371–380 of 506 posts
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?
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…
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-…
Show me 1 conventionally conceived of "endurance athlete" amateur mid of the pack or professional who has adapted this? Marathon, Iron man etc. Just 1. I'd love to see if anyone got a result in a marathon etc that was like a pb or close to a pb this way. I highly doubt.
Sure okay on paper. Now show me the average 5K race time for each group. The 3x 45minute group would destroy the 8 minute sprint group. It's all in how you define "fitness"
Why are you so confident? See my other comment.
What you call a 45 second sprint at the end is similar to what trained runners do after a run called strides. It has no similarity to the sprint training group.
You did not say how many weeks you trained. It was roughly 20 miles per week which yes is enough to do a half-marathon in 1:40 for an average 35 year old man which is considered the "open" category (though races also do age-groups)
Had you increased to 40 miles per week you could have done a marathon in around 3:25
Running has been studied for so many decades by so many people that it's almost a science with very few surprises unless someone turns out to be exceptionally genetically gifted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One key thing to remember is that humans can't do much more than 30 hours per week of exercise because they can't consume sufficient calories to compensate. It has come to the point that tweaking nutrition science to feed athletes better so they can train more is a key aspect of the ultra endurance training (e.g. the Norwegian Iron Men around Olaf Alexander Bu).
That's 4 hours of activity a day. That can't be true. I do that. I should be fading away then but hover at the same weight.
Studies have found that humans cannot consume more calories than 2.5x their basal metabolic rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Last summer I was sprinting stairs every 3 days for a month to prepare for a week of multi-pitch climbing (with huge approaches) in the Canadian Rockies. I whipped myself into pretty good condition for the trip and my body held up, but it wasn't until after that week of climbing mountains every day that I felt like I was in properly awesome condition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thoug…
The real myth is that you can track calories in and calories out.
How do you measure how many calories your body absorbs from the food you eat?
How do you measure your calories out, particularly your resting metabolic rate?
Here's a hint -- the body changes its resting metabolic rate in response to calories in! Probably! Unless you eat junk food, and then maybe it doesn't!
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…
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…