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

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

#321

Post by jasonladuke0311 » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:51 PM UTC

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.

I'll do you one better: all of the subjects were untrained. Any kind of training will improve fitness in virtually every single marker that can be measured. Your aerobic fitness will improve from lifting heavy weights. You'll get stronger from running. These studies are totally useless.

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

#322

Post by Frost1x » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #292

this_user wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are still subject to the basic laws of physics. If you do a certain amount of work, but you take in less than what you have spent, the body has to use its stored energy to make up for the difference. How else would this work? The body cannot magically materialise energy out of nothing, and it cannot use more than what is available in the form of intake plus storage.

Basic laws of physics is a misnomer. If I consume gasoline which has calories in the physics sense (31,000kcal/gal), it doesn't affect my weight. CICO is a broken model because it doesn't account for this.

Calories on nutrition labels should account for potential metabolic energy, not total energy, so the example of gasoline isn't by any means a disproof of the model at all since gasoline is obviously not a food source you safely metabolize.

If we looked at total energy of your gasoline we'd need to consider mass to energy conversion as well... but your body can't do that either. Energy your body can metabolize is clearly a subset of total energy available. It's certainly an estimate and it's not perfect but it's useful.

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

#323

Post by twawaaay » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #186

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. “Does more” is hella vague. As a 40-mile a week runner I find that low intensity runs “do more” for me because they’re more relaxing.

I used it in a "scientific" way. If you were able to put the same person to do two exercises, one 60 minute easy run and second time 60 minutes tempo run (and possibly also time travel inbetween both sessions so they are in the same state at the start) you would measure that in the universe where you did the tempo run you would improve your fitness more (unless you were somehow injured/overtrained and not ready for the tempo run).

This is where the part "per hour invested" comes.

Most people can't do an hour of tempo run every day without getting themselves overtrained and injured. And if they could do it physically, it would be enormous mental challenge.

Switch to most of us like you and me -- an easy run provides most of the benefit per hour invested but in a sustainable way, meaning you will be able to invest more hours and do it consistently. And you will be more likely to stick to do it every day if you find it refreshing and relaxing rather.

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

#324

Post by robdar » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:53 PM UTC

frognumber wrote: post #167

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…

If I cut my calorie intake by a moderate amount, I don't lose any fat. If I cut my calorie intake by an extreme amount, I start to lose fat. My hypothesis is that the equation that weight loss is related to calorie intake minus expenditure, but I think the conclusions one draws from it fail to take into account how much the body can control expenditure. My body seems to naturally drift up in fat weight, very slowly -…

> but I think the conclusions one draws from it fail to take into account how much the body can control expenditure.

Yes, this is has been observed and studied. From this page: https://physiqonomics.com/constrained-energy-model/ the relavent source materials are:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26832439/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453886/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519717/

So, yes, it seems that the body "compensates" and controls expendeture as you've suggested.

Speaking in general, there are a lot of details to consider for CICO. When people count calories to below their TDEE, their estimate of TDEE is just that, an estimate, not their actual TDEE.

When calories are counted, how accurate are calories being counted? FDA regulations in the US call for the nutritional information on packaging to be +/- 20%, and when audited, the information is often found to be outside that ranges.

Every gram of glycogen stored in your muscles, the body also stores 4 grams of water. The cycle of exercise, fasting, caloric restriction, and refeeding and glycogen storage are going to cause large swings in weight that can make it hard to pull out trends until several weeks/months have gone by, but frequently people are micro-focused on daily weight flucuations and draw their conclusions about diet and weightloss from what is effectively changes in glycogen storage/water weight.

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

#325

Post by hooverd » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

syzarian wrote: post #239

subharmonicon wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What people do believe is that you can neatly tabulate calories in and calories out.

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

#326

Post by hooverd » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

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?

Basic physics says a human can live on a cup of gasoline a day.

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

#327

Post by kritiko » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #203

fsloth wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people benefitting from more exercise are elite endurance athletes?

You might not want to emulate elite endurance athletes in that they get too much of a good thing…. That kind of training puts you at risk of atrial fibrillation.

A recent study on this encourages exercise regardless.

https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002154

> Conclusion: Although older male endurance athletes experienced an increased risk of AF, the long-term risk of stroke was substantially reduced compared with non-athletes.

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

#328

Post by acuozzo » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

gassiss wrote: post #316

acuozzo wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> you're technically right, but just nitpicking

I was hinting at something bigger than just a nitpick. I'm hypothesizing that gut flora interfere with macronutrient ingestion in a statistically significant way.

Microorganisms exist which produce glucose from materials that, if ingested by a human, would be emitted as waste.

What if colonies of these microorganisms were present in the human gut and unevenly distributed in the population?

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

#329

Post by dahart » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

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…

FWIW, I thought the same thing about my body for a long time, most of my life. I have usually been slightly overweight, a bit chubby, but pretty active in terms of sports and outdoor activities and exercise. Then I tried counting calories, and it totally worked, and I realized I’d forever been mentally resisting the idea of budgeting my food. My theory is that my regulating system isn’t gut absorption, it’s just how full I feel, and the threshold where I choose to stop eating, on average. My threshold is slightly higher than what I need to be skinny, and counting calories taught me what it feels like to eat the correct amount for me, which leaves me just a tiny bit hungry. I’m not currently counting calories, and I’m gaining weight little by little. Hard to say what happens when you have a one-off over-eating meal that’s insanely high calorie. You probably don’t absorb all the calories of an abnormally high-calorie meal, but that may change if you always eat a high calorie meal. Under-eating on occasion might have a different effect than over-eating. But yeah, it is easy to measure, if you can bring yourself to do it. I developed mental tricks so that it was easier to count calories and be fine being a little hungry, I feel like it’s important to avoid framing it as a self-control problem, or as overcoming hunger, and find ways to actually want to stick to the budget.

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

#330

Post by MengerSponge » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

jeltz wrote: post #314

matsemann wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a difference between a faster portion and Tabata portion. Mixing in some faster cadences helps keep things interesting even if there isn't a huge physiological benefit.