Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

well.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#111

Post by revelation »

goblin89 wrote: post #75
jamesaguilar wrote: post #29

I tried the seven minute workout for a little while and saw no improvement in any dimension. This[1], on the other hand, has gotten me some significant results so far, five months in. [1] http://stronglifts.com/

Any non-anecdotal data supporting StrongLifts workout healthiness?

The health benefits of any strength training program aren't going to be exactly mindblowing. The biggest mortality factor you can hope to improve on using exercise is cardiovascular health, and strength training does little here.

(Theres a study on risk factors from smoking to education here:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/4549/JOC7046....)

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#112

Post by eitally »

jordanpg wrote: post #28

My reaction to this is similar to this one: http://norvig.com/21-days.html (Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years) I've been exercising regularly for a long time and know pretty well what my "equilibrium" exercise time is, and it's about 5 - 6 times longer than 7 minutes. If I thought it could be shorter, then I would make it shorter because my #1 goal is to minimize the number of minutes of my life I spend on exer…

It really just depends what you're training for. In running, for example, Usain Bolt probably doesn't run more than about 15-20 miles per week, but Mo Farah does about 115-120. This "problem" is the same reason BMI is a stupid gauge of health ... unless you're in the fat part (no pun intended) of the bell curve. I'm primarily a runner and my daily runs are in the 50-60 minute range, with short speed workouts and longer, slower long runs, but I augment with bodyweight core & swimming during the week, too (and indoor cycling in the winter). But my goals are not at all the same as yours or anyone else's, so ymmv.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#113

Post by GFischer »

cwilson wrote: post #110
agumonkey wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of this is boot overhead ? maybe with time people can reach 30min level of changes in a focused 7min.

Again, the only people 7 minutes of essentially cardio is going to benefit are people who are insanely out of shape. The second you're just in "ok" shape is the second 7 minutes is basically worthless to to you. I really hate that this 7 minute workout thing is becoming a trend. It's misleading in its benefits. If everyone writing or talking about it wants to clarify and say it's only beneficial for people who are da…

Well, I'm extremely out of shape, and I don't make time for workouts in my schedule.

However, my resistante is to get started ("boot time"), once I'm dressed for a workout (that is, not in a suit or jeans), 7 minutes or 14 or even maybe 30 is not that much of a difference.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#114

Post by agumonkey »

cwilson wrote: post #110
agumonkey wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of this is boot overhead ? maybe with time people can reach 30min level of changes in a focused 7min.

Again, the only people 7 minutes of essentially cardio is going to benefit are people who are insanely out of shape. The second you're just in "ok" shape is the second 7 minutes is basically worthless to to you. I really hate that this 7 minute workout thing is becoming a trend. It's misleading in its benefits. If everyone writing or talking about it wants to clarify and say it's only beneficial for people who are da…

Point taken. Why 30min though ? it's usually said that you'd need 45min to reach the deep fat burning. (from little experience, my body really reacted differently after 40minutes)

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#115

Post by randallsquared »

cwilson wrote: post #110
agumonkey wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of this is boot overhead ? maybe with time people can reach 30min level of changes in a focused 7min.

Again, the only people 7 minutes of essentially cardio is going to benefit are people who are insanely out of shape. The second you're just in "ok" shape is the second 7 minutes is basically worthless to to you. I really hate that this 7 minute workout thing is becoming a trend. It's misleading in its benefits. If everyone writing or talking about it wants to clarify and say it's only beneficial for people who are da…

People who are insanely out of shape might not even be able to do all of these exercises (particularly the tricep dip one).

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#116

Post by cwilson »

agumonkey wrote: post #114
cwilson wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the only people 7 minutes of essentially cardio is going to benefit are people who are insanely out of shape. The second you're just in "ok" shape is the second 7 minutes is basically worthless to to you. I really hate that this 7 minute workout thing is becoming a trend. It's misleading in its benefits. If everyone writing or talking about it wants to clarify and say it's only beneficial for people who are da…

Point taken. Why 30min though ? it's usually said that you'd need 45min to reach the deep fat burning. (from little experience, my body really reacted differently after 40minutes)

I just tossed out 30 because it's a nice number and seems reasonable. You are right however that 45 minutes is the standard. I think you'd actually see benefits from doing high intensity cardio for 30 minutes however. At the very least it's so much better than 7.

At the end of the day, if 7 minutes of cardio is all you can stand to do, you're screwed.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#117

Post by agumonkey »

randallsquared wrote: post #115
cwilson wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the only people 7 minutes of essentially cardio is going to benefit are people who are insanely out of shape. The second you're just in "ok" shape is the second 7 minutes is basically worthless to to you. I really hate that this 7 minute workout thing is becoming a trend. It's misleading in its benefits. If everyone writing or talking about it wants to clarify and say it's only beneficial for people who are da…

People who are insanely out of shape might not even be able to do all of these exercises (particularly the tricep dip one).

I did the tricep dip fairly often (deep and slow) and saw no changes (except my hand burning). Weird.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#118

Post by bitL »

cwilson wrote: post #108

The 7 minute workout is for people who want to feel like they are working out with minimal effort. It's kind of ridiculous. I tried this for a few weeks 4 times a week and saw/felt almost no benefit. Then I upped it to a 30 minute workout using the same set of exercises and saw quite a bit of progress. That's really the difference. You need your heart-rate pumping for 30 minutes to really see benefits from this, not…

Try to do the same intensity I do during 7-minute workout if you can't break a sweat ;-)

- 56 push ups - 44 abdominal crunches - 36 chair steps up - 35 squats - 56 triceps dips on chair - 30 lunges - 20 push ups with rotation

(all in 30 seconds)

I thought the point of this exercise was to slowly allow you to raise your intensity to have a real interval training, all while being constrained by time.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#119

Post by bitL »

cwilson wrote: post #116
agumonkey wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken. Why 30min though ? it's usually said that you'd need 45min to reach the deep fat burning. (from little experience, my body really reacted differently after 40minutes)

I just tossed out 30 because it's a nice number and seems reasonable. You are right however that 45 minutes is the standard. I think you'd actually see benefits from doing high intensity cardio for 30 minutes however. At the very least it's so much better than 7. At the end of the day, if 7 minutes of cardio is all you can stand to do, you're screwed.

If you do Tabata sprints, they will kill you in 4 minutes. So it really depends on how intense you can go instead of the time it takes.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#120

Post by IndianAstronaut »

Pamar wrote: post #99
spoiler wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about your fitness level at the time of trying the 7min workout? I'm asking because it's sort of important. If you were fit before you started with the workouts, I'd expect these wouldn't be a big improvement for you. Stronglifts looks very interesting (I've read most of thee content on the website), and it got me all excited about doing it, but quickly I realised that I can't even do basic shit. I'd say…

Have you tried "5 Tibetans"? (see here for more: http://pa-mar.net/Main/Lifestyle/5TibetanRites.html ) - it's not very strenouous, and you can increase the repetitions at your own pace (this should help considering the description of your current fitness state), does not require much time or any special equipment (just a yoga mat). I am fairly active (I practice Aikido 3/times week and been doing that for 25 years) b…

Leads directly to a page trying to get people to buy a book. Nice.
Post reply on HN