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

421–430 of 506 posts

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

#421

Post by sn9 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #398
GatorD42 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wan…

The question isn't if people have time for elite levels of training.

The real question is if you can get more done in the time available to you with HIIT or LISS cardio.

If you're sufficiently time constrained, HIIT will win.

But past a certain threshhold, LISS will always allow you to perform a greater volume of work with lower recovery costs and lower injury risks and, consequentially, greater benefits to health and fitness.

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

#422

Post by sn9 »

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…

Tracking actually makes this super simple to account for.

Apps like Macrofactor do it for you. You just track what you eat and your weight.

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

#423

Post by hhmc »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #168
hhmc wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 'basal metabolic rate' not 'base', and it's not going to change materially over a year, even with a shift to inactivity.

Muscle atrophy from not maintaining exercise for a year will absolutely make your BMR change. In the same way, spend a year at the gym lifting weights and your BMR will absolutely go up, even if at the same weight.

Change, but not materially, maybe 5% or something that doesn't really move the needle like the claim of 500 calories.

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

#424

Post by cycomanic »

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...

You're correct they do polarized training, but the overall times have gone done significantly. This is due to polarized training, i.e. yes when they train long and easy athletes go long and easy, however if there is high intensity training you do relatively short sessions but full on. Importantly the middle ground sessions, where people trained for hours with medium intensity have completely disappeared. Read any interview with an older professional cyclist who experienced the transition, they all mention that they are training significantly less time now.

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

#425

Post by sn9 »

mister_mister wrote: post #396
laserlight wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bo…

You have several misunderstandings of basic science.

"Calories" are simply a unit of energy. The energy released by the utilization of ATP can be measured in any unit of measure you like for energy. It won't change the fact that the unit can be calories.

This is like arguing about Celsius vs some other unit.

Likewise, the CICO model has been replicated over and over again in high quality studies that don't rely on self-reported intake. And this model and information are used by thousands of people every year to manipulate their bodyweight and composition at will in sports like bodybuilding or ones with weight classes.

Indeed, treating the body as a black box makes this even easier as tracking caloric intake and your bodyweight is sufficient to do this and apps like Macrofactor do all the math for you.

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

#426

Post by sn9 »

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.

It just has to average out in the long term.

No one eats the exact same thing everyday.

And you can eat less or more throughout the year.

You've never had a holiday feast?

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

#427

Post by sn9 »

FatActor wrote: post #404
asdff wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with that, as do most people. What I object to is that calories-in-calories-out is the ONLY thing at play, and people claiming "simple physics" are working against any deeper understanding of the issues. I think this side of the argument is "Just eat less and you won't be fat. Duh." What they don't understand is that if a body has a hormonal anomaly, it might need to 5000 kcal/day just meet the 1500kc/day bas…

More is more and less is less.

If this wasn't the case, you'd have discovered a solution to famine.

And gastric bypasses are one of the most effective interventions available for people with such disorderd eating that lifestyle changes can't stick.

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

#428

Post by laserlight »

mister_mister wrote: post #396
laserlight wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bo…

A model being difficult or tedious to quantify doesn't make it false. And, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

> 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.

The whole physics is a magic box. We find qualities of materials after we measure them, because that's how the model is constructed.

Let's say that I have a model called mass in volume out (MIVO). It states that mass of a liquid predicts its volume. We measure how much volume a certain amount of water takes, vary the amount, see if the model works, and it does. But a MIVO-denier is not happy, because our measurements with water doesn't reproduce with mercury. Well, duh, because they have different densities. MIVO-denier is still not satisfied, because now they have to go through the tedious task of finding the density of the material they have to work with before being able to apply the model. Furthermore, they have to keep the temperature constant, not mix liquids, etc. Yet, MIVO works regardless of how difficult it is to quantify, measure, or use.

PS: Thanks for the reference. I had missed it.

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

#429

Post by throw1234651234 »

jeltz wrote: post #363
throw1234651234 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A reasonable challenge would be to run a 24 minute (8min/mile) 5k without falling apart in the next two days. Most people cannot run 3 miles at a 9 minute pace consistently. This is assuming low BMI.

"I feel that is roughly equivalent to dead lifting 500 lbs."

It is and it's not. No one naturally deadlifts 500lbs. Maybe 315, maybe. 500lbs is 3+ years of training. Most won't ever hit it even after 10. (Diet, sleep, injuries). A lot of 10 year olds can run 6min miles due to low bw though. It's two completely different standards.

With that said, you are absolute underrating the difficulty of both.

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

#430

Post by throw1234651234 »

logicchains wrote: post #269
throw1234651234 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Nor will you deadlift 500 lbs Maybe not 500lbs but somebody could certainly eventually deadlift 400lbs from 3x8 minutes once a week, as long as they keep it intense and keep increasing the weight. I say that as someone who can deadlift more than 400lbs after many years of practicing around 30 minutes/week. If you're lifting hard, a week is barely enough time for the body to recover anyway.

1. You are not counting warm up. 2. You are not counting specialization? What, do you just dl? What about bench,row,squat,ohp,PU? 3. What about stretching and other maintenance? 4. Diet, sleep, etc.

I believe you, but you are really confusing people who don't know what it takes like the poster above.

Post reply on HN