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

311–320 of 506 posts

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

#311

Post by gassiss »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #285
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 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…

if your weight didn't change, most likely you were eating at maintenance. The fact that you have a surplus every now and then won't change your body composition. Consistency matters a lot with regards to human weight.

To add to what someone else said, you probably ate below your threshold to be able to maintain your weight. You can't guess this, the only way to get an accurate ESTIMATE on how much you actually ate in calories is to measure. Even pros over/under estimate what they eat in terms of calories

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

#313

Post by edanm »

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…

> 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.

This is not a "meme", it is almost universally accepted science by nutrition scientists at this point. This includes both theoretical reasons, as well as actual, legit studies with human subjects.

> Calories seems to be the catchall metric pushed around, but it seems to be as much about what you eat, not just eating less.

Not sure what you mean by "it" when you say "it seems to be as much about what you eat."

> Whether calories is the thing that matters is the question.

Matters for what?

If you mean in the strict sense that you are able to control someone's total food intake, then yes, you can induce any amount of weight loss you want by limiting their caloric intake.

If you mean "matters" in terms of getting real people in the real world to actually lose weight? That's a much more complicated question, because the number one variable that controls the amount and duration of weight loss is how long you stick with the diet.

Any "diet" that causes a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Some do this by directly counting calories and targeting a lower number. Some do this by causing you to eat foods that make you fuller, thereby making you limit the amount of calories without thinking about it. You can even take medication that just cause you to not be hungry, which is the most effective in some sense.

The thing is, most diets are hard to stick to, or at least most people don't stick to diets. I personally counted calories as I found it the "easiest" in some sense (though I also had to learn a lot about how to eat in a more satiating way so not to be hungry.) I used that to lose a lot of weight. I've now regained a lot of that weight, partly planned (as part of a bulk), partly unplanned (I got injured so stopped training, and then decided to focus less on weight control and eat more, knowing that I would gain weight in an unplanned fashion.)

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

#314

Post by jeltz »

matsemann wrote: post #112
MengerSponge wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending more time in Zone 3 is harder, sure, but it isn't more beneficial than spending that time in Zone 2. You're training different metabolic states, and working harder/suffering more doesn't actually matter.

Yes. But if we're at the level where we care about zones and total intensity because of recovery, one probably isn't doing a combined workout at all. Either it's a low intensity or a high intensity workout, not a combination of both.

Not my experience at all. Plenty of people do long runs (2h+) with faster portions. Maybe it turns out it is inefficient but it is a common practice among marathon runners.

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

#315

Post by Frost1x »

mister_mister wrote: post #236
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…

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 OM…

>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.

To my knowledge this doesn't break the CICO model. The disease (e.g. type 1 diabetes) reduces or eliminates production of insulin which triggers metabolism of glucose. Since you're metabolizing less (or no) glucose, you're not gaining as much energy and passing most all that out through waste.

If you have a disease you need to consider that your energy expenditure isn't inherently going to be the same as studies estimating from healthy individuals. This doesn't break the model, it just means your intake and expenditure are different than most healthy individuals. People with hypothyroidism have similar issues. Is the CICO model great for these people? If you account for such factors the underlying principles should hold true.

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

#316

Post by gassiss »

acuozzo wrote: post #293
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…

> This is not a meme but basic physics. The issue is: How are we defining calories IN? Consider the extreme example of having a parasitic worm living in your digestive system. Is IN == [food passing mouth] or is IN == [food not being ingested by worm(s)]? Now consider "normal" digestive flora. How are we defining IN here?

you're technically right, but just nitpicking. Of course you could count the calories in fibers and that wouldn't make you fat, as your body can't process that. But most people do not eat fiber for 90% of their meals

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

#317

Post by staplung »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #285
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 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…

The NYTimes just ran an article about nutrition myths. One of them was about calories in - calories out.

“ Ultraprocessed foods — such as refined starchy snacks, cereals, crackers, energy bars, baked goods, sodas and sweets — can be particularly harmful for weight gain, as they are rapidly digested and flood the bloodstream with glucose, fructose and amino acids, which are converted to fat by the liver.”

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

#318

Post by jasonladuke0311 »

jmmcd wrote: post #150
hutzlibu wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times. " 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.

I think it depends - running miles and miles at low intensity will damage my middle-aged knees more than HIT.

> running miles and miles at low intensity will damage my middle-aged knees more than HIT

Maybe, maybe not. But running isn't the only method of cardiovascular exercise.

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

#319

Post by goodpoint »

mister_mister wrote: post #236
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…

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 OM…

*a lot

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

#320

Post by goodpoint »

tvrg wrote: post #228
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…

I have the same question: People often calculate with calories as if it is really simple math. But - honest question - does my body really have to suck up every calorie or could it excrete some calories in the toilet and also vary that amount depending on my caloric intake? For example, I have read somewhere that you urinate superfluous proteins - which also have calories. Also, if I'm hungry I get cold. I might put…

Correct! CICO is often oversimplified by ignoring that our digestion is far from 100% efficient and our base metabolic rate can change.
Post reply on HN