1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016) • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by gnad_sucks » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:07 PM UTC

dr_dshiv wrote: post #285

cycomanic wrote: post #84

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-…

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight. I’ve never believed this — only because my weight is so consistent and my eating is not. My body must have a way to regulate the absorption of calories from the gut. When I have some insanely high calorie meal, my body doesn’t necessarily absorb all the calories. This seems easy to measure, so I must be wrong. Or…

There's a lot of truth in what you're saying. But maybe they use calorie intake to mean "calories actually absorbed by your body", and not "calories present in the food you put into your mouth"? Just generally speaking it would be difficult to believe that calory absorption doesn't depend on anything.

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

#292

Post by kelseyfrog » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:08 PM UTC

this_user wrote: post #248

watwut wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linking conservation of energy is just non argument. It has nothing to do with anything, because our bodies are not simple theoretical machine.

They are still subject to the basic laws of physics. If you do a certain amount of work, but you take in less than what you have spent, the body has to use its stored energy to make up for the difference. How else would this work? The body cannot magically materialise energy out of nothing, and it cannot use more than what is available in the form of intake plus storage.

Basic laws of physics is a misnomer. If I consume gasoline which has calories in the physics sense (31,000kcal/gal), it doesn't affect my weight. CICO is a broken model because it doesn't account for this.

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

#293

Post by acuozzo » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:08 PM UTC

tarsinge wrote: post #180

dmix wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight I've asked on HN a couple times in the past for citations that support this meme and haven't yet found a good source on this. The connection between caloric restriction and weight loss isn't as straight forward as people seem to think, despite that being the standard correlation pushed since the 1950s. Calories seems to be the c…

This is not a meme but basic physics. This is how you do your cut and bulk cycles to lose and gain exactly a planned amount of weight. My base energy expenditure is relatively low at around 1800 kcal. If I eat 2000 kcal I will gain around 1 kg in 35 days (1 kg of fat is a 7000 kcal surplus), and similarly I could lose 1 by eating 1600 kcal. For finding sources look up "TDEE". Weight loss is complicated because of the…

> This is not a meme but basic physics.

The issue is: How are we defining calories IN?

Consider the extreme example of having a parasitic worm living in your digestive system. Is IN == [food passing mouth] or is IN == [food not being ingested by worm(s)]?

Now consider "normal" digestive flora. How are we defining IN here?

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

#294

Post by jrochkind1 » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:09 PM UTC

It says "Free PMC article", but I'm having trouble finding anywhere to click to see the whole article instead of just abstract and citations.

Can anyone help me get it, whether that's me missing a place to click, or getting around paywall?

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

#295

Post by logifail » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:10 PM UTC

this_user wrote: post #254

itsoktocry wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here’s a video made by Eliud Kipchoge‘s athletics team that talks about the benefit of long runs: Is there any science here, or just anecdata from elite athletes, who are often terrible judges of their talent? It's really hard to judge this stuff.

You can read up on Dr. Stephen Seiler's research (or watch his lectures on YT). He is one of the leading academics in the field of endurance. His results clearly demonstrate that a "polarised" approach with at least 80% low intensity work yields superior results to more high intensity approaches even in athletes who only train for a limited amount of time each week (3-4h). That is not to say that HIT doesn't work, an…

> He is one of the leading academics in the field of endurance. His results clearly demonstrate that a "polarised" approach with at least 80% low intensity work yields superior results [..]

(Sorry, I have to ask) but results in what?

It sounds like there's a risk of focussing on (endurance) athletes, not on unfit sedentary desk workers. Talking about which of the former benefits most from which particular training methodology could be missing the point, which is that it's the latter who are the group who really need to get off our backsides to improve our general health.

In other words, getting a few extra % of performance out of already fit people is of interest to a minority, but is irrelevant as far as public health policy is concerned.

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

#296

Post by jononomo » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:10 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #270

Sure okay on paper. Now show me the average 5K race time for each group. The 3x 45minute group would destroy the 8 minute sprint group. It's all in how you define "fitness"

Why are you so confident? See my other comment.

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

#297

Post by edanm » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:12 PM UTC

dr_dshiv wrote: post #285

cycomanic wrote: post #84

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-…

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight. I’ve never believed this — only because my weight is so consistent and my eating is not. My body must have a way to regulate the absorption of calories from the gut. When I have some insanely high calorie meal, my body doesn’t necessarily absorb all the calories. This seems easy to measure, so I must be wrong. Or…

> I’ve never believed this — only because my weight is so consistent and my eating is not.

That's only one side of the equation.

It is a basically proven fact (and largely implied by physics) that `calorie intake - expenditure = net weight change`. That is pretty much beyond dispute.

It is also true that some things affect expenditure, and it seems likely that most people have a "set point" that your body attempts to return to. This is also almost certainly changeable, as people have managed to change it in the past. (And this is less surely true than other things known.)

So yes, it's entirely possible to eat "inconsistently" and not have net weight change, your body is probably subconciously causing you to eat less after you eat large meals, and vice versa. Or possibly causing you to expend more energy after large meals.

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

#298

Post by bjornsing » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:13 PM UTC

oriolid wrote: post #162

bjornsing wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? If the article says 50/500W then I’d say that’s the best objective description of the effort level.

The question is whether 500W counts as high intensity, and whether the results are applicable for people whose high intensity is 2 to 4 times higher than the test subjects. I have to admit that I didn't read the linked article, but previous similar ones had the low intensity reference at so low intensity it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that it didn't produce any results.

The surprise here is that it did produce results. So I’d say the lower the intensity the more interesting the result is.

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

#299

Post by clnq » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:13 PM UTC

tvrg wrote: post #228

dmix wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight I've asked on HN a couple times in the past for citations that support this meme and haven't yet found a good source on this. The connection between caloric restriction and weight loss isn't as straight forward as people seem to think, despite that being the standard correlation pushed since the 1950s. Calories seems to be the c…

I have the same question: People often calculate with calories as if it is really simple math. But - honest question - does my body really have to suck up every calorie or could it excrete some calories in the toilet and also vary that amount depending on my caloric intake? For example, I have read somewhere that you urinate superfluous proteins - which also have calories. Also, if I'm hungry I get cold. I might put…

We don't suck up all calories from what we eat. We know this because our fecal matter burns. What you have on dietary labels are dietary calories, which is what a typical human body can absorb. Not the "fuel" calories.

I think the understanding about dietary calories comes from the agricultural world where calories are much more involved in the economics of animal growth and weight gain. So we might not even be that sure that what we consider dietary calories are accurate for humans.

Assuming they are accurate, each individual digests a different % of all calories they ingest and it depends on many factors. It's a very imprecise science.

If you want, you can eat a given number of calories each day of just one meal (like Huel or Soylent) for a month. Then, for the last week of the month, you can see how much weight you gained or lost over 7 days. You will also need a medic to estimate your basal metabolic rate and you would need to stick to your daily physical activity habits consistently. And then you can arrive at some number of what % of dietary calories you absorbed for that particular food with those particular eating times, exercise habits, and so on.

I think it's a very impractical test. Maybe it might be easier to do in a very controlled environment in terms of energy expenditure, like in weightlessness. But then the weightlessness is a factor in digestion, too.

If someone found a way to accurately determine what % of dietary or fuel calories humans really absorb, the data would probably be as impactful in our understanding of diets as the Minnesota starvation experiment.

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

#300

Post by curiousllama » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:14 PM UTC

Having dabbled in a couple different exercise disciplines, I’d encourage very small updates to your priors from this study.

Every bodybuilder knows that you have to push to failure and rest a lot between sets. The term for low-intensity or unrested lifting is “junk volume.”

Every runner knows that 80% of your volume should be easy. It’s called “80/20 training.”

Every CrossFit bro knows you need both intensity and volume - and maximizing that over time is what’s important.

They all work, but in different ways + for different reasons.

There’s lots of studies that try to break the mold. Usually, they’re limited by the impracticality of a large N, or perfect adherence, or exogenous factors, or avoiding hype. It’s a limitation of the field. It just means things will go slower. Don’t worry too much about any one study.