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

301–310 of 506 posts

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

#301

Post by grogenaut »

thom wrote: post #71
chkgk wrote: post #24

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.

Sports science is probably the most unintentionally hilarious branch of statistics.

Everything around nutrition in general... But yeah with sports your throwing in groups of insanely driven outliers. Even more fun is mapping that back on the average human like much of this post is doing. No you should not try and follow Michael Phelps pre Olympics training routine.

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

#302

Post by pfisherman »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #294

It says "Free PMC article", but I'm having trouble finding anywhere to click to see the whole article instead of just abstract and citations. Can anyone help me get it, whether that's me missing a place to click, or getting around paywall?

Click on “full text links”. You could also click the doi link address.

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

#303

Post by tootie »

ianai wrote: post #287
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…

Is HiiT really a good idea for people with increasing levels of being out of shape? That sounds like a recipe for doing way too much way too fast and getting injured.

You can just vary the intensity. The general approach is go as hard as you can for brief bursts then back to a comfortable pace to recover, then burst again. Your peak burst may be pretty slow at first, but if it gets your heart pumping, then you're doing it. That peak should just go up as you train and build your strength.

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

#304

Post by GuB-42 »

amelius wrote: post #114

I have one question: why did it take humans so long to figure this out?

I guess "exercising" is a relatively new thing in human history. Normally, calories are something you want to save, not something you want to lose. People worked out by doing actual work, training or playing.

If you think about it, the idea sounds completely ridiculous. Doing a minute of painful of physical activity with no practical use because you are too busy not moving. If you go back in time with this idea people will probably ask you what crime you committed to deserve such punishment. For it to make sense, you need an unnatural combination of abundant food, sedentary work and little free time, which only recently became a thing for commoners.

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

#305

Post by grogenaut »

jonplackett wrote: post #29

All these many studies about 1 minute exercise don’t seem to take into account how long that fitness will last, and how likely you are to get injured. I started running about a year ago and the first thing you have to learn is there’s a bunch of body systems you need to improve - heart, ability to use oxygen, removal of lactic acid, strengthening your body so you don’t get injured and can therefore train continuously…

Agreed. Getting back into shape or higher shape is often focusing on the part of your body current letting you down. A simple loop is you sprint, your legs gas out... Squats or other exercise. Legs strong now, you can't breath hard enough... More core... Now your core is stronger than your legs are. Legs again. Then consider stabilizers (I'm currently unable to squat more till I strengthen those).. etc etc. As I get older I'm learning more and more about stabilizers and tendons don't strengthen as fast as they used to.

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

#306

Post by joyeuse6701 »

edanm wrote: post #297
dr_dshiv wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight. I’ve never believed this — only because my weight is so consistent and my eating is not. My body must have a way to regulate the absorption of calories from the gut. When I have some insanely high calorie meal, my body doesn’t necessarily absorb all the calories. This seems easy to measure, so I must be wrong. Or…

> I’ve never believed this — only because my weight is so consistent and my eating is not. That's only one side of the equation. It is a basically proven fact (and largely implied by physics) that `calorie intake - expenditure = net weight change`. That is pretty much beyond dispute. It is also true that some things affect expenditure, and it seems likely that most people have a "set point" that your body attempts to…

How easily one can lose weight seems to be more than calories in and calories out. Women with PCOS struggle mightily with weight. Having said that, I'm sure if you put a person in a box for 21 days without food you will observe a net weight change, but I'm sure the speed at which weightloss occurs or is observed will include other factors beyond calories in and out.

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

#307

Post by moneywoes »

Fricken wrote: post #66
xarope wrote: post #25

As others below have pointed out, the study specifically targets certain markers, and these markers do not encompass "fitness" as we would expect. I learnt the lesson a long time ago that you need to train long and low as well as short and hard, so I'd like to repost this article from Mark Twight (if anybody has a better - or more original, link, please feel free to post it): https://equipesolitaire.com/blogs/discour…

The article is directed towards elite, competitive athletes who are already in shape and have a training history. At that level, yes, of course there is more to it than a few short sprint sessions each week. For about 15 years I've been relying on HIIT to go from being out of shape to in shape as quickly as I know how. Going from in shape to top fitness, and progressing from there is more involved, and sport specific…

What was your protocol?

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

#308

Post by oezi »

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.

I don't think so.

Reading the power charts from https://intervals.icu of 43,000 male cycling enthusiasts:

- 70% of cyclists are able to sustain 500 W for 15 seconds

- 50% of cyclists are able to sustain 500 W for 30 seconds

Only the top 5% cyclists have an average 15 second power exceeding 1000 Watts.

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

#309

Post by mindhash »

notyourday wrote: post #142
mindhash wrote: post #38

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…

> VO2 max are trackable using hand-held VO2 max is not trackable via hand-held. VO2 max tracking at this point requires going to the lab, putting on a mask that collects expelled gasses and getting on a treadmill. Neither resting heart rate nor peak heart rate track VO2 max.

Agree, you wont get exact numbers but ignoring the absolute values one can see differences over time to see whats working. When it comes to these numbers i have learned that you dont focus on absolute values but watch them change

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

#310

Post by syzarian »

aantix wrote: post #286
syzarian wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you want to increase muscle mass, why don’t you just keep lifting increasingly heavier weights? If you want to lose weight, just keep eating increasingly less calories. Because that trivializes the problem. There’s physiological pushback on many dimensions.

I suggest a better response to CICO is not that this isn’t true but that it is hard for a variety of reasons. One’s response to CICO ought not be to deny basic physics. There was a comment that it is basic physics that CICO is true and it got pushback. My post was to point out that the pushback against that comment were wrong in the sense of not actually disputing CICO.

The responses should have been of the form, “Absolutely but this is very hard for some people for the following reasons…”. That changes to one part of the equation can have unintended consequences that change the other part.

Post reply on HN