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

461–470 of 506 posts

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

#461

Post by FatActor »

sn9 wrote: post #446
FatActor wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, black and white thinking doesn't solve the problem. It just alienates people, and sometimes worse.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. It is an objective fact that caloric surpluses and deficits are fundamental to manipulating bodyweight. Any solution will be about getting people to maintain a surplus or deficit long enough to reach their goal weight. There are many ways to communicate that to people, but pretending or trying to convince others that it isn't true is factually incorrect and literally counter-…

You keep saying less is less more is more. That's a truism which is completely orthogonal to the point, yet you seem to be hung up on it to the exclusion of everything else every other commenter has said to you. Consider that just for a moment.

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

#462

Post by oezi »

tayo42 wrote: post #445
oezi wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 hours of strenuous exercise. This should consume around 3000 kcals. Studies have found that humans cannot consume more calories than 2.5x their basal metabolic rate.

You have to misinterpreting something. 2.5x is 4750 calories total. Athletes are eating more then that.

The key insight is that you can eat more, but your body will not consume it.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0341

And nobody is saying you can't expend more energy for shorter times. It is just that you can't sustain it over long times because of our metabolic limits.

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

#463

Post by laserlight »

mister_mister wrote: post #433
laserlight wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> A model being difficult or tedious to quantify doesn't make it false. And, all models are wrong, but some are useful. Here is a link from Harvard saying to stop counting calories[0]. Here is another link from Havard[1] going over the contestants of the biggest loser and how they are doing now. There is new model The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity[2] which has explanation that does explain the edge cases CICO…

I understand that by quoting my reply on usefulness, you claim that “calories in, calories out” model is not useful. For the model to not be useful, one should prove that people gain weight while consuming a caloric deficit, or that people lose weight while consuming a caloric surplus.

I don't see how these references show that. They are irrelevant to our discussion. The first Harvard piece is bullshit, written for those feel-good types who don't want to put in the effort of losing weight. The second one has nothing to do with “calories in, calories out”. It just states some observation on contestants. The paper has “calories in, calories out” in the title, yet doesn't talk about the model at all. It talks about something else, called conventional model.

Nowhere in “calories in, calories out” I understand that it is easy to create deficit by eating junk food or that one can go back to their old lifestyle once they have lost weight. People fight with an imaginary enemy.

I think that I've explained my view as well as I could. Thanks for your participation.

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

#464

Post by newaccount74 »

SamPatt wrote: post #418
px43 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds neat. For me, after I exercise, I get ravenously hungry and am unable to concentrate for the rest of the day unless I eat a 3-5k calorie meal. I heard it would get better over time, so I did it for a year, one hour with a really good personal trainer, three times a week. It put a lot of strain on my relationships, and I got in trouble at work since I was basically at half capacity, and couldn't get any wo…

That's rough. 3k-5k calorie meal? That's an entire day's worth of calories, for someone really active. Strange your body didn't adapt.

3k-5k calories is 3 big burgers with fries, or two pizzas.

If GP is eating that much, they are very overweight. You don't burn that much calories during exercise, unless you are running a marathon (which I would not recommend doing 3 times a week).

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

#465

Post by matsemann »

matwood wrote: post #212
matsemann wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Citation needed. But no citation needed from your personal experience of never seeing it..? I think you're reading waaaay too much into what I'm saying.

Yeah. If you're saying 'often' then people who work out and/or train people a lot should have a decent likelihood of seeing it. I know it happens because I've read articles of it happening. But the way people bring it up any time a fitness discussion occurs is a meme at this point.

My point was that it happens more with beginners, so an experienced not seeing it often is expected..

Btw here is a local source. Three people got it from a group session. The doctor in the article says it happens about 400 times a year in little Norway, and that the group most often affected is people that used to be fit many years ago, and then start off too hard.

https://www.nrk.no/nordland/innlagt-pa-nordlandssykehuset-me...

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

#466

Post by mister_mister »

laserlight wrote: post #463
mister_mister wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A model being difficult or tedious to quantify doesn't make it false. And, all models are wrong, but some are useful. Here is a link from Harvard saying to stop counting calories[0]. Here is another link from Havard[1] going over the contestants of the biggest loser and how they are doing now. There is new model The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity[2] which has explanation that does explain the edge cases CICO…

I understand that by quoting my reply on usefulness, you claim that “calories in, calories out” model is not useful. For the model to not be useful, one should prove that people gain weight while consuming a caloric deficit, or that people lose weight while consuming a caloric surplus. I don't see how these references show that. They are irrelevant to our discussion. The first Harvard piece is bullshit, written for t…

Thank you, for at least reading the sources:) At this moment you'll be aware that are other ideas out there. To explain the link with biggest loser, the show used CICO model for the contestants to lose weight. And they did lose weight, So that would suggest CICO is working. But there was follow up and almost all contestants got their original weight back, and others could only eat 1200 calories in a day, that's unsustainable.

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

#467

Post by mister_mister »

sn9 wrote: post #447
mister_mister wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "This idea of 'a calorie in and a calorie out' when it comes to weight loss is not only antiquated, it's just wrong,"[0] Link from havard. You are under the incorrect understanding that human body is closed system. Food doesn't need to be digested and what is digested doesn't need to be stored in fat cells. Question if you would eat all the food once a week would it have the same effect? Because in a closed system…

I have a literal degree in biology and have been reading about physiology, health and fitness, and related topics for well over a decade. You have no idea what you're talking about. This is textbook level stuff and you clearly haven't read a single one. Your wiki level understanding is missing the forest for the chlorophyll.

Would it be possible to at least look at the sources and argue against them? A appeal to authority, and an Ad hominem won't help the discussion along.

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

#468

Post by mister_mister »

type-r wrote: post #442
mister_mister wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading about the diet of DK Metcalf that is Low carb, Intermittent fasting, with plenty of vegetables is according to the latest science. Eddie Hall has goal based diets, Normal people wouldn't be able to process the amount of food he eats, can't be healthy to eat that much. But at the same time it's clearly working for him. Just saying genetics does a disservice to them.

How can a diet both be plenty of vegetables but also low carb? As far as I know basically all vegetables are 50~70% carbs.

Low carb diet is about lowering the amount of carbs someone consumes, only some vegetables that have many carbs or starches are best to avoided, because they have more then 60% of their content in the form of carbs vs less then 10% for other vegetables. on the list to avoid, or eat limited amounts are Potatoes, rice, grains.

For example: Broccoli has 6 gram of carbs per 100 gram vs rice that has 80 grams of carbs per 100 gram.

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

#469

Post by scott_w »

matsemann wrote: post #465
matwood wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. If you're saying 'often' then people who work out and/or train people a lot should have a decent likelihood of seeing it. I know it happens because I've read articles of it happening. But the way people bring it up any time a fitness discussion occurs is a meme at this point.

My point was that it happens more with beginners, so an experienced not seeing it often is expected.. Btw here is a local source. Three people got it from a group session. The doctor in the article says it happens about 400 times a year in little Norway, and that the group most often affected is people that used to be fit many years ago, and then start off too hard. https://www.nrk.no/nordland/innlagt-pa-nordlandssyk…

This is a common case I see of misusing statistics without really understanding what's happening. I can't read Norwegian but I'll take a stab at what's happened here (based on my knowledge of other articles and having 20 years of personal experience of fitness training).

- This wasn't one group session but repeated sessions of HIIT back to back (maybe even daily).

- There wasn't sufficient rest between sessions.

- Some of these were older (50+) patients.

The most important part is the repeated sessions. Doing a single session of HIIT pull-ups or sprint intervals on the bike aren't going to cause major muscle damage, even in an untrained person. Doing 5 days back-to-back, repeatedly going beyond failure (something Crossfit is notorious for), with improper form, are what causes the issue.

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

#470

Post by matsemann »

scott_w wrote: post #469
matsemann wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that it happens more with beginners, so an experienced not seeing it often is expected.. Btw here is a local source. Three people got it from a group session. The doctor in the article says it happens about 400 times a year in little Norway, and that the group most often affected is people that used to be fit many years ago, and then start off too hard. https://www.nrk.no/nordland/innlagt-pa-nordlandssyk…

This is a common case I see of misusing statistics without really understanding what's happening. I can't read Norwegian but I'll take a stab at what's happened here (based on my knowledge of other articles and having 20 years of personal experience of fitness training). - This wasn't one group session but repeated sessions of HIIT back to back (maybe even daily). - There wasn't sufficient rest between sessions. - So…

This was a new type of training session in that gym. One of those affected was a 26 year old, the two others ~40. I don't get why you feel the need to make up causes.

Most of what I read points out that it's more likely to happen to untrained individuals. It may be because they start to hard over multiple days, but that's not going against what I've said multiple times: that it's a high risk for untrained individuals jumping into high intensity training. _That's_ my point.

Post reply on HN