Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 506 posts

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#171

Post by dmix »

airbreather wrote: post #165
dmix wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight I've asked on HN a couple times in the past for citations that support this meme and haven't yet found a good source on this. The connection between caloric restriction and weight loss isn't as straight forward as people seem to think, despite that being the standard correlation pushed since the 1950s. Calories seems to be the c…

https://www.totalwellbeingdiet.com/media/2266/18-00521-secre... https://www.publish.csiro.au/RD/RD20326 The CSIRO has been researching for decades as to what the best bang for buck is with regards exercise.

There's no doubt exercise is essential here. There's just lots of people pushing the idea that diet / food restriction alone is sufficient for weight loss or that the goal of exercise is to "burn calories", suggesting the two are directly correlated.

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#172

Post by TomK32 »

geraldwhen wrote: post #129
bjornsing wrote: post #98

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.

2000 Watts is what puts you at the podium at the UCI track championships. https://www.uci.org/article/watts-and-heart-race-performance... https://www.uci.org/article/track-sprinting-a-question-of-wa...

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#173

Post by smeagull »

cycomanic wrote: post #84
petesergeant wrote: post #23

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-…

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight.

There are drugs that say otherwise. As a side effect of medication, I've had to increase my calorie intake to maintain my weight.

Not to mention the relative bio-availability of foods differs even when their calories don't. Fats and Proteins need more processing per calorie than Carbohydrates.

I'm also fairly certain there are limits to the human bodies ability to absorb calories. i.e. you could saturate your diet by eating way too many calories, but your eventual weight gain would be at the limit of your body's ability to store fat.

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#174

Post by 000d »

andy_ppp wrote: post #111
rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but this makes no sense: > the body has different energy systems- one that is aerobic and takes hours over months and years to train and anaerobic that all out short efforts can train. Everything in between these two is arguably time wasted. The body does indeed have aerobic and anaerobic energy systems but any chronic physiological adaptations to any exercise takes time.

So I'm getting this from Peter Attia, his suggested regimen in 45 mins 3-4 per week of zone 2 and one zone 5 all out Tabata style workout and 3-4 strength training sessions. Not 100% sure if he's right or not but he's probably more informed than either of us. When I talk about time I'm talking about total time in use of these systems - not the time it takes for them to get better which I actually know nothing about.

What I think he means is that separating your workouts into zone 2 and 5 is "optimal" in terms of anaerobic contribution. At zone 2 your anaerobic contribution is low, while at zone 5 it is high. Its best to think of these energy systems as a sliding scale, and his model is based on the theory that zone 2 is the optimal window on this scale for improving metabolic health.

This doesn't mean that zone 3 and 4 are useless. Most endurance athletes do most of their high intensity in these zones because the stress of zone 5 is not manageable over time.

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#175

Post by airbreather »

There is various science around from multiple sources that suggest that HIIT High Intensity Interval Training or SHIT Super High Intensity Training puts the body in a different mode for some time afterwards.

When the heart is stimulated to between 80 and 95% capacity (depending on source of information) this then prompts physiological changes that last long past the exercise event.

CSIRO in Australia has been researching this for many years and is the premium (though still slightly woeful) scientific body in Australia.

Not many real hills where I live, but there is one nearby and you often see people sprinting up it (sometimes backwards) and walking down, multiple times.

One good plain language summary (not from CSIRO) is:

"The “LifeSprints” study by Boucher in 2011 suggests that in the lower intensity steady state cardio trials, not enough levels of epinephrine (adrenaline) were present to stimulate fat breakdown in the muscle cells. During and after higher intensity exercise epinephrine and norepinephrine floats around in the system which stimulates “hormone sensitive lipase” to start breaking down fat in the fat cells. Therefore, the presence of epinephrine could be considered a major lipoliptic factor in fat breakdown (Trapp, Chisholm & Boutcher, 2007). During higher intensity exercise reaching maximal levels, not only does the body switch to carbohydrate as a main source of energy, a by-product of the anaerobic system (as seen in maximal intensities) is lactic acid. Lactic acid is said to be a blocker of epinephrine."

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#176

Post by tallytarik »

dmix wrote: post #159
cycomanic wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight I've asked on HN a couple times in the past for citations that support this meme and haven't yet found a good source on this. The connection between caloric restriction and weight loss isn't as straight forward as people seem to think, despite that being the standard correlation pushed since the 1950s. Calories seems to be the c…

You go so far as to refer to the parent’s comment as a “meme” and then seem to agree with it by saying “I'm sure that would still ultimately contribute to weight loss”

You are also correct - caloric deficit is not very sustainable long term for a large number of people.

There is ongoing study to figure out why — for example, why some people are much less able to stick to a diet, or have constant food cravings, and so on. That’s not at odds with what you’re questioning. The focus is on those areas because the requirement of a caloric deficit for weight loss is one of the most reliable observations we have so far.

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#177

Post by jvm___ »

My best running times were in 2017 when I did a 7 minute workout for 90 days in a row. I was doing the routine twice by the end of the 90 days.

The 7 minute workout was a fad in 2012? that promised the same results as this study. Minimal time effort, maximum results.

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#178

Post by jeltz »

feet wrote: post #158
andmarios wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to walk for 3-5km, maybe with a little incline, play with your kids, do a few chores, is important. A 25-30 minute jog every now and then or 10-15 minutes of light cardio/HIIT mixup can help with this, no need to go full endurance. Furthermore a more proper fitness regime will fix your posture and improve your quality of life immensely. Things like a flight of stairs, getting in and out of the car, carryin…

Training specificity is a thing. Why would endurance training fix your posture?

Long distance running certainly puts a load on your back and your shoulders. I have been sore there the day after some really long runs, so I can see how it improves posture. Also you need to focus on proper posture when doing long runs.

Is it the most time efficient way to fix posture? For sue not, but it should work.

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#179

Post by roflc0ptic »

dmix wrote: post #171
airbreather wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.totalwellbeingdiet.com/media/2266/18-00521-secre... https://www.publish.csiro.au/RD/RD20326 The CSIRO has been researching for decades as to what the best bang for buck is with regards exercise.

There's no doubt exercise is essential here. There's just lots of people pushing the idea that diet / food restriction alone is sufficient for weight loss or that the goal of exercise is to "burn calories", suggesting the two are directly correlated.

I don't understand what you're saying:

> people pushing the idea that diet / food restriction alone is sufficient for weight loss

Diet/food restriction alone is strictly sufficient for weight loss: I'm pretty sure this is uncontroversially true, but it sounds like you're saying it isn't. Am I misunderstanding you?

Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

#180

Post by tarsinge »

dmix wrote: post #159
cycomanic wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight I've asked on HN a couple times in the past for citations that support this meme and haven't yet found a good source on this. The connection between caloric restriction and weight loss isn't as straight forward as people seem to think, despite that being the standard correlation pushed since the 1950s. Calories seems to be the c…

This is not a meme but basic physics. This is how you do your cut and bulk cycles to lose and gain exactly a planned amount of weight. My base energy expenditure is relatively low at around 1800 kcal. If I eat 2000 kcal I will gain around 1 kg in 35 days (1 kg of fat is a 7000 kcal surplus), and similarly I could lose 1 by eating 1600 kcal. For finding sources look up "TDEE".

Weight loss is complicated because of the added dimension of satiety. If I eat proteins, vegetables and fats without counting I'll be around my baseline. But with sugar and carbs it's impossible to not overshoot without being terribly hungry. Also with less insulin sensitivity found in obese/pre-diabetics people, ingested food can not be efficiently used and end up stored, leading to the vicious cycle of being tired and still hungry.

Post reply on HN