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

121–130 of 152 posts

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#121

Post by arto »

pingswept wrote: post #31
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…

If it makes you feel better, each hour you spend exercising extends your life by around 3.5 hours (net 2.5 after the hour you spent) on average. These are just rough numbers, backed up by the Framingham heart study and an analysis of the Framingham data by Jonker, et al.: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/1/38.full.pdf They say 2.5 hours per week over a 75 year lifetime makes you live 3.5 years longer, and…

> each hour you spend exercising extends your life by around 3.5 hours [...] They say 2.5 hours per week over a 75 year lifetime makes you live 3.5 years longer, and 2.5 hours per week over 75 years is around 1 year.

That is significantly overstated. The study did not establish causation, only associations. The most that can be claimed is that A was predictor of B for group C.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#123

Post by garrettgrimsley »

31reasons wrote: post #97
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/

Too bad most gyms in my area (Los Angeles!) are not equipped for strong lifts. For example, just one barbell in the whole gym, No dead-lift platform etc. All of them just have machines . The only gyms equipped for Starting Strength / Strong Lifts workouts are Crossfit gyms but they somehow dislike the idea of only using weights. I offered my local Crossfit gym full membership fee just for access to the barbells and t…

Look for powerlifting gyms.

https://www.google.com/search?q=powerlifting+gym+los+angeles

http://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=Powerlifting&find_loc=L...

http://barbellbrigade.com/gym/

http://gametimestrength.tumblr.com

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#124

Post by TylerJay »

fasteo wrote: post #88
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/

The great coach Mark Rippetoe is the to go source for strength training [1] [1] http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/about

SS and StrongLifts serve similar purposes are are both effective. StrongLifts can be better for people starting from very low fitness levels, while SS remains effective up to a higher strength level.

This (unofficial, but true-to-source) site is a better resource for the actual Starting Strength programs if you don't want to buy the book: http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ:The_Program

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#125

Post by Silhouette »

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.

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

The patronising attitude isn't going to help anyone who has gotten that far out of shape.

Even if someone is sufficiently unfit that they can't do more than 7 minutes of cardio work in a session, they still have to start somewhere and build up. The alternative in most cases will be their fitness decaying even further.

Keep in mind that there are a lot of reasons people might be that unfit. Some will just be lazy. Others might be recovering from a serious injury or illness, and just being able to walk for five minutes to get to the shops unassisted is a big achievement.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#126

Post by TylerJay »

Alex_MJ wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5x5, 3x per week, bumping up 5# each session (we got a squat rack for the basement). It was rough getting started, but after a week or so, no big deal. I've had much more trouble consistently increasing weight on bench presses. In fairness, I probably have a mechanical advantage for squats.

Seconded. I'm a relatively experienced lifter - heavy squats 3x per week is brutal for the first week or so and then your body adapts to it. I've found that I'll actually stick with a ~hourlong workout, 3-5x a week that I believe in and have goals for over anything quick with no discernible aim. And it's amazing how time magically appears to actually show up at the gym when you prioritize it. A "scientific" 7 minute…

I agree with most of what you said, except for the part about doing the bare minimum not being motivating. I'm also a pretty experienced lifter (Been lifting for 9 years, can DL 3x my bodyweight, Squat 2.5x bodyweight, BP 1.6x) but I'm always looking for the bare minimum to improve. If that happened to be a 7 minute workout, that's what I would do. I think it's incredibly motivating to use your time really effectively. I spend probably about 1/4 to 1/2 the time in the gym as anyone else there with comparable fitness levels because I've done a lot of research on training methods and have tried tons of different programs and permutations to find the ones that are most effective for me.

I think you're right that the biggest problem with this is that there are "no discernible goals" associated with this "scientific" workout. For noticeable strength and physique improvements, the lowest I've found to be effective are 40 minute workouts 3 times per cycle with a cycle length of 7-10 days depending on the types of workouts done.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#127

Post by goblin89 »

revelation wrote: post #111
goblin89 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.... )

> The health benefits of any strength training program aren't going to be exactly mindblowing.

Health benefits of strength training listed on Wikipedia look still pretty attractive, to be honest. The primary obstacle is necessary equipment, for someone who travels around this means gym access becomes a factor.

I agree that cardio seems to be far more essential to health than strength training, though.

Thanks for sharing a very interesting document.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#128

Post by dredmorbius »

melling wrote: post #39
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/

I find it hard to believe that you can do squats more than one day a week. It takes a while for large muscles to recover, especially when you're doing heavy weight.

For Stronglifts / Starting Strength, you're starting out very light.

SL5x5 starts out with the unloaded bar, SS with a _lightly_ weighted bar. The whole idea is that you're initially _well_ below your actual potential.

You're increasing the weight fairly aggressively (10# per week for squats), but it'll take you a few months before you're up to significantly challenging weights.

You'll also re-set a few times, and eventually switch to a different progression.

If you're not going balls-to-the-wall, you can squat twice a week. If you're going heavy, 1x is more viable.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#129

Post by gnuvince »

bitL wrote: post #118
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.

56 pushups in 30 seconds? It seems to me the only way to do that is to either a) do them with extremely bad form, b) not go down completely, c) both of those. People like eshlow (author of "Overcoming Gravity") at /r/bodyweightfitness recommend a tempo of 10x1: lowering yourself for one second, staying 0 seconds at the bottom, pushing up as hard and fast as possible (x = explode), and holding for one second at the top. Using this tempo, you can do a max of 15 per 30 seconds.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#130

Post by vobios »

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…

> The 7 minute workout is for people who want to feel like they are working out with minimal effort.

The 7 minute workout was misinterpreted in the mainstream press. The scientific claims specifically mention a very high intensity workout that most people actually cannot reach. You need to train to get to the level where 7 minute workout makes sense for you.

"Research has demonstrated that improvements can be made in VO2max and insulin sensitivity in as little as 4 minutes of total exercise time in an HICT session. However, it is to be noted that this result often requires working at intensities equivalent to greater than 100% of VO2max. Because most individuals may not be able to execute the program at an intensity significantly greater than 100% of their VO2max, following the established ACSM guidelines for high-intensity exercise of at least 20 minutes is recommended. This may require multiple repetitions (or circuits) of a multistation exercise circuit." http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...

Post reply on HN