Has anyone got an optimized home setup for this strategy? What equipment and/or monitors do you have and what specific exercises do you do? How to you incentivize your consistent adherence?
1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
331–340 of 506 posts
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#332Earlier 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…
I'm not sure what to tell you besides it's true. I did crossfit for years without monitoring my diet and was always disappointed with how little I felt my body changed. I monitored my caloric intake for two months and was shocked to see how much of a difference it made.
Also, weight gain/loss should be measured on a weekly scale rather than daily. You might feel like your eating isn't consistent but it could be on a weekly-basis. For example, you might barely eat one day but eat 3500 calories the next. That seems like inconsistent dieting but in actuality, they average each other out.
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, “Ab…
Here’s a quote from Kevin Hall, who does metabolic studies at Harvard:
>The problem is that CICO as the law of energy conservation is NOT a model of obesity. It's conflated with the straw-man "Conventional Model" described by Ludwig: independent, unregulated intake and expenditure implying that getting fat and treating obesity are all about willpower
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#334It'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…
10 years ago I started doing HIIT via the 7-minute workout while initially out of shape. The first month was horrible, then my body substantially improved, I stopped being lactose intolerant (could suddenly drink a gallon of milk a day without any issues), then I could stack 2 HIITs and later 3 HIITs in a row, then I could push more and more reps in each 30 second interval, achieving like 4-6x improvement compared to when I started and my fitness exploded.
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#335Earlier 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…
Nobody is contesting the physical reality of CICO; what they are contesting is that the "calories out" section of the diet is as easily controlled as previously thought. I'm supposedly on a 1500 calorie deficit, eating ~1300-1500 calories a day and burning ~3000, according to my fitbit. But I'm only losing about 0.5lbs per week. My conclusion is that I'm really only burning 2000 calories despite HIIT 3x/week, strengt…
>Nobody is contesting the physical reality of CICO; what they are contesting is that the "calories out" section of the diet is as easily controlled as previously thought.
I'm not so sure about that, I see a lot of claims otherwise on this article's thread which blows my mind a bit.
It's definitely an issue calculating and managing the calories out portion and for some people, it may not be an effective model to manage weight with diet and exercise, but I'm reading a lot of "this model is wrong" which is a little baffling to me.
Is it possible the caloric measurements are off? Absolutely, we may not even be considering all metabolic pathways, but hopefully a lot of its getting covered. CICO should be used as anchor points to help you guide your diet and find what works for you because everyone is a little different. Don't like a lot of vegetables, coffee make you sleepy and lazy? Hate cardio but love weight lifting or vice versa?
Try something else, but CICO can help you make a better grounded basis of comparison here to find what mixture works best for your body to manage weight and get or keep the body composition you desire. Does the model simply not work for your lifestyle? Try something else! But is it wrong? Eh, I don't think so.
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sidenote. 60% of natural Musclemass someone can gain can be gained in half a year. Then its plateu. Maybe fat burning is the same.
source? sounds like bs
Sorry cant find it. But here a little calculation.
Someone who is 180cm has 80kg of lean mass potential. Someone who isnt trained but lean would be around 65kg or so. So 15kg muscle to gain. If training correctly this person can gain 1-2 kg of muscle per month. So 6 month max 12kg muscle.
Getting more muscle with training aint the hard part. Not getting fater while training for mass is the problem
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#337Earlier 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…
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.”
Your body will only store surplus fat long-term if you consume enough calories to maintain the surplus. Otherwise your body makes fat from the sugary sweets, but then later converts it back and burns it when you need energy.
The real “myth” of calories in = calories out is that it’s possible to do it by feel. It takes a lot of work and math, like spreadsheet-level, to actually track calories in and out. So even though it is physically true as a concept, it’s not a good weight management strategy for most people.
Sugary snacks don’t make you feel very full for their caloric content. So unless you’re literally writing down the caloric information on the wrapper and comparing it to your total daily activity, it’s easy to overeat.
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either. I don’t know much a…
> HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either Assuming you're not looking to become an endurance athlete, is conditioning muscles for endurance something one should aim for? Why? "Improved cardiometabolic health" sounds like something everyone - includ…
I do super intense conditioning once a week and walk 5 times a week.
People that can't be bothered to even walk are not going to stick to intense workouts. It is completely delusional.
Not to mention, we know these do not train the same energy systems or have the same benefits too.
This whole discussion is dumb.
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You just proved his point. If two people eat 10,000 calories and the one with type 1 diabetes is passing most of it as waste but the other person is storing that in the form of glucose and fat, then CICO is broken in that example. But like you say, account for such factors and the principles hold true; how do we know there aren't factors yet to be discovered?
Re: 1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)
#340Earlier 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…
You can’t break the “model” as it is basic thermodynamics.
If a diabetic is consuming many calories but also excreting many calories, that is still calories in and calories out.