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)

#391

Post by asdff » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:37 PM UTC

jononomo wrote: post #273

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…

I can't stand this "it's just physics" talking point when it comes to calories and weight loss. Why don't you try consuming exactly as many calories of gasoline as your body burns each day and then tell me whether you lose or gain any weight?

I think the assumption with trying to be healthy and track your calories is you are eating a healthy and balanced diet, and not things like potato chips, candy, or gasoline all day. Then with healthier food choices a consistent value for you in your life, you don't have to worry about that Starbucks drink that's 600 calories because you just wouldn't be drinking those things with this new mindset. Then it doesn't even matter your metabolic rate either; if your diet is consistently healthy and you are measuring calories and your weight on the scale, then you can dial back caloric intake and see results on that scale.

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

#392

Post by pengaru » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:38 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…

Availability of the calories varies substantially, and day-to-day water retained varies on the order of a few lbs easily.

Just consider how much flatulence varies meal-to-meal, that's largely produced by calories guests living in your gut "burned" instead of you.

The trouble is it's a complex ecosystem hosting many lives, controlled by hormonal knobs affecting behavior/activity-level and energy storage, and the makeup of the food hugely affects how much is absorbed and at what rate.

Everyone knows firsthand when over-eating a massive meal of hard to digest foods there's a substantial amount of energy deposited in the toilet... And wild pigs / pet dogs don't get excited about eating human feces for lack of caloric value.

It's just an upper bound, nothing more.

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

#393

Post by apelapan » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

sergiosgc wrote: post #249

frognumber wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -…

That was my exact personal diagnostic, until 2018. My weight very slowly drifted upward, but you start adding 0.5kg-1kg per year over a couple of decades, with a few dips here and there on dietary effort, and the result was a health disaster. My solution, and mine alone after trying oh so many different diets and strategies, went through regular aerobic exercise, at a rate of 3-4 hours per week. In my case it was swi…

I can't say I seriously tried anything else, but the same approach worked magic for me. I started running and swimming, slowly ramping up to four hours per week (previously zero active exercise for the past 20 years) and have been consistently losing weight for 20 months now. About 15kg down from the starting point and no signs of stopping (though rate is slowly decreasing).

At current trajectory I'll be at normal weight by summer. Two years ago and for many years before I was balancing on the edge between overweight and obese.

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

#394

Post by asdff » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:42 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #357

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…

I did a strict 1400 calorie per day diet for a few months in college. Zero cheating. Also kicked up aerobic activity a ton. Losses were at like 5-10% the rate they "should have" been. Totally worthless. Meanwhile weight lifting has always worked for me a large multiple as well as it "should", for weight loss, if you go by calculators that try to figure how many calories an activity burns. I reckon that in both cases…

Aerobic activity is not all the same either. Some people run for a mile and think that's good, they are maybe burning only 300 calories doing that though. They hike for 4 miles and its another couple hundred, or its blown with the granola bars. If you bike for an hour at less than 10mph you are burning like 300 calories, but if you bike for an hour at like 16-20mph then you are burning like 1000 calories.

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

#395

Post by asdff » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:47 PM UTC

cico3646373 wrote: post #349

syzarian wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not so much that I would dispute the physics, but I personally wonder about digestion. This strict cico model seems to make the assumption that every digestive system extracts the same amount of energy from the same foods, which I find unlikely but am certainly not an expert. If I eat a bunch of grass, I am pretty sure I'll probably get sick and have some unpleasant bowel movements but I won't draw many calories…

That's not really how I interpret it at least. I think its assumed there is no one with a perfectly efficient digestive system, and that there is variance in efficiency based on a plethora of factors. However, that efficiency rate hardly matters. You are in effect a car. Some people are hybrids, super efficient perhaps, while others are SUVs guzzling gas to go the same distance. That being said one thing is true for all of these cars: if you put in 9 gallons instead of 10 gallons into the tank, you will go for less miles than if you put in 10 gallons. In other words, if you are being accurate about measuring your calories in (the gas) and you are measuring your weight (miles driven), you can adjust the input calories to effect your output weight. Exercise then is like driving in low gear with the engine at a high RPM; you are burning more calories in a given amount of time just like you'd be burning more gas in a given distance running at a higher RPM.

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

#396

Post by mister_mister » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:48 PM UTC

laserlight wrote: post #384

mister_mister wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

So how do we calculate Calories In and Out according to you? Becausr it sounds like that we have to deal with real world that really complex digestion, hormones, gut biome. You just start adding and subtracting numbers.

At that moment CICO dies, because you won't be able to measure anything and just have black box which you give whatever number makes sense in the end.

Not that it matters because the cells in human body use ATP not calories. As such calories are at best a proxy for how much food.

But that is issue with CICO, it's like magic box and we only have to count IN, as much at what makes the calculation correct later on, also with OUT. That is not very scientific. Because we are unable to reproduce anything.

I have posted the article before, have you read it? https://www.everydayhealth.com/eating-disorders/diabulimia/

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

#397

Post by asdff » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:49 PM UTC

hooverd wrote: post #325

syzarian wrote: post #239

Earlier 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…

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

Tabulating calories in and weight out is a lot easier, especially if you eat healthy and simple foods.

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

#398

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:49 PM UTC

GatorD42 wrote: post #213

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-…

Athletes are not training less at higher intensities overall. The dominant paradigm is polarized training - huge amounts of low intensity with small amounts of high intensity mixed in. https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/po...

That's interesting. Makes sense for athletes, but unfortunately seems not transferable to non-athletes, simply because hardly anyone has time for "huge amounts of low intensity" training.

Some people find success in organizing their life to get enough exercise in the natural way, as part of activities of their day, but I think the popularity of HIIT in recent days clearly indicates there's also lots of people who want to optimize for minimum of time spent on exercising. Myself I'm one of such people.

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

#399

Post by kilgnad » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #103

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-…

> 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…

>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.

This is actually incorrect. It's not well known, but the science is actually very clear about this. HIIT is much more effective then long term continuous exercise for VO2 max. This has been shown across Several studies.

Many coaches and training programs don't incorporate the science into their training regimes. So so called "experts" don't really know. You'll be surprised how ingrained the belief is and it's hard to turn it around if you've been under the belief for years that you need to do long continuous training routines to improve cardio.

Roger Bannister the first person to clear the 4 minute mile used HIIT exclusively for his training and he's the first person to change the science around this. The myth, however, persists and you still see people plugging in miles and miles into their training routine when HIIT works better.

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

#400

Post by asdff » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 6:51 PM UTC

wordpad25 wrote: post #220

snovv_crash wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably subconsciously downregulate your physical activity when you reduce calories, due to lower energy levels. If you wear a fitness tracker and equate number of steps to high calories you should see a difference even with slight reductions in caloric intake. Even the amount of fidgeting you do during the day can change your base caloric expenditure.

another thing is to measure total calories intake and spending weekly. Daily metrics can vary wildly without affecting overall result.

Is spend even relevant to measure versus weight on the scale? Assuming you work out consistently?