131–140 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not risky but it is hard and I rather do low intensity running 60 minutes than 8 minutes HIIT.
It is risky. People push themselves too hard to keep up and end up with rabdo. (Edit: I was thinking more of a normal HIIT class, not the 1 minute one)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
such an important point here. The benefits of exercise are maximum when you start from a sedentary life. You will hit plateau at some point and then one has to re-think the plan. I am doubtful that just 10 min exercise over a few years will get you in a better shape. Another factor greatly ignored is HRV as key indicator of recovery and response to an exercise. Andrew Flatt (1) is a researcher and has been studying h…
> The benefits of exercise are maximum when you start from a sedentary life. You will hit plateau at some point and then one has to re-think the plan. I've noticed something similar. In the countryside, I usually exercise when it's warm outside and track my weight and how much I do each day. After the winter is over, I start at small amounts of exercise (a few km of running, a small amout of sit ups, push ups, pull u…
In personal experience as a dedicated rock climber (traveling full time for half of the last 15 years), I can easily conclude that bursts of intense exercise accomplish a lot more for health and fitness than prolonged, more gentle workouts. Intensity readily builds muscle mass and coordinates muscle fibers, while fostering feelings of clarity and joy. It’s just the easier pathway to “being fit.” Climbers train for in…
Isn't this just a different thing? Bouldering builds peak strength , not really intensity in the sense it's meant here? Max hangs do not translate to watts you can do for a minute on a bike, right?
Heel hooks, slab, arete, bat hangs are all going to tax your lower body, and a good boulderer can put themselves in hell for a limited timespan, as it’s required for many problems. Climbing is so much more than pull up and grip strength.
The study apparently only involved male participants. The control group consists of 6, the two treatment groups of 10 and 9 participants. The total N of the study is 25 participants. They conduct a one-way ANOVA on the interaction of time and treatment group indicators. I conclude that the study is woefully underpowered. I do not trust the apparent significance of their results.
I really don't understand statistics. My interpretation of "the study is under-powered" is that since the study has so small groups it will be difficult to find any result that is statistically significant. But wouldn't that mean that for any effect to be significant the effect size would have to be huge? My hunch is that if you have a large enough group even very small effect sizes will be significant, but in small…
The study apparently only involved male participants. The control group consists of 6, the two treatment groups of 10 and 9 participants. The total N of the study is 25 participants. They conduct a one-way ANOVA on the interaction of time and treatment group indicators. I conclude that the study is woefully underpowered. I do not trust the apparent significance of their results.
I really don't understand statistics. My interpretation of "the study is under-powered" is that since the study has so small groups it will be difficult to find any result that is statistically significant. But wouldn't that mean that for any effect to be significant the effect size would have to be huge? My hunch is that if you have a large enough group even very small effect sizes will be significant, but in small…
Which means that it is more likely that if you will find an effect only if you are overestimating the real effect. The real effect might not even be detectable!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either. I don’t know much a…
> HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either Assuming you're not looking to become an endurance athlete, is conditioning muscles for endurance something one should aim for? Why? "Improved cardiometabolic health" sounds like something everyone - includ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's 8 minutes, not one minute > 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise Not exactly (unless I got something wrong): ”SIT involved 3x20-second 'all-out' cycle sprints (~500W) interspersed with 2 minutes of cycling at 50W”.
50W is nothing, and 500W isn’t really a sprint. For an adult male, you should be pushing 1000-2000 over 20 second sprints. Walking slightly uphill is probably more intense than a 50w bike.
It's 8 minutes, not one minute The people in the study were out of shape to start with The improved measures were insulin sensitivity index, peak oxygen uptake, and "skeletal muscle mitochondrial content" No change in body mass In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over…
While you are somewhat dismissive about the results, they really only confirm many other studies which found that HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times. This has been found for both non-athletes and athletes and in fact training for professional endurance athletes has drastically changed in the last 5-…
Like other commentors have said, certainly not the same effects, only maybe for the effects tested. High intensity training for example has a much higher risk of injury.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exercise doesn't result in changes in body mass (weight loss), unless accompanied with a diet. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveal... .
This is nonsense. Try running 70 miles a week on the same diet and see if you weight the same after a few months.