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

381–390 of 506 posts

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

#381

Post by asdff »

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #306
edanm wrote: post #297

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.

The Alone show is pretty interesting as an example of what could happen being in a box with no food. Men and women of all shapes and sizes go into that show and they all just slough off weight, like over a pound a day sometimes, and struggle bringing in enough food for their body to not starve. Many are medically discharged from the show if they lose too much weight too fast where it puts their internal organs at risk.

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

#382

Post by kilgnad »

I've done this for a decade. It's real. I exercise a couple minutes doing all out sprints 3-4x a week and it increased my VO2 max faster then running 5 miles everyday. I've tried both. The increase in performance is dramatic. Like you can bring yourself to way above average VO2 max performance doing HIIT on the daily.

I want to emphasize though that one thing I noticed is that this is exclusively for VO2 max. I'm not sure if this type of exercise is good for the long term. It's good for increasing your performance.

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

#383

Post by elenaferrantes »

Frost1x wrote: post #335
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manag…

CICO while thermodynamically true, is not _that_ useful because no one really control CI nor CO …

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

#384

Post by laserlight »

mister_mister wrote: post #364
laserlight wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ca…

> extra rules about what is digestable and what is not. Calories doesn't state that all.

I wouldn't call those rules “extra”. After all, we're talking about human metabolism and what is digestible or not is central. The calories we're talking about under this topic has nothing to do with steam engines, except that both steam engines and humans take some input, called calories.

I don't see any conundrum with type 1 diabetes. They might have a different metabolism that counts differently which calories are in.

By the way, do you have a reference for this claim of yours [0]:

> people without insulin are able to stay thin, while eating massive amounts of calories

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34518288

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

#385

Post by asdff »

dxhdr wrote: post #378
snowwrestler wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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” 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. The real myth is that you can track calories in and calories out. How do you measure how many calories your body absorbs from…

You don't need to know these rates, you just need to have a point of reference from which you can change according to your weight loss goals. Not losing enough weight for the given caloric intake? Then just dial it back and reassess.

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

#386

Post by asdff »

elenaferrantes wrote: post #379
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…

How do one manage to eat exactly the amount of calories one consumes ? Based on the calories in/out weight gain theory a little error of 50 calories/day would lead to 50*365=18250 extra calories/year ie 18250/9000=~2kg of fat. 20kg in 10 years ! Eat an apple a day and you’ll be massively obese in few years.

Just use a sensible buffer or add in some extra cardio.

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

#387

Post by jcims »

edanm wrote: post #297
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…

> 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…

Could also be that the incredibly complex digestive system isn't just a food mulcher but is capable of moderating caloric intake based on any number of parameters.

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

#388

Post by asdff »

FatActor wrote: post #368
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…

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.

You don't need to know all of these things if you are measuring input (calories in) and your output (weight on the scale every week). It hardly matters then how efficient your gut is. These are all relative values. Of course 2000 calories will look different for different people. What matters is if you have an understanding of how much calories you are putting into your system, you can now make changes and measure a response, like cutting down some calories and seeing how that affects your weight over a few weeks or months. You don't need to know all of these rates to do that.

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

#389

Post by asdff »

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?

All of that doesn't matter. Calories in just serves as a reference point for you to see how much you are actually eating. Then you can make changes to calories in, and see results on the scale. Sure everyone is at different efficiencies, that doesn't matter though. You are basically putting in less gas in the tank; that's going to make a hybrid and a gas hog both go for less miles than what a full tank would do.

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

#390

Post by kilgnad »

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…

>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 12 weeks

Make no mistake. The metric HIIT improves are limited, but these metrics are the ones we anecdotally use to observationally to separate people who are fit and people who are unfit. In other words, the people who we consider to be "fit" when exercising tend to be extremely high in these specific metrics.

I've been doing HIIT almost exclusively for a decade. You may still have high cholesterol after doing HIIT, but your VO2 max will be through the roof. And not just a little. This isn't just for people who are unfit, it can bring those specific metrics to near athlete level performance if you go at it consistently.

From a more laymans perspective, VO2 max is the main metric that this type of exercise improves which dramatically improves your observed athleticism in sprinting, running and almost every sport that involves endurance.

It won't help you lose your gut or lose weight though. This is just my own anecdotal observations after a decade of using HIIT as my main exercise.

Post reply on HN