I send letter to professor Coyle and I am waiting for an answer. This is my letter:
Hi! My name is Teo Klima and I am involved in conditional training and research for past 20 years. I am 42 y.o. now. I started to study Kinesiology a while ago but left faculty due to financial and political problems in Croatia. I will not bother you with details about myself because it is irrelevant for this occasion.
I have red about your research in media and I have few questions.
I will start with my observation. Your research is accompanied in media with titles such as „How 4-Second Workouts Can Counteract Sitting All Day“ and „New study: only 3 minutes per day are enough for exercise according to experts“.
Reading just titles one can get opinion – I will train 4 seconds or 3 minutes per day and it is enough, but thorough reading of articles clarifies things. So, your study involved short 4 secs bicycle sprints 5 times in one hour. That exercise helped induce metabolism and remove triglycerides. Pure logic tells me it is not nearly enough to be considered as an overall approach to healthy lifestyle. You said: “The key thing with fat metabolism is that you have to activate your muscles; you can’t let them be too inactive for very long. These sprints are just a very effective way of doing that,” Coyle told Healthline. Since we know, from scientific studies, that short, explosive bursts of muscle activity require Creatine Posphate and glycogen I see no way that your training method could improve fat tissue removal. What you suggest is that short, explosive bursts of muscle activity can reduce levels of triglycerides in the bloodstream and I am fine with that. I suppose it is the mere consequence of certain cardiovascular activity in contrast to sedentary way of life with no cardiovascular activity at all. But you also suggest that this kind of training is sufficient, you even imply that your method is superior to regular training, quote: „To be clear: Going to the gym after work is still a good idea. Any exercise is better than none.“ And „As far as fat metabolism goes, that bout of exercise done in the afternoon is not going to be very effective.“ – my first question is: since we know that scientific research about circadian rhythm shows that the best time for athletic performance is 16pm and that short, explosive burts of muscle activity require CP and glycogen and that the lower heart rate zones are used for fat burning – on exactly which physiological mechanism you find your training method to be more efficient considering fat removal and cardiovascular benefits? Please answer me or just give me the reference to where your research was published so that I can read it and find answer by myself.
From my own training experience, I see that your experimental method a) does not encourage sweating – which means there is no body detoxication involved, b) there is no prolonged stimulus for capillarization – which means your method does not improve inflow of Oxygen and nutrients into muscles, c) there is no sustained blood vessels dilatation and heart activity – which means your method does not optimise the heart pump and does not help regulate pressure, d) there is no significant raise in muscle temperature – which means that both passive and dynamic straining will be more difficult to perform as part of complementary conditioning approach, and e) short, explosive bursts can not stimulate luck hormone release not nearly as the complete weight or cardio training can do, so your method obviously lack the psychological element as well. My second question is: how does your experimental method relates to previously mentioned facts a)-e)?
With regards,
Teo Klima
friend of science and amateur long distance runner
Sources:
Fitness & Training 