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

81–90 of 152 posts

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#81

Post by danieltillett »

alexnewman wrote: post #74
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?

I am not sure of what “why" you are asking about, but my aim was to find the exercise routine that took the least amount of time and still achieved the desired result. 5 round of 30s flat out is enough to get my heart rate up to its maximum and this seems to be all you need to do to increase your fitness - at least to the moderate levels I want.

In regards the fasting and not eating afterwards there is some scientific literature that exercise after 12 hours of fasting followed by no eating for 3 does helps in weight loss. I can’t say if this is true or not, but doing intense exercise does reduce my appetite for quite a while afterwards. By doing this I can avoid eating for around 15 hours a day which doesn’t leave that much time for me to eat too much.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#82

Post by mattfrommars »

yabatopia wrote: post #17

If I remember correctly from a BBC documentary it's important to have a warm up session first before you do an intense workout like this, especially when you're just starting out. You don't want to risk injuries. Be nice to your muscles, tensons and joints: damage can be permanent, I know from experience.

So how do I start with the warm up at home? I did notice when doing squats, I could hear some random noise coming from my knees.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#83

Post by goblin89 »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #76
goblin89 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thank you for the references.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#84

Post by danieltillett »

mattfrommars wrote: post #80
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

Well the 12 hour fast is basically from dinner the night before until morning the next day. This fasting is easy as most of the time I am asleep :)

The 3 hour fast afterwards is remarkably easy. I start to get hungry around 9.30am to 10.00am (around 2.5 hours in), but as I am usually hard at work at this time it is not too hard to resist eating until 10.30am. Other than this I eat whatever I like when I like.

One of the good things of this program is I only need one shower and I can cool down under warm water saving even more time. Most short exercise programs are much longer once you add in all the ancillary activities like changing clothes and showering - mine really is 5 minutes only.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#85

Post by danieltillett »

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.

When I was younger and had the time for serious weight lifting I found that I could do heavy lifts every day without issue provided that I slept afterwards. I used to get up at 4 am and lift massive weights for an hour and a half and then go home and sleep for a couple of hours (I was a student at the time who never went to a class before 11 am, but that is another story). Provided I slept my body could handle the load of doing this every day and I got massive increases in strength in a relative short period of time.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#86

Post by raverbashing »

kyberias wrote: post #79
jamesaguilar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Basically http://www.webmd.com/men/features/exercise-and-testosterone

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#87

Post by fasteo »

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.

In my experience, this is doable as long as you stick to these rules:

1. Leave one rep in the tank for every set you do. 5 reps means 5 picture-perfect repetitions. As soon as form starts to break down, you are doing it wrong.

2. Start light.

3. Eat like a horse. At least 10% above you maintenance levels in training days.

4. Deload every 4 weeks.

Note that I am 40+ years old. I have been squatting twice per week more than 3 years now.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#88

Post by fasteo »

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

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#90

Post by zhte415 »

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.

I agree recovery is key. I do one day per week legs, one day pulling based (upper body, legs of course somewhat involved), and one day pushing based (legs not really involved) weights. Each time large muscle groups first, working to smaller ones that aren't tired yet. A small amount of various whatever-I-feel-like cardio each day, from a fast hike to a swim. That and eating well.

Sometimes less is more.

Post reply on HN