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

231–240 of 506 posts

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

#231

Post by watwut »

Frost1x wrote: post #223
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://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Food (calories in) is just a form of energy your body is capable of utilizing. Fat is just a physical medium to store energy for use in your body. For your body to move and perform actions (live), you require energy. All things considered at this scale, if you expend more energy than you consume, you'll ultimately either die (due to lack of energy) or use other f…

Linking conservation of energy is just non argument. It has nothing to do with anything, because our bodies are not simple theoretical machine.

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

#232

Post by dkarl »

galacticaactual wrote: post #200
twawaaay wrote: post #128

Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. The issues are, and especially when you are out of shape: * adherence -- it is difficult to keep people do hard, high intensity exercises regularly. Part of being a runner is learning to deal with pain but people who are out of shape are almost by definition new to this and are not yet accustom…

> Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. No. This is actually wrong. You should read Scott Johnston's "Training for the Uphill Athlete" to understand why.

I read that book, and as with most other sources of information about endurance training, I found it to be very focused on the situation where people are limited by their recovery budget. I couldn't tease out what the guidance would be for someone who only works out 3-4 hours per week. There would be physiological explanations of the unique value of low-intensity training, and I would think, "Sounds like this applies to everyone," but then there would be an implicit reference to overtraining. Eventually I came to the conclusion that everything in the book assumes that you're training so many hours per week that even if 70% of it is low-intensity, you're still stretching the limit of your ability to recover.

I haven't made an exhaustive search or anything, but I've repeatedly been frustrated by this pervasive assumption when looking for information about endurance training. I guess this makes sense, because even the amateurs I know who love endurance sports work out 10+ hours per week. I just don't love it that much.

I've found one single piece of advice (and again, I haven't made an exhaustive search or anything) in a podcast interview[0] with an expert on and advocate of polarized training for cyclists. In response to a listener question, the expert said that if he only had four hours per week to train, he would "just hammer... and hope for the best," meaning train as intensely as he was able.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3McjlSoAg&t=702s (11:42)

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

#233

Post by watwut »

tarsinge wrote: post #219
mister_mister wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The body is not closed system if it would be perfect close system then eating once a day or once per week would have the same effect spreading that over the day. The cells do not use calories. They use ATP, converted different pathways such as glucose, fatty acids, ketones and oxygen. Calories are measured by burning them, so that means we are using two different measurements that may overlap but are not compatible.…

Eating once a day indeed has nearly the same effect. Once a week is not possible due to physical limits of processing that volume of food. It's easy to explain your example with diabetics: very simply insulin is what allow muscle to use glucose, but also what stop the body from using its fat reserves. From your link: > Desperate to stop its cells from starving, her body had released hormones that, in turn, released b…

Eating once a day does not have the same effect on your body as spreading the food into multiple portions. And that has different effect then eating the same amount constantly.

If you will eat once a week, you will dispose of calories you did not absorbed. And you will be starwing by the end of the week, making you passive, weak and tired.

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

#234

Post by watwut »

VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #225
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…

Absolutely ridiculous to call this a “meme”. It is the most basic fact about how to lose weight. Stop eating altogether and see what happens (spoilers: you’ll lose weight as your body devours itself because your body needs calories to operate)

> Stop eating altogether and see what happens (spoilers: you’ll lose weight as your body devours itself because your body needs calories to operate)

You might just die before you loose all that weight. Moreover, you have high chance to develop long term health issues.

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

#235

Post by brodouevencode »

notyourday wrote: post #46

That's just another out of context study jumped on by people who absolutely positively want to find a way to justify sitting on their ass, eating excessive amount of ultra processed carbohydrates and moving as little as possible Huberman currently is doing a series on fitness with Galpin. I highly recommend listening/watching it to get the context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEYE-vcVKy8 TL;DR: there are differen…

Just came here to plug this - a lot of material, A LOT of material, and the latest one released today is nearly 5 hours. But if you are at all interested in this kind of stuff it's very much worth the listen.

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

#236

Post by mister_mister »

tarsinge wrote: post #219
mister_mister wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The body is not closed system if it would be perfect close system then eating once a day or once per week would have the same effect spreading that over the day. The cells do not use calories. They use ATP, converted different pathways such as glucose, fatty acids, ketones and oxygen. Calories are measured by burning them, so that means we are using two different measurements that may overlap but are not compatible.…

Eating once a day indeed has nearly the same effect. Once a week is not possible due to physical limits of processing that volume of food. It's easy to explain your example with diabetics: very simply insulin is what allow muscle to use glucose, but also what stop the body from using its fat reserves. From your link: > Desperate to stop its cells from starving, her body had released hormones that, in turn, released b…

The question how do we explain why people without insulin are able to stay thin, while eating massive amounts of calories with the CICO model. Because that case is breaking the model.

Since your stating that eating once a day is the same as eating once a day. Would you have any sources for that claim?

Did you know there is allot of research going into the effects of intermittent fasting[0]?

If you would search for OMAD (one meal a day) on google or reddit you would see that that statement does not hold. There are many changes because blood sugar will stay stable during the day. Nor will there be insulin spikes. There are health startups starting just for stable glucose levels and the health benefits by using continuous glucose monitors[1].

They already attracted many from the health and longevity communities. It's also possible not to use their product by just eating once a day.

[0]https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi... [1]https://www.levelshealth.com/

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

#238

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

notafraudster wrote: post #155
itsoktocry wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 12 weeks This seems like a pretty negative reading. How about: Sedentary people (who have the most issues and highest healthcare costs), can see significant improvements in health by exercising for a fraction of time normally…

It's a win _if_ the barrier to getting sedentary people to improve their health through fitness is time cost and not all of the other costs associated with habit formation. My guess is for most sedentary people the biggest thing is that they manage to talk themselves out of doing anything, or once they start, talk themselves into allowing cheating/skipping rather than drilling in the habit. (Not that this is bad news…

Actually speaking as someone who is trying to become less sedentary the issue for me is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of time or whatever. I literally didn’t know what exercise was appropriate or even how to perform the ritual around exercise and everyone’s “just do something” was supremely unhelpful. I didn’t know what was normal soreness and what was an injury. I didn’t know what’s an appropriate warmup or cooldown. I didn’t know about eating and exercise, and would sometimes eat too close to exercise and throw up, or not fuel myself and feel extremely lightheaded/about to pass out. This made exercise much more challenging and intimidating, because there’s so much woo on the internet and you don’t have enough knowledge to sift through it. It’s like asking a layman to “do their own research” about idk flat earth or something.

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

#239

Post by syzarian »

subharmonicon wrote: post #216
tarsinge wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s not that simple, although it may seem that way for some people. Twice I have been on very extreme calorie counting regimens for months at a time combined with substantial weight lifting and cardio. Both times I have observed that if I reduce calories the first thing that happens is I start to feel colder in the same environments. My body adjusts to my new caloric intake by reducing my metabolic rate it seems. I…

If metabolic rate changes due to caloric restriction then this doesn’t negate the view that basic physics dictates that calories in minus calories out determines weight loss. It just means that a corresponding change to calories out can occur with caloric restriction. It is a physical reality that calories in minus calories out determines weight loss. It is also a reality that adhering to this might be very difficult for reasons you suggested.

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

#240

Post by mister_mister »

watwut wrote: post #233
tarsinge wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating once a day indeed has nearly the same effect. Once a week is not possible due to physical limits of processing that volume of food. It's easy to explain your example with diabetics: very simply insulin is what allow muscle to use glucose, but also what stop the body from using its fat reserves. From your link: > Desperate to stop its cells from starving, her body had released hormones that, in turn, released b…

Eating once a day does not have the same effect on your body as spreading the food into multiple portions. And that has different effect then eating the same amount constantly. If you will eat once a week, you will dispose of calories you did not absorbed. And you will be starwing by the end of the week, making you passive, weak and tired.

yup, Someone might even die because of refeeding syndrome.[0]

Continuing on your point the body is there not a closed system as defined as:

> In a closed system, no mass may be transferred in or out of the system boundaries. The system always contains the same amount of matter, but (sensible) heat and (boundary) work can be exchanged across the boundary of the system. Whether a system can exchange heat, work, or both is dependent on the property of its boundary. [1]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refeeding_syndrome [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

Post reply on HN