5 ms·

This is nonsense. Like people saying oh you can lose weight by being cold or breathing harder/more. Sure there is science behind it but in the end it does not p

by ck2 11y ago

This is nonsense. Like people saying oh you can lose weight by being cold or breathing harder/more. Sure there is science behind it but in the end it does not promote maintainable lifestyles. One minute all out may help athletes already in shape push to the next level. Like at the end of my long distance runs, I do a wind-sprint all out. But regular people doing regular exercise benefit much more mentally from learning HOW to exercise for 45 minutes every day and increasing their metabolism. If intensity training for a minute was all you needed, you could do sprints in the parking lot to train for a 45 minute 10K. Good luck with that. Intensity training is good for fast-twitch muscle. Endurance training is good for slow-twitch. The two are not interchangeable.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>If intensity training for a minute was all you needed, you could do sprints in the parking lot to train for a 45 minute 10K. Good luck with that. // That's not a logical conclusion. The intense workout is to achieve/maintain normal fitness not to enable someone to run a good 10k. If you can achieve moderate fitness with an intense workout then it seems much more likely to me that a person with such fitness will choose sports or other activities instead of remaining sedentary for the rest of the day.
Gatsky 11y ago
I don't understand your problem with the research/article. All they are claiming is that short intense intervals produce comparable improvement in aerobic fitness and metabolic variables as longer endurance exercise, in untrained young men. This is supported by many other studies. It doesn't try to prove that they will be equally good at running 10K, or have the same 'mental' benefits. That's a separate issue. Think about all the people that are unable or unwilling to exercise like you do. Is it nonsense that they could significantly improve their health with short intense exercise? Who cares about fast and slow twitch fibres.
yxhuvud 11y ago
> Intensity training is good for fast-twitch muscle. Endurance training is good for slow-twitch. The two are not interchangeable. [Citation needed]
- ck2 11y ago
  Fast vs Slow twitch has been understood since the 1970s. You think a body builder could ever run a 10K at sub-6 mile pace or a sub-6 runner benchpress what a body builder could?
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    The [citation needed] was for your association between muscle types and training types. For example, it's also a common assertion that intensity training is good for both fast and slow twitch muscles.
WettowelReactor 11y ago
One of the largest challenges for regular people is finding 45-90 minutes to exercise in the first place. Research on shortening the length of time required for effective exercises is a worthwhile pursuit.
- ck2 11y ago
  I might accept that but it feels like a cheating shortcut somehow. A major part of long distance running (10k+) is the mental aspect. You are never, ever, going to get the mental endurance and discipline to run fast for distance by running for a short period of time, no matter how hard.
  - adrianN 11y ago
    Most people don't want to be able to run 10k+, they want to stay healthy. Sports is fun as a hobby, but not everyone wants to have that hobby.
    - ck2 11y ago
      This kind of research allows people to think working out for only a couple minutes is okay if you do it hard. I think many people could easily train to do 5k and then 10k and get many benefits. Our very evolution came about from persistence hunting which means many people should have the genetics for endurance and far fewer for intensity (speed).
  - WettowelReactor 11y ago
    Training for long distance running is not a goal most people have. Discussions about endurance training and improving health of "normal" people are not the same discussion.
- cm2187 11y ago
  And the other thing is to keep focused for 45-90min on a bicycle in a gym, with nothing else to watch than wrestling and Justin Bieber in loop. That's where the real effort is.
cujo 11y ago
I think you're confusing a trained person training to get better with a sedentary person training to not be sedentary. In the weight training community there's a thing everyone calls "newb gains". It's basically this study in played out in a weightroom. In a nutshell, it's that you don't need interesting training programs or massive amounts of gym time to get started. Just a few basic lifts a few times a week. Once you get a baseline, your gains level out and you have to start being smarter with your training. I'll bet a solid handshake that the same general pattern will apply here. This study took out of shape people that didn't exercise and asked them to exercise. The program isn't so much important as is the fact that getting people doing anything strenuous ends up being beneficial. Eventually their "gains" will level out and if they want to run a 10k in under 45 minutes, they're going to have do a lot more interesting training.
- cclements 11y ago
  Good points. I'm in the camp that sees the claimed benefits of SIT as a logical extension of cardio exercise to the set/rest/set approach of weightlifting, but this study doesn't really answer that question. I'd really like to see an "equal time" comparison group to account for newb gains (e.g. MICT for 10 min vs SIT for 10 min) as well as directly compare the effect of the different approaches.

by ck2 11y ago

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>If intensity training for a minute was all you needed, you could do sprints in the parking lot to train for a 45 minute 10K. Good luck with that. // That's not a logical conclusion. The intense workout is to achieve/maintain normal fitness not to enable someone to run a good 10k. If you can achieve moderate fitness with an intense workout then it seems much more likely to me that a person with such fitness will choose sports or other activities instead of remaining sedentary for the rest of the day.

Gatsky 11y ago

I don't understand your problem with the research/article. All they are claiming is that short intense intervals produce comparable improvement in aerobic fitness and metabolic variables as longer endurance exercise, in untrained young men. This is supported by many other studies. It doesn't try to prove that they will be equally good at running 10K, or have the same 'mental' benefits. That's a separate issue. Think about all the people that are unable or unwilling to exercise like you do. Is it nonsense that they could significantly improve their health with short intense exercise? Who cares about fast and slow twitch fibres.

yxhuvud 11y ago

> Intensity training is good for fast-twitch muscle. Endurance training is good for slow-twitch. The two are not interchangeable. [Citation needed]

ck2 11y ago
Fast vs Slow twitch has been understood since the 1970s. You think a body builder could ever run a 10K at sub-6 mile pace or a sub-6 runner benchpress what a body builder could?
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  The [citation needed] was for your association between muscle types and training types. For example, it's also a common assertion that intensity training is good for both fast and slow twitch muscles.

WettowelReactor 11y ago

One of the largest challenges for regular people is finding 45-90 minutes to exercise in the first place. Research on shortening the length of time required for effective exercises is a worthwhile pursuit.

ck2 11y ago
I might accept that but it feels like a cheating shortcut somehow. A major part of long distance running (10k+) is the mental aspect. You are never, ever, going to get the mental endurance and discipline to run fast for distance by running for a short period of time, no matter how hard.
- adrianN 11y ago
  Most people don't want to be able to run 10k+, they want to stay healthy. Sports is fun as a hobby, but not everyone wants to have that hobby.
  - ck2 11y ago
    This kind of research allows people to think working out for only a couple minutes is okay if you do it hard. I think many people could easily train to do 5k and then 10k and get many benefits. Our very evolution came about from persistence hunting which means many people should have the genetics for endurance and far fewer for intensity (speed).
- WettowelReactor 11y ago
  Training for long distance running is not a goal most people have. Discussions about endurance training and improving health of "normal" people are not the same discussion.
cm2187 11y ago
And the other thing is to keep focused for 45-90min on a bicycle in a gym, with nothing else to watch than wrestling and Justin Bieber in loop. That's where the real effort is.

cujo 11y ago

I think you're confusing a trained person training to get better with a sedentary person training to not be sedentary. In the weight training community there's a thing everyone calls "newb gains". It's basically this study in played out in a weightroom. In a nutshell, it's that you don't need interesting training programs or massive amounts of gym time to get started. Just a few basic lifts a few times a week. Once you get a baseline, your gains level out and you have to start being smarter with your training. I'll bet a solid handshake that the same general pattern will apply here. This study took out of shape people that didn't exercise and asked them to exercise. The program isn't so much important as is the fact that getting people doing anything strenuous ends up being beneficial. Eventually their "gains" will level out and if they want to run a 10k in under 45 minutes, they're going to have do a lot more interesting training.

cclements 11y ago
Good points. I'm in the camp that sees the claimed benefits of SIT as a logical extension of cardio exercise to the set/rest/set approach of weightlifting, but this study doesn't really answer that question. I'd really like to see an "equal time" comparison group to account for newb gains (e.g. MICT for 10 min vs SIT for 10 min) as well as directly compare the effect of the different approaches.