191–200 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no control of not doing the 20 sec sprints, so i'm not sure how I can conclude that the sprints give the benefit vs the low intensity work surrounding it.
Control would not be safe, going from 500w to idle can cause cardiac problems. Especially with elevated bmi.
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-…
Do you have references for this? My understanding is that low heart rate training is still standard for elite endurance athletes.
Eliud Kipchoge, WR in marathon, seems to only be doing one hard faster than race pace workout each week. Call that the HIT. The others are slow or race pace. What actually stands out most to me is the specificity of running close to a race pace marathon every week. https://www.sweatelite.co/eliud-kipchoge-a-typical-week-of-t...
Then on the other end of the spectrum, the Ingebrigsten family of runners seems to put an emphasis on quality. But even though they do more faster running they keep a lid on the intensity to avoid training to exhaustion. It actually reminds me more of the "Grease the Groove" concept where the faster running may be more for neurological reasons. https://www.outsideonline.com/health/running/culture-running...
Anyway, neither of these two training models seem to have much in common with HIT. The bulk of the workouts are easy intensity and they are both seemingly ware of the dangers of high intensity. That's where injuries come from and so there can't be too much of it.
Doesn't high intensity exercise have a greater risk of injury ? For instance, they did sprint intervals here, I think that I might need a 15 minute run just to warm up my knees enough to do the sprints (getting older sucks).
Cycling sprints, on exercise bike.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. If you start exercising, but don't watch your nutrition, you will most likely not lose weight.
>People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. This isn't universally true. Exercise significantly decreases my appetite for about 3 hours post exercise. And for me, it's not just a barely noticeable decrease - it's an extremely noticeable long-lasting appetite decrease where I'll often end up skipping meals. Do a quick google search for "exercise decrease appetite"…
The reason why this is quite simple, body is unable to see the difference betweenexercise and staying alive in a hostile world. As such staying alive will always be prioritized. If CICO would work then we wouldn't be obesity pandemic[1]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_nervous_system [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28292617/
It's 8 minutes, not one minute The people in the study were out of shape to start with The improved measures were insulin sensitivity index, peak oxygen uptake, and "skeletal muscle mitochondrial content" No change in body mass In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over…
> In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over 12 weeks This seems like a pretty negative reading. How about: Sedentary people (who have the most issues and highest healthcare costs), can see significant improvements in health by exercising for a fraction of time normally…
Where are you getting that from? Are the changes seen in the fitness factors especially significant, and if so, how significant? What's the expected health outcome here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a criticism of cross-fit specifically and not HIIT workouts in general. I'd personally not recommend this training to newcomers but that's because I think the study is total bunk, not because I'd be worried about an injury.
Crossfit is bad for most people for other reasons as well. For example, look at how they do pull-ups [1]. It's basically a fitness meme at this point - they use form that doesn't encourage general strength, just swinging around and putting pressure on the arm/shoulder joints on the way down, for the sake of increasing competition rep numbers. This seems utterly pointless unless you really care about winning Crossfit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.totalwellbeingdiet.com/media/2266/18-00521-secre... https://www.publish.csiro.au/RD/RD20326 The CSIRO has been researching for decades as to what the best bang for buck is with regards exercise.
There's no doubt exercise is essential here. There's just lots of people pushing the idea that diet / food restriction alone is sufficient for weight loss or that the goal of exercise is to "burn calories", suggesting the two are directly correlated.
In the isolated context of losing weight, it doesn't seem like exercise is essential. Or to state in less absolute terms, exercise has less influence than diet choices for purposes of losing weight and maintaining it.
In my case, I noticed that the pounds melted off when I stopped drinking sugary sodas and eating bread/snacks and switched to more vegetables with olive oil. In contrast , when I started exercising regularly, I actually gained more weight.
The thing that messes up the simplistic idea of "exercise burns calories so with 2nd law of thermodynamics you lose weight" ... is the body's overwhelming desire to maintain homeostasis. (https://www.google.com/search?q=homeostasis)
Homeostasis means that more exercise can cause more hunger and thus bigger meals which offsets the exercise so no weight is lost.
Likewise, deliberately eating less can cause the body to conserve energy and do less physical activity which re-balances the body to not lose any weight.
For many folks, a long-term way to adjust the homeostasis is to change the diet from high-carb to low-carb and switch out the 400-calorie Starbucks frappuccinos and sugary sodas to green tea and 0-calorie sparkling water. These diet alterations have more chances of success than maintaining the discipline of burning 500+ calories a week via exercise.
Exercise is essential for healthy heart and bone strength but there are counteracting factors when used as a tool to specifically lose weight.
Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. The issues are, and especially when you are out of shape: * adherence -- it is difficult to keep people do hard, high intensity exercises regularly. Part of being a runner is learning to deal with pain but people who are out of shape are almost by definition new to this and are not yet accustom…
> Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. “Does more” is hella vague. As a 40-mile a week runner I find that low intensity runs “do more” for me because they’re more relaxing.
Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. The issues are, and especially when you are out of shape: * adherence -- it is difficult to keep people do hard, high intensity exercises regularly. Part of being a runner is learning to deal with pain but people who are out of shape are almost by definition new to this and are not yet accustom…
No. This is actually wrong. You should read Scott Johnston's "Training for the Uphill Athlete" to understand why.