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

71–80 of 152 posts

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#71

Post by gnah »

judk wrote: post #66
KobaQ wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but the other has no effect for people with an average fitness level. It lacks intensity.

People who work out less than 6 minutes per day are all below average fitness level.

Consider the audience. For an overweight person who only walks to their car and back the routine in the article could get them to a meager level of fitness. For someone who walks or bicycles for any of their transportation or for pleasure it won't have any effect. As a European this is most people I know.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#72

Post by ghshephard »

gnah wrote: post #42

I should be able to do better than this. Presenting The Broscientific 7-Minute Workout: A: 5x Back Squat 5x Weighted Chin-up or Barbell Row B: 5x Deadlift 5x Olympic Press Repeat alternating. Do as many warm up singles as you can fit (max 5) ascending in weight before each heavy set. Increase weight on every exercise as often and as much as possible. Get or make some micro plates to extend linear progress when you ca…

The workout that the New York Times to presenting is something that anybody can do even if you are on the road and don't have access to a gym. The workout that you're referring to, has significantly more overhead, requires a gym, and certainly takes more than seven minutes out of each morning. With that said, as a fan of starting strength, I highly approve of your workout.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#73

Post by afterburner »

KobaQ wrote: post #65
glibgil wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your workout costs money. The other workout is free.

True, but the other has no effect for people with an average fitness level. It lacks intensity.

It's actually pretty good for warming up and helps with back problems.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#74

Post by alexnewman »

danieltillett wrote: post #43

I managed to develop a 5 minute workout that performs remarkable well for the time involved (it is not a pleasant 5 minutes though). The basis routine is 30 seconds absolutely flat out on an exercise bike cranked right up, then 30 seconds slow recovery. I do this first thing in the morning (before having a shower) and after fasting for at least 12 hours. I then don’t eat for 3 hours afterwards. It works remarkable we…

That's amazing. Why?

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#75

Post by goblin89 »

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?

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#76

Post by jamesaguilar »

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?

I doubt there has been anything on Stronglifts in particular. Strength training[1] in general and progressive overload[2] in particular is pretty well-supported, as far as I know. Stronglifts is just one of many schedules of weight training.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training
    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_overload

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#77

Post by ghshephard »

gnah wrote: post #71
judk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who work out less than 6 minutes per day are all below average fitness level.

Consider the audience. For an overweight person who only walks to their car and back the routine in the article could get them to a meager level of fitness. For someone who walks or bicycles for any of their transportation or for pleasure it won't have any effect. As a European this is most people I know.

The nyt article is pretty high intensity - walking alone (i speak as one who walks everywhere) doesn't get your heart rate racing unless you really put some effort into it, and certainly doesn't stress any muscle groups. Your average sedentary individual would not be able to complete the 7 minute workout. If they were signicantly overweight they would likely collapse 2 minutes into it.

The goal of this type of training is to yield the greatest amount of impact with the least amount of effort in the shortest amount of time.

Anybody who did the nyt 7 minute exercise at max intensity for a couple months is going to be in good shape. Do it everyday for 6 months and they will be in the 90th percentile of physical fitness in the United States for their age group.

Which I think is a pretty good return for 7 minutes out if your day with no equipment other than a chair.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#78

Post by ghshephard »

judk wrote: post #69
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…

Why not make exercise more fun instead? Play a sport, bike instead of car, etc...

The difference between exercise/sports and training is the goal of getting the most amount of measurable impact towards a specific set of goals with the least amount of effort and time invested.

It may be the case that playing sports (particularly soccer) will yield some progress towards your targets, but that will be with greatly reduced efficiency than if you put focussed effort to specific goals.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#79

Post by kyberias »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #56
brandonmenc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just about every powerlifting or strength/mass program, from novice to expert, has multiple squat days a week. The theory is that because the large areas (ex: leg, back) are actually composed of many muscles, you can hit them more frequently with slight variations (working different parts/ranges/etc.) and still recover.

I have never heard of that. To my understanding, the important elements are: - Recovery doesn't take seven days. - Squats target the biggest muscles. - The biggest muscles produce the most testosterone, enabling you to make gains in other muscle groups more easily. Given those and the constraints of safety and putting up the most weight you can for a decent amount of volume, you want to squat as often as possible. No…

Molecular biology student here. I've never heard muscles producing (synthesizing) testosterone. It's synthesized in male testicles and adrenal gland. Care to elaborate what do you mean?

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#80

Post by mattfrommars »

danieltillett wrote: post #43

I managed to develop a 5 minute workout that performs remarkable well for the time involved (it is not a pleasant 5 minutes though). The basis routine is 30 seconds absolutely flat out on an exercise bike cranked right up, then 30 seconds slow recovery. I do this first thing in the morning (before having a shower) and after fasting for at least 12 hours. I then don’t eat for 3 hours afterwards. It works remarkable we…

Do you fast 12 hour straight or do you break every 3 hours? I'm thinking of fasting too to keep my weight down but don't know what routine to follow
Post reply on HN