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

361–370 of 506 posts

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

#361

Post by scotty79 »

watwut wrote: post #234
VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You might die all the time for any reason.

If the issue is lack of some specific vitamins or minerals you may correct it before you die without starting to eat again.

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

#362

Post by Frost1x »

jonnycoder wrote: post #339
Frost1x wrote: post #315

Earlier 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. 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?

How does this proove the point? In the example given, the diabetic is expending more calories (through waste) than the non-diabetic... the model still holds valid. The diabetic has less net calories absorbed by their body.

>how do we know there aren't factors yet to be discovered?

We don't and can't (by definition), that's part of the scientific process. Part of that process requires us to find evidence to the contrary or provide a viable testable competing argument. We don't just waive our hands in the air and claim magic gremlins are making people skinny or fat since there are likely limits to human understanding and knowledge, especially at any given specific point on time.

Most the evidence out there, that I'm aware of, vehemently supports the CICO model and it makes sense as a complex system resting up very well studied chemical and physical phenomena. The only thing broken seems to be a general understanding of the model being discussed.

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

#363

Post by jeltz »

throw1234651234 wrote: post #243
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-…

They are correctly dismissive - you won't run a 5k from 3x8mins a week. Nor will you deadlift 500 lbs. Nor will you get a good sport. It's a good tidbit for "something is better than nothing", but no more than that.

Aside: Running a 5k is something some people can do without any training at all. I ran about 5 km without stopping the second time I ran after 10 years of inactivity and I am sure I could have done it the first time too if I had really wanted to. A more reasonable challenge would be to run a 20 minute 5k. I feel that is roughly equivalent to dead lifting 500 lbs.

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

#364

Post by mister_mister »

laserlight wrote: post #355
jonnycoder wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I find this interpretation of “calories in ” very uncharitable. We certainly don't argue over whether eating coal makes one fat. Coal has lots of calories, but we're interested in metabolically available ones. If type 1 diabetes people cannot metabolize glucose, then it doesn't count as in .

They do have glucose metabolism[0], but that is the issue with CICO model already you have to start making extra rules about what is digestable and what is not. Calories doesn't state that all. Offcourse it wouldn't because the Calories concept was made for steam engines in 1800's.[1] Not that is matter from when it is. But maybe it's time for new ideas that do explain that conundrum of those type 1 diabetics. The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity[2] does have a explanation.

[0]https://www.healthline.com/health/diabetes/insulin-effects-o...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

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

#365

Post by TheRealPomax »

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…

If we're going to dismissively summarize, shall we at least summarize it correctly?

> The SIT protocol consisted of 3x20-second ‘all-out’ cycling efforts against 0.05kg/kg body mass, separated by 2 minutes of low-intensity cycling (50W).

You're right, that's not one minute. That's 20 seconds high intensity spinning spaced out with 2 minute "just regular biking" sets. Turning that into "it's 8 minutes, not one minute" takes some doing. Anyone with a home exercise bike can comfortably repeat this regime.

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

#366

Post by dr_dshiv »

staplung wrote: post #317
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…

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.”

Here's a Harvard fluff piece making the same "myth" claim: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting....

And here is a recent peer-reviewed article that summarizes the debate: Ludwig, D. S., Apovian, C. M., Aronne, L. J., Astrup, A., Cantley, L. C., Ebbeling, C. B., ... & Friedman, M. I. (2022). Competing paradigms of obesity pathogenesis: energy balance versus carbohydrate-insulin models. European journal of clinical nutrition, 76(9), 1209-1221.

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

#367

Post by criley2 »

foobarian wrote: post #253
criley2 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are very right to question this! While the thermodynamics aren't assailable, it turns out that the calorie system is in fact quite fallable and bad! There's a lot of good material on why, I like this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJQxadvsmEQ But simply put: - Our system for measuring how much "calorie" is in any given food is extremely problematic and unrelated to how the body captures energy - Our system…

The thing about the calorie system is that it's extremely simple and consistent. You could get into more advanced ways to count the calories that look at the type of food, and how body captures it, etc etc but that would be an even bigger mess than modern "dietary science." Currently the calorie count at least gives me an upper bound, and at least it's on the box and applies no matter who looks at it. How would you d…

Garbage in, garbage out. I believe "eating less food" causes you to lose weight. If you provide calorie numbers that correlate, I would ask you to demonstrate causation vs correlation, and I don't think you could do that as cleanly as you think across a broad population.

A better system? Not quite sure, but as always: criticism of current failures does not, by rule, have to come paired with suggestions for improvement.

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

#368

Post by FatActor »

tarsinge wrote: post #180
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…

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…

Who generated the heat that you measured in the calorimeter?

Gut biome bacteria consumed an amount of those calories. How many? It varies from person to person.

So calories in = calories out, but we don't know how many were used by the person, how many by the gut flora, and how many were excreted do to inability to metabolize. Ergo, hardly basic physics.

Reductionism is only useful if you know how to apply it.

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

#369

Post by [deleted] »

Frost1x wrote: post #362
jonnycoder wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How does this proove the point? In the example given, the diabetic is expending more calories (through waste) than the non-diabetic... the model still holds valid. The diabetic has less net calories absorbed by their body. >how do we know there aren't factors yet to be discovered? We don't and can't (by definition), that's part of the scientific process. Part of that process requires us to find evidence to the contra…

[deleted]

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

#370

Post by kelseyfrog »

Frost1x wrote: post #322
kelseyfrog wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cle…

Right, and what factors modulate the actual metabolic energy?
Post reply on HN