21–30 of 159 posts
Would 8 minute HIIT a few times a week do the job?
Assuming that HIIT workouts are 100% vigorous activity (unlikely), then a "few" instances would only add up to around 24 minutes of vigorous activity, which is far short of the minimum recommended 75 minutes of vigorous activity.
If you are short on time then performing HIIT for 15 minutes five days a week will get you much closer to the minimum requirements.
I have a real-life friend whose hobby is studying this stuff. His recommendations boil down to:
- 1/week 20 minutes HIIT: 5 minutes warmup, 3x(2 minutes high intensity + 3 minutes low intensity) blocks.
- 1/week strength training focused on large muscle groups.
- 12,000 steps per day walking (HIIT excluded).
According to his reading of the literature, this gives you the best bang for your buck in terms of all-cause mortality avoidance. Most of the studies in this area are correlational, not randomized controlled trials, so it's hard to be sure. But I can vouch for his diligence in trying to get to the bottom of this. I've been following his program since January with reasonably good results over my already-active baseline.
His website is https://www.unaging.com/, and honestly it's a bit hard to recommend because he's definitely playing the SEO game: the articles are often repetitive of each other and full of filler. And the CMS seems janky. (I would tell you to find his older articles before he started optimizing for SEO, but, it seems like the CMS reset all article dates to today.) But, if you have patience, it might be worthwhile.
Would 8 minute HIIT a few times a week do the job?
tl;dr; Nope. Assuming that HIIT workouts are 100% vigorous activity (unlikely), then a "few" instances would only add up to around 24 minutes of vigorous activity, which is far short of the minimum recommended 75 minutes of vigorous activity. If you are short on time then performing HIIT for 15 minutes five days a week will get you much closer to the minimum requirements.
I haven't read the paper, but what I am curious about, how much of the damage can be turned back if someone becomes physically active after a long sedentary period? Let's say someone already had low fat oxidization and/or cardiovascular disease, how much of that can be "cured" by being active? This post claims: the good news is, this is reversible. But is that so? Is it also proven to reverse things in all cases? I w…
We know definitively that active is strictly better than inactive in all respects unless someone has such severe end stage cardiorespiratory issues that they risk actual death, or some other unusual condition that makes exercise contraindicated, in which case, of course, speak to a doctor and obey their advice.
Even if it merely preserves function (which I would be skeptical about, humans are amazingly adaptive), the alternative is inactivity and thus gradual loss of function indefinitely over time until death.
Between this and http://myticker.com (posted recently), I want to share a theory of mine: 1) the internet is mostly made up of spaces where the median opinion is vanishingly rare among actual humans. 2) the median internet opinion is that of a person who is deep into the topic they're writing about. The net result is that for most topics, you will feel moderate to severe anxiety about being "behind" about what you sh…
A lot of people in the comments are expressing curiosity about "ideal" amounts of exercise to avoid these sorts of problems. I have a real-life friend whose hobby is studying this stuff. His recommendations boil down to: - 1/week 20 minutes HIIT: 5 minutes warmup, 3x(2 minutes high intensity + 3 minutes low intensity) blocks. - 1/week strength training focused on large muscle groups. - 12,000 steps per day walking (H…
A lot of people in the comments are expressing curiosity about "ideal" amounts of exercise to avoid these sorts of problems. I have a real-life friend whose hobby is studying this stuff. His recommendations boil down to: - 1/week 20 minutes HIIT: 5 minutes warmup, 3x(2 minutes high intensity + 3 minutes low intensity) blocks. - 1/week strength training focused on large muscle groups. - 12,000 steps per day walking (H…
Isn't 12k steps like 6 miles? I could plausibly jog that much, but to walk it every day seems like a huge time commitment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the linked paper [0]: " - Sedentary (SED): Does not perform exercise regularly or elevate heart rate outside of daily tasks - Active (AC): Performs aerobic exercise for at least 150 minutes per week, and has at least a six-month history of doing so " A more comprehensive study that determines the optimal amount of exercise per week to achieve peak cellular function over a population would be quite intere…
I find this a bit confusing. If you're doing an hour of HIIT a week and additionally work as a removalist, a picker in a warehouse, or a white-water rafting instructor, you're sedentary? Or is there some middle group that was excluded from the study?
I haven't read the paper, but what I am curious about, how much of the damage can be turned back if someone becomes physically active after a long sedentary period? Let's say someone already had low fat oxidization and/or cardiovascular disease, how much of that can be "cured" by being active? This post claims: the good news is, this is reversible. But is that so? Is it also proven to reverse things in all cases? I w…