetite control: increase in orexigenic drive but improvement in meal-induced satiety.” Am J Clin Nutr. 90: 921-927

Peterson N.D. et al. (2014) “Dietary Self-Monitoring and Long-Term Success with Weight Management”. Obesity 22, 1962–1967

Broom, D.R. (2008) “Influence of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger, circulating levels of acylated ghrelin, and peptide YY in healthy males” American Journal of Physiology. 296(1): R29-R35.

King, N.A. et al (2012) “Exercise, appetite and weight management: understanding the compensatory responses in eating behaviour and how they contribute to variability in exercise-induced weight loss.”British Journal of Sports Medicine 46(5):315-22.

Villareal D.T. et al. (2011) “Weight Loss, Exercise, or Both and Physical Function in Obese Older Adults.” N Engl J Med 364(13): 1218-1229

Blundell J. et al. (2010) “Appetite control: methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods.” Obe Rev 11(3): 251-270

For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to achieve the above-mentioned benefits or to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.

For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.

Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.

© FitGreyStrong

Share this:

News/Media

Ethics, Drugs And The Creation Of The ‘Frankensteinian’ Elite Athlete

November 13, 2015 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

The following blog is going to be very different to what I have published previously. It will be largely philosophical and sociological based so if this is not your thing I would suggest you click on the back button or close this article and look for something else. If you are, however, interested in looking at things a little differently then you may find that this challenges what you think you thought you knew about the issue at hand.

Those that are familiar with my blog will also recognise that the subject matter seems to have no relevance to the main objective of FitGreyStrong. Just to be clear the aim of FitGreyStrong is to provide biopsychosocial insights derived from research and science to assist older people’s choices and inform their behaviours in relation to matters pertaining to health, fitness and nutrition. That being said, recent events in the world of sport that have once again brought the use of performance-enhancing drugs to the centre of the public’s attention have inspired me to write about and re-visit research I conducted many years ago that directly attempted to understand the nature and context of the doping problem. The current scandal surrounding the allegations of state-sponsored doping by Russia and the corruption associated to allow this to take place has once again rocked the world. On November 9, an independent commission set up by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) confirmed widespread use of performance enhancing drugs and blood doping by Russian track and field athletes, which were encouraged and covered-up by coaches, doctors, and state and sports officials. Many will see this piece as completely off-the-mark, maybe even heretical or just purely academic in nature. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to discuss the ‘darkside’ of the doping problem because if there is one thing that you may agree with me on it is that you virtually never read anything that questions the current status quo.

Many years ago I wrote a Master’s thesis titled: An elite track athletic squad’s perceptions and attitudes to the use of performance-enhancing substances. At the start of this task I presumed that my position and attitude to performance-enhancing substances or “doping” would be consolidated. I was sadly mistaken. Initially – and rightly so – I held the view that elite sport was and should be “natural” and “clean” with elite sporting contests resembling a battle between those that had worked the hardest and smartest. I also believed that following my research I would have a much clearer understanding of this contentious issue. I was hoping that this would potentially provide some further lines of inquiry for research in the quest to find some practical solutions to the doping problem that existed and still exists in elite sport today. Unfortunately what happened was my research generated more questions than answers and left me wondering if we truly understand what it is that we find so distasteful and offensive about doping in sport.

The ethos and values of sport that we hold dear to our hearts are in many ways oxymoronic to the objectives of modern day elite sport. It was over 100 years ago that Pierre de Coubertin, a French educator, historian and acknowledged as the Father of the modern Olympic Games said:

The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part; the important thing in Life is not triumph, but the struggle; the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well. To spread these principles is to build up a strong and more valiant and, above all, more scrupulous and more generous humanity. (The Olympian (1984) by Peter L. Dixon, Roundtable Pub p 210.)

Sport at the turn of the 20th century espoused and romanticised the virtues of health, fairness, equality, ‘sportsmanship’, amateurism, humility and was viewed as essential in solidifying moral and social strength. In fact Coubertin went as far as suggesting that sport could promote peace between different nations and cultures. I’m sure Coubertin would be turning in his grave given what modern elite sport has become. So what we now have is a situation that what we believe elite sport should be, and what it actually is, are in fact dichotomous paradigms completely conflicting with each other. You just can’t have it both ways because they are essentially polar opposite in nature. Perhaps part of the problem to this lies in the fact that the desire to hold on to the past is strong – and for valid reasons – because sport was a virtuous pursuit symbolic of all that was good. However, modern day elite sport has clearly morphed into something very different where, I would contend, ‘its’ moral compass is simply pointing in the wrong direction.

I realise that some who read this blog will strongly disagree with my arguments. It is not my goal to advocate the lifting of the ban on doping in sport, but rather to explore the rationale behind why we actually support such bans in the first place. Understanding the reasons why we currently prohibit certain performance-enhancing practices is clearly fundamental to the way sport will be conceptualised and practiced in the future so we need to have a damn good idea and be quite clear on why we are doing what we are doing. To give you an example of just how misunderstood the issue of doping in sport is, if you were to ask 10 people on the street why doping is banned, 8 of them would reply by saying:

“because it’s cheating”.

However, cheating is defined by the rules that govern the conduct of the participants. In other words, an athlete or team can only cheat if their actions purposefully contravene some rule that defines what is appropriate conduct whereby such conduct gives that person or player an unfair advantage over his/her opponent(s). As doping is currently banned then of course when athletes dope they are cheating. But if the ban on the use of doping was to suddenly change – which allowed athletes to utilise drugs to enhance performance – we can no longer say they are cheating because what they are doing is now permissible.

The rules of sport basically then define what constitutes cheating but in terms of the rationale used as justification to ban doping as a means of enhancing human athletic performance, there are three fundamental arguments currently advanced to support this position. Each of these arguments when examined more closely though are not reconcilable as there exists many anomalies and contradictions.

The three arguments are:

1. Health concerns – “It is bad for athletes’ health so we should protect their wellbeing“

This seems ethically justifiable and sensible on the surface and is a key reason why the International Olympic Committee, for example, currently prohibit certain performance-enhancing substances and practices. However, if we were really concerned about the health and wellbeing of our elite athletes then sports that have an inherent risk of severe injury or death would be outlawed. Why do we, then, accept the dangers associated with boxing, horse-racing, car racing, cycling, rugby, etc where participation might and can have catastrophic consequences? When we compare the potential dangers associated with the use of performance-enhancing drugs to dying this line of argument seems quite silly. So using health as a reason to ban doping does not stack up. Even if we accept health as a reasonable basis to ban doping, this is at complete odds to our acceptance of people’s rights, for example, to choose to smoke or drink which are behaviours that are known to have very detrimental effects on health and can indeed shorten lifespan. In free democratic societies we place significant value on individual autonomy and freedom but abhor paternalistic government intervention or control into our lives if that is seen as encroaching on our rights as individuals. The question then is, why do we allow individuals to make informed choices to smoke or drink but take this choice away from informed athletes?

2. Fairness or equality concerns – “Sport should provide a level playing field for all athletes“

Maybe the fairness argument is robust enough to justify the ban on doping? Unfortunately, it is perhaps the weakest of the 3 outlined. The Australian Senate Committee Inquiry into Drugs in Sport in 1988 – inspired largely by the Ben Johnson scandal at the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games and perhaps the forgotten events of the Alex Watson affair – repudiated the fairness argument. They and many others have asserted that globalised elite sport is fundamentally unfair at its very core. Is it fair for example that someone is genetically more gifted than their competitor even if that advantage has been ‘naturally’ bestowed? Just because something happens naturally does not necessarily make it fair. Is it fair that an athlete born in a poor country has to compete against an athlete that is born in a rich country where they will have access to good coaching, sports scientists, sports medicine, athletic programs, nutrition, equipment, technology, facilities etc etc? This epitomises what could be referred to as an unfair advantage. Really at the end of the day nothing in elite sport is fair.

3. The third argument used to ban doping is somewhat esoteric and therefore more complicated to grasp. This argument postulates that the practice of doping is viewed as positively deviant behaviour that compromises the athlete by dehumanising them as a person.

The transformation from a ‘clean’ to ‘doped’ athlete resembles something “Frankensteinian”. By this I mean the doped athlete undergoes a type of metamorphosis that is viewed – not biologically but socioculturally – as something not quite human. The ‘doped’ athlete has therefore transcended accepted notions of what it is to be human and as such, is rejected as an acceptable human form. The disgust that is expressed toward the doped athlete also appears to vary from country to country so this suggests that the specific context with which this takes place plays a key part in how doping is viewed as a practice and to what extent the doped athlete is perceived as being dehumanised. I think this argument holds promise but it is not issue-free. The problem is that what conceptually defines our ‘humanness’ or of being ‘human’ is dynamic and constantly changing. Such concepts are a product of a complex mix of the particular sociocultural, historical and political forces at work so what could be construed, then, as dehumanising at this point in time, could change as things often do; so this line of argument presents a challenge in terms of its robustness to stand the test of time.

Finally, there are the special medical considerations of elite athletes that, some have argued, could be improved by the judicious, closely monitored and medically supervised control of performance-enhancing drugs. There are sports scientists and doctors which have suggested that the demands of elite sport and the training required has now exceeded the human physiological ability to cope adequately. Ironically, if this is the case then those very same doping practices that are prohibited may assist athletes recuperate, recover and restore bodily equilibrium and in fact improve their health.

References

Brown, W.M. (1980) “Ethics, Drugs and Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, VII, pp. 15-23

Brown, W.M. (1984) “Paternalism, Drugs and the Nature of Sports.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XI, pp. 14-22

Hoberman, J.M. Mortal Engines: The science of performance and the dehumanization of sport, The free press, New York, 1992

Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.

Share this:

News/Media

My WordPress blog or website won’t open

November 2, 2015 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

Whilst the following article is in no way related to the FitGreyStrong mantra I nonetheless concluded that if it helped just one person get out of a jam then it was worth putting out there. The title: “My WordPress blog or website won’t open” is self explanatory. I would contend that it is perhaps the worst feeling that anyone can experience when starting up a new blog/website.

Wordpress error, page won't open — ERROR

Picture this. You’ve spent much time and countless hours building your site up and creating content for your readers you hope to attract and boom…….. you type in your site’s URL domain name (website address) and press enter and nothing. A blank page saying something like: “This page cannot be opened” or “There is a problem connecting to the server”. Let me say upfront that I am no expert when it comes to all matters related to WordPress or LaunchPad. In fact, truth be told, I know virtually nothing about WordPress; how it works, the language or codex used to create the pages, where it came from etc. I’m not even sure what the difference is between WordPress and LaunchPad. However, after spending 4 weeks and many late nights slowly building my site up then experiencing the dreaded blank, white page, I wanted to share my experience of what solved my problem of not being able to open my WordPress site. The solution that my wife discovered (I’d had a gut-full by this stage) is the first thing you should check before considering other more complex reasons because none of the WordPress help forums or proposed solutions that I Googled even canvassed what turned out to be the problem.

When you first create a WordPress blog/website and domain name you will use an email address during the creation process. Essentially, this is how “they” – WordPress – communicate with “you” – the blogger – for things such as resetting your password and changes related to your site. Now if your email that you use for your WordPress site is with Gmail or Yahoo, for example, but this is not your primary email address chances are that you are not in the habit of checking and reading everything that comes to this Gmail or Yahoo account. This may occur if your blogging is a “hobby” or not your sole source of income – although you probably wish otherwise. If that is the case, there could be one very simple step that you have failed to complete during the set-up of your WordPress site.

After creating your WordPress site with its URL (website address) you will receive an email to confirm your email address. This will be sent to the Gmail or Yahoo account that you have possibly set-up or created to register your WordPress site. This email will contain a link within the text that you need to click on to confirm that the email address is correct. It will look something like this.

Click on link to confirm email address linked to WordPress — Email requiring confirmation of address

This step is essential for confirming: 1) Your email address and account linked to your WordPress site/domain name and; 2) ensuring your WordPress site is not deactivated. Yes, that’s right! They will deactivate your WordPress site if you do not confirm your email address in a specified time that will be outlined in this email – in my case it was 15 days after I received the email requesting confirmation. After which you will be unable to access your site. So the solution is very easy if this is what is causing your page not to open. Simply log in to your email account that you used to set-up your site, find the email requesting confirmation of your email address, click on the link included in the email and bingo……….. you should hopefully receive a message in another window that your email account has been confirmed. You should also receive another email confirming that this has been successful. In this email it will usually state too: “Post successful verification, it may take up to 48 hours for the domain name to start resolving to its original website.” So be patient and regularly check your site to see if the issue is resolved and hopefully you’ll be back online. I’m afraid to say though, if this doesn’t solve the issue you will have to look elsewhere to other websites and internet forums as I have no idea on the more complex problems that cause this particular issue.

Share this:

Weight/Fat loss, Nutrition, News/Media

Sitting Yourself Into Your Grave

October 26, 2015 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

The following article is a long review and appraisal of a study that investigated the effects that sitting had – with and without caloric restriction – on metabolic health and compared this to a group that was physically active. This was designed in an attempt to independently tease out just what effect – firstly, the action of sitting and secondly, the state of energy surplus – has on metabolic health. The take-home message is very simple; prolonged sitting is very bad for you. Period.

In summary, the following conclusions can be made:

Just one day of prolonged sitting had a profound effect on insulin action.
Sitting therefore has a direct effect on metabolic health by substantially reducing the body’s ability to dispose of, or “metabolise” the foods we consume.
These negative effects occurred in young, healthy and non-obese individuals.
Future research is required to determine if factors such as aging, obesity, health comorbidities and inactivity interact independently or synergistically to cause further metabolic dysfunction.
Decreasing energy or caloric intake to more closely match the energy requirements of prolonged sitting only reduced – by approximately half – the harmful effects of sitting on insulin action.
Inactivity and sedentariness causes substantial metabolic dysfunction with sitting a primary driver of poor insulin action and pivotal contributor to increased risk for more serious health complications.
Now for those that want the in-depth analysis, please read on………………………………..

A few years ago, researchers Dr Brooke Stephens, Dr Barry Braun and colleagues from the Department of Kinesiology, University of Massachusetts (USA) reported on an intriguing study in the journal, Metabolism – Clinical and Experimental. In fact this piece of research was acknowledged with the top cited paper award for this journal in 2012 and was essential in highlighting the insidious dangers that inactivity and in particular, sitting, has on metabolic health. What they showed was that inactivity appears to negatively affect metabolic health and insulin action independently of diet. In fact, dietary manipulation whereby total energy intake is reduced – to match low energy expenditure requirements when primarily sitting all day long – was unable to fully mitigate the detrimental consequences of inactivity. What this suggests is that physical movement in and of itself is integral to metabolic function and health. The exact mechanisms that cause prolonged sitting to be so bad for our health are yet to fully understood but there is certainly some evidence that low to very low stimulation of skeletal muscle is central to this issue.

Whilst this seems to pass the common sense test, this is quite significant because many of the themes on the net and in the mass media that discuss ways of improving metabolic health focus heavily on diet, but relatively less time and energy seems to be dedicated to exploring the detrimental effects of inactivity largely accumulated by spending long periods of time sitting. I call this the

diet fixation syndrome

and it manifests in a utopian idea that diet and nutrition can fix almost anything. Enhancing health and wellbeing via diet is certainly a worthwhile cause but many pontificate their beliefs in such a manner whereby they assume some moral high ground lost in an idea that the consumption of “their” diet is as nature intended and then maintain with religious fervidness that any deviation from this ‘correct’ dietary approach will be somehow toxic, dangerous and unhealthy. “They” can’t all be right, can they? By “They” I mean the paleos, the vegans, the High-Fat Low-Carbers, the High-Carb Low Fat crowd, etc etc. I am not saying that the food we feed our body is unimportant but I do think that there needs to be more acknowledgment and discussion of the diabolical impact inactivity has as demonstrated by a significant body of scientific evidence. Otherwise, we will continue to see the oxygen sucked from, and being straggled and muffled by, the nutrition “hype”.

Is there a best diet to lose weight — What is the best diet?

OK, well that’s enough with the popular culture critique; now let’s look at some of the science behind what happens to metabolic health when we are sedentary and I’m afraid to say the picture is pretty ugly. In this study Stephens and co. recruited fourteen recreationally active men (n=7) and women (n=7) between the age of 19 and 32 participated, of whom none were obese, all were in good health, non-smoking, free of known disease, not following a very low or very high carbohydrate diet (<30% or >70%), and none were taking any medications or supplements known to alter carb or fat metabolism. The intention of the study was to compare all participants for each test condition.

The 3 test conditions were: (1) an active condition with minimal sitting (energy expenditure and intake were both high) referred to as NO-SIT; (2) Prolonged sitting with no change in energy intake meaning that there was low activity but high energy intake i.e energy surplus referred to as SIT; (3) Prolonged sitting but energy intake was adjusted downward and accordingly to body weight (approximately 1000 kcal reduction) and this was referred to as SIT-BAL. Insulin action was defined as whole-body rate of glucose disappearance normalised to mean plasma insulin and this was determined following a continuous infusion of glucose after an overnight fast (13-14 hours) after each of the test conditions outlined above.

Insulin action was used as a proxy measure of metabolic health with better metabolic function reflected by lower insulin production, higher glucose metabolism and storage. Subjects completed each 24-hour laboratory condition with at least a week between visits. For the 2 days before each 24-hour test condition, attempts were made to ensure that eating and activity behaviour were standardised. Once in the laboratory room each subject was provided access to a computer, internet, books, magazines, or movies throughout the day and evening. Lunch and dinner during the test was standardised. Average energy intake and expenditure across each condition was approximately as follows (please click image for larger and clearer view):

Activity or inactivity was quantified using an activPAL professional physical activity monitor and this has been shown to be an accurate and reliable measurement tool to determining motion. Standardised meals based on body weight were provided. Total sitting, standing, and stepping time, and number of steps during the three 24-hour conditions was as follows:

So basically picture this. When subjects did the SIT and SIT-BAL experiment they sat and lounged around all day in a lab room, watching video’s, surfing the net and reading mags and doing as little as possible, with SIT able to indulge and eat well over what they needed whilst SIT-BAL had their food intake dramatically reduced so it matched the low energy they had burnt. Interestingly, it is the SIT condition which probably represents a significant portion of how many people spend their day so the results would provide some insight to what is really going on in those who are grossly sedentary and in energy surplus on a day-to-day basis.

In comparison, the NO-SIT ensured that subjects were on the go: stood while reading, talking on the phone, whilst on the computer; made subjects walk and accumulate at least 10,000 steps/day, perform tasks such as dish washing, sweeping, dusting etc. After spending 24 hours in the lab after each test condition, they were then injected and hooked up to a machine that pumped in different amounts of glucose (sugar) and blood samples were taken to measure insulin and glucose concentrations. These parameters were then assessed to work out how much insulin was produced in response to the glucose infusion and how well the body was then able to dispose of the glucose that was given. Generally higher insulin concentrations and reduced glucose disposal was indicative of impaired metabolic health and function.

What were the results?

The following parameters were significantly different between each test condition:

1. Mean plasma insulin (during glucose infusion)

Compared with NO-SIT, mean plasma insulin was 41% higher in SIT, whilst 18% greater levels were seen for SIT compared to SIT-BAL.

2. Total glucose disposal

During the glucose load, total disposal was lower in SIT compared with both NO-SIT and SIT-BAL.

3. Whole-body insulin action (glucose disposal normalised to mean plasma insulin)

SIT was 39% lower relative to NO-SIT and SIT was 17.7% lower compared to SIT-BAL.

4. Carbohydrate oxidation rate

SIT-BAL was 22% lower compared to NO-SIT and 19% lower compared to SIT.

5. Average energy intake and expenditure

a) Energy intake for SIT-BAL was approximately 32% lower than NO-SIT and SIT.
b) Energy expenditure for SIT and SIT-BAL was approximately 26% lower compared to NO-SIT.
c) Energy balance was different for all conditions. NO-SIT was in energy surplus by +162 kcal/day vs. SIT which was in surplus by +938 kcal/day vs. SIT-BAL which was in energy deficit by approximately -30 kcal/day.

6. Total sitting, standing and stepping time and number of steps

NO-SIT was significantly different to SIT and SIT-BAL but there was no difference between SIT and SIT-BAL.

Please refer to tables 2, 3 and 4 for a full report of the results of this study.

So what is the take-home message?

Prolonged sitting is very, very bad for us. This study showed that just one day of prolonged sitting had a massive impact on insulin action and therefore compromises metabolic function and health quite dramatically. Even if you reduce the food you eat – to lower your energy intake to more closely match your low energy expenditure when sitting for prolonged periods – insulin action is not fully restored to that seen when activity levels are high. The logical inference to make from this is that sitting for prolonged periods of time is not natural for our species. One of the obvious features of what makes ‘us’ who and what ‘we’ are, is the fact that we have a musculoskeletal system that is designed for physical movement and it is the lack of stimulation of this during waking hours that has very dire consequences.

The results also suggest that energy surplus (i.e. consuming food/beverages beyond energy requirements) plays a key role in the harmful effects of sitting on insulin action. As shown in previous studies energy surplus or an overabundance of fatty acids, glucose and/or amino acids inhibits key components of the insulin signalling pathway. Therefore, it is important that we look beyond just excessive carbohydrates or sugar – notwithstanding that reducing sugar intake remains an important dietary change to make – and acknowledge that a chronic state of energy surplus will reek havoc on our metabolic health irrespective of the macronutrient basis of any excess consumed. Currently, there is no scientific consensus for the notion that one macronutrient poses more risk to metabolic health when in energy surplus if you are healthy and insulin-sensitive. Until such time that evidence proves otherwise, it is the state of being in energy surplus that causes insulin action and metabolic health to be compromised not the source of the excess.

There are 2 more very important things to take note of to put this study into perspective. Firstly, if you refer to the results above and table 2 specifically, you will notice that NO-SIT was in energy surplus by approximately +162 kcal/day versus SIT-BAL which was in energy deficit by approximately -30 kcal/day. You may be wondering why this is important and worthy of comment. Basically due to this difference, the true impact of sitting on insulin action could have actually been underestimated with the real difference between these 2 condition possibly even larger than what was found. Had NO-SIT been in energy balance and not energy surplus, insulin action could have been better than that measured and hence when compared to SIT-BAL a greater difference would have been observed. Secondly, the study subjects were young, healthy and non-obese so it is difficult to extrapolate the findings to other less healthy, older and/or obese populations. What can be said is that prolonged sitting or inactivity would certainly not enhance insulin action and metabolic health in those that that are older and/or suffer from chronic health conditions. So pretty much the advice would be the same.

Finally, I would like to make some big picture comments that can possibly be deduced from this study. It is pretty obvious, I think, why health conditions such as obesity and insulin resistance have become endemic. To make clear:

this study showed that nutritional manipulation by reducing energy intake to match low energy expenditure of inactivity (SIT-BAL) only reduced approximately one half of the harmful effects of sitting on insulin action.

It is therefore feasible that impaired glucose metabolism and insulin resistance could be developed in the non-obese who are normal weight or Body Mass Index (BMI) if there is gross long-term inactivity. Consequently, we should be cognisant of the dangers of inactivity and refocus some of our energy and attention away from diet and nutrition as being the only answer to these problems. The solution seems very simple indeed but that would mean that people would have to move a whole lot more as well as modify and show greater restraint in their eating habits but that unfortunately seems very unlikely to occur anytime soon.

For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.

Share this: