4 ms·

from what i understand (not being in any way a professional in any related field), its best to even split it up during the day. 15min early, 15min late is bette

from what i understand (not being in any way a professional in any related field), its best to even split it up during the day. 15min early, 15min late is better than 30min in a block? so i'd assume that short times more often is better

dpark 10y ago
> so i'd assume that short times more often is better I wouldn't assume this. The logical end of this is to split your exercise into many tiny bursts throughout the day. But it's likely that sustained output is an important part of exercising. The shorter your exercise, the less likely you are to get your heart into an elevated range, the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state (which encourages vascular growth), the less likely you are to use a significant portion of your free glucose (which is important for insulin sensitivity), etc. I don't know where the threshold is, but it seems like a bad idea to assume that shorter, more often is better. It likewise seems like a bad idea to assume that longer blocks are better (or just as good). Any exercise is far better than none, but there is a lot of support for ~30 minutes ~daily being extremely valuable. Absent evidence, I'd be hesitant to assume that some other arbitrary division of exercise would yield the same results.
- darkerside 10y ago
  > the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state I don't know if this is a safe assumption either. What makes you think it would take more than a few minutes of acute exercise to reach an oxygen depleted state?
  - dpark 10y ago
    Basic physics. Assuming you are generally healthy, your body is not usually in an oxygen-depleted state. Therefore it will take some amount of time in a state of increased oxygen use to cause oxygen depletion. Therefore, "the shorter your exercise, ... the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state". Depending on your fitness level and exercise level, it will take more or less time to put you into this state. An overweight, sedentary person sprinting will be there pretty much instantly. A marathon runner walking briskly won't get there in any amount of time. But all things being equal, more time exercising will be more likely to put you into an oxygen-depleted state (and glucose depleted state, and elevated heart rate).
    - darkerside 10y ago
      For endurance athletes like your marathon runner, this is certainly the case. Strength and power athletes can certainly expend far more energy in a shorter time than someone who is less fit. It's a bit of a paradox where the better shape you are in, the sooner you can tire yourself out. From everything I've read, it certainly seems possible to reach oxygen depletion in a very short period of time. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-of-all-out-exercise-may-equal-45-minutes-of-moderate-exertion/?referer= https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-of...
glangdale 10y ago
There's not much evidence for that, and some evidence that heart health is improved by sustained submaximal exercise. In my experience the best improvements I have sustained in overall fitness have been from either very short, very brutal exercise (NOT just splitting up a dose of 30 minutes into easy sections) or from chilling out for 40-60 minutes at comparatively easy pace. The latter has been something that you can do all the time; the harsh interval training is something that seems to work in 2-3 week bursts with time off afterwards. Anything is a lot better than nothing, but there is some evidence that there are all sorts of good effects from a longer session once in a while. The other thing about phasing in short brutal intervals for a few weeks and mostly doing Long Slow Distance ("LSD") is that it's either over quickly or it's quite pleasant. I get most of the exercise in the more painful 'middle' of this continuum from sport. EDIT: here's the article that got me interested in LSD style training. https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/echocardiography-evidence-of-cardiac-output-training/ https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/echocardiography...
- Insanity 10y ago
  Thank you for the link! Anything sure is bound to be better than nothing, I limit my sessions to 1 hour but alternate between doing an hour of constant excercise at a slower speed (I'm a swimmer), and doing shorter burts of intensive excercise but then taking a minute or two break after 2 lanes. Either way, I think it's easier to go for an hour 3 times a week, than doing half an hour each day. (would become a bit more pricey, and I'd lose the time of going to the pool and back each day. Not as easy to combine with other responsibilities imo)

dpark 10y ago

> so i'd assume that short times more often is better I wouldn't assume this. The logical end of this is to split your exercise into many tiny bursts throughout the day. But it's likely that sustained output is an important part of exercising. The shorter your exercise, the less likely you are to get your heart into an elevated range, the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state (which encourages vascular growth), the less likely you are to use a significant portion of your free glucose (which is important for insulin sensitivity), etc. I don't know where the threshold is, but it seems like a bad idea to assume that shorter, more often is better. It likewise seems like a bad idea to assume that longer blocks are better (or just as good). Any exercise is far better than none, but there is a lot of support for ~30 minutes ~daily being extremely valuable. Absent evidence, I'd be hesitant to assume that some other arbitrary division of exercise would yield the same results.

darkerside 10y ago
> the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state I don't know if this is a safe assumption either. What makes you think it would take more than a few minutes of acute exercise to reach an oxygen depleted state?
- dpark 10y ago
  Basic physics. Assuming you are generally healthy, your body is not usually in an oxygen-depleted state. Therefore it will take some amount of time in a state of increased oxygen use to cause oxygen depletion. Therefore, "the shorter your exercise, ... the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state". Depending on your fitness level and exercise level, it will take more or less time to put you into this state. An overweight, sedentary person sprinting will be there pretty much instantly. A marathon runner walking briskly won't get there in any amount of time. But all things being equal, more time exercising will be more likely to put you into an oxygen-depleted state (and glucose depleted state, and elevated heart rate).
  - darkerside 10y ago
    For endurance athletes like your marathon runner, this is certainly the case. Strength and power athletes can certainly expend far more energy in a shorter time than someone who is less fit. It's a bit of a paradox where the better shape you are in, the sooner you can tire yourself out. From everything I've read, it certainly seems possible to reach oxygen depletion in a very short period of time. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-of-all-out-exercise-may-equal-45-minutes-of-moderate-exertion/?referer= https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-of...

glangdale 10y ago

There's not much evidence for that, and some evidence that heart health is improved by sustained submaximal exercise. In my experience the best improvements I have sustained in overall fitness have been from either very short, very brutal exercise (NOT just splitting up a dose of 30 minutes into easy sections) or from chilling out for 40-60 minutes at comparatively easy pace. The latter has been something that you can do all the time; the harsh interval training is something that seems to work in 2-3 week bursts with time off afterwards. Anything is a lot better than nothing, but there is some evidence that there are all sorts of good effects from a longer session once in a while. The other thing about phasing in short brutal intervals for a few weeks and mostly doing Long Slow Distance ("LSD") is that it's either over quickly or it's quite pleasant. I get most of the exercise in the more painful 'middle' of this continuum from sport. EDIT: here's the article that got me interested in LSD style training. https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/echocardiography-evidence-of-cardiac-output-training/ https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/echocardiography...

Insanity 10y ago
Thank you for the link! Anything sure is bound to be better than nothing, I limit my sessions to 1 hour but alternate between doing an hour of constant excercise at a slower speed (I'm a swimmer), and doing shorter burts of intensive excercise but then taking a minute or two break after 2 lanes. Either way, I think it's easier to go for an hour 3 times a week, than doing half an hour each day. (would become a bit more pricey, and I'd lose the time of going to the pool and back each day. Not as easy to combine with other responsibilities imo)