4 ms·

> because people actually do them and stick to them Do you have data to back this up? I would have thought the exact opposite. That HIIT and IM are techniques

> because people actually do them and stick to them Do you have data to back this up? I would have thought the exact opposite. That HIIT and IM are techniques that people try after having seen a Ted talk or something like that and don't make a life discipline out of them. I also think plenty of people have some "common sense discipline" such as cycling/walking to work, and not eating junk food and sodas, and trying to eat fruits and vegetables. I feel this is very sustainable with a high ratio benefit/cost.

cs02rm0 7y ago
Appreciate this is a sample size of one, but IM has worked reasonably well for me. I lost nearly 3 stone, my weight's up a little since then but I'm still within a pound or two of my lowest fat mass over a year on. All it really is to me is skipping breakfast and not snacking after my evening meal. I only ever had breakfast because people told me it wasn't healthy to skip it. Not so sure they were right now. I still pig out at lunch, dinner and in between times. https://i.imgur.com/v0OGPVz.png https://i.imgur.com/v0OGPVz.png
- LoveMortuus 7y ago
  How did you measure fat mass?
  - cs02rm0 7y ago
    The graph is from an app that comes with Withings smart scales and it's that I've used. (So take the absolute values with a pinch of salt, but I suspect they're in the right ballpark).
    - nradov 7y ago
      Withings smart scales are garbage for body fat measurement. I have the Body+ model and it fluctuates by ±4.3% day to day which is obviously not physically possible. And even the highest readings are still about 1.5% lower than my most recent DXA scan, which is far more accurate. (Yes I did try the scale's "athlete mode" but that was even less accurate.) In general electric measurements of body composition are just toys and not to be relied upon.
Someone1234 7y ago
> Do you have data to back this up? Yes e.g.: Fasting: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/5/1138/4598070 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/5/1138/4598070 Intermittent exercise: https://www.nature.com/articles/0800533 https://www.nature.com/articles/0800533 > I also think plenty of people have some "common sense discipline" such as cycling/walking to work, and not eating junk food and sodas, and trying to eat fruits and vegetables. I feel this is very sustainable with a high ratio benefit/cost. I agree. Those are also examples of "easy wins." We need more of exactly that, maybe even with support (e.g. cataloguing your life and looking for such wins). IM and HIIT are only as good as their adherence rates, but anything that people will stick to is worth serious evaluation and promotion.
- bosie 7y ago
  Aren't your two links not showing your earlier claims? The claim was that they stick to it, the outcome/benefits of sticking to it weren't disputed. I am asking because I also can't believe that people stick to IM or HIIT long term.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    Both of my links very specifically look at adherence rates. > Results: Dietary adherence remained high throughout the controlled food intake phase (days adherent: 86%) and the self-selected food intake phase (days adherent: 89%). And: > For both groups, moderate intensity, intermittent exercise showed excellent adherence and this may be a useful model for future research studies. So I'm not sure, having read both links, you came to the conclusion that it "doesn't prove my claims." They both very directly do.
    - bosie 7y ago
      Both of your links have nothing to do with general population adherence rate though. They are adherence rates within a pre-selected group of people for a specific study (apologies if i am reading this wrong). I was actually surprised by the low adherence rate. The studies were done on small sets of folks for a very short period of time (2/8months) with little effort to adhere and yet the participants couldn't even do that. I figured adherence rates for this would actually be 100%. After all, the researchers asked for 6 minutes a day, 5 days a week. The question I was interested in is roughly: If i randomly select 1000 people from the population and introduce them to HIIT, how many will do it 3-5 times a week 6/12/18/24 months after the introduction without any reporting and supervision? Again, sorry if i am totally misunderstanding the links.
thefz 7y ago
> That HIIT and IM are techniques that people try after having seen a Ted talk or something like that and don't make a life discipline out of them. I don't HIIT because I think it's more for runners (and I cycle), but Intermittent Fasting has been the easiest adoptable technique for me to keep my calorie intake in check. Just count the hours, really. I try to push a little bit more fasting hours than the typical 16:8, more like 18:6, and stick to a low carb, high fat sorta diet. I've been doing this for eight years and I don't see me stopping that soon, it's so simple to follow. There's no TED talk (not that I have seen one on IF) that can convince me more than direct first hand experience.

cs02rm0 7y ago

Appreciate this is a sample size of one, but IM has worked reasonably well for me. I lost nearly 3 stone, my weight's up a little since then but I'm still within a pound or two of my lowest fat mass over a year on. All it really is to me is skipping breakfast and not snacking after my evening meal. I only ever had breakfast because people told me it wasn't healthy to skip it. Not so sure they were right now. I still pig out at lunch, dinner and in between times. https://i.imgur.com/v0OGPVz.png https://i.imgur.com/v0OGPVz.png

LoveMortuus 7y ago
How did you measure fat mass?
- cs02rm0 7y ago
  The graph is from an app that comes with Withings smart scales and it's that I've used. (So take the absolute values with a pinch of salt, but I suspect they're in the right ballpark).
  - nradov 7y ago
    Withings smart scales are garbage for body fat measurement. I have the Body+ model and it fluctuates by ±4.3% day to day which is obviously not physically possible. And even the highest readings are still about 1.5% lower than my most recent DXA scan, which is far more accurate. (Yes I did try the scale's "athlete mode" but that was even less accurate.) In general electric measurements of body composition are just toys and not to be relied upon.

Someone1234 7y ago

> Do you have data to back this up? Yes e.g.: Fasting: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/5/1138/4598070 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/5/1138/4598070 Intermittent exercise: https://www.nature.com/articles/0800533 https://www.nature.com/articles/0800533 > I also think plenty of people have some "common sense discipline" such as cycling/walking to work, and not eating junk food and sodas, and trying to eat fruits and vegetables. I feel this is very sustainable with a high ratio benefit/cost. I agree. Those are also examples of "easy wins." We need more of exactly that, maybe even with support (e.g. cataloguing your life and looking for such wins). IM and HIIT are only as good as their adherence rates, but anything that people will stick to is worth serious evaluation and promotion.

bosie 7y ago
Aren't your two links not showing your earlier claims? The claim was that they stick to it, the outcome/benefits of sticking to it weren't disputed. I am asking because I also can't believe that people stick to IM or HIIT long term.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Both of my links very specifically look at adherence rates. > Results: Dietary adherence remained high throughout the controlled food intake phase (days adherent: 86%) and the self-selected food intake phase (days adherent: 89%). And: > For both groups, moderate intensity, intermittent exercise showed excellent adherence and this may be a useful model for future research studies. So I'm not sure, having read both links, you came to the conclusion that it "doesn't prove my claims." They both very directly do.
  - bosie 7y ago
    Both of your links have nothing to do with general population adherence rate though. They are adherence rates within a pre-selected group of people for a specific study (apologies if i am reading this wrong). I was actually surprised by the low adherence rate. The studies were done on small sets of folks for a very short period of time (2/8months) with little effort to adhere and yet the participants couldn't even do that. I figured adherence rates for this would actually be 100%. After all, the researchers asked for 6 minutes a day, 5 days a week. The question I was interested in is roughly: If i randomly select 1000 people from the population and introduce them to HIIT, how many will do it 3-5 times a week 6/12/18/24 months after the introduction without any reporting and supervision? Again, sorry if i am totally misunderstanding the links.

thefz 7y ago

> That HIIT and IM are techniques that people try after having seen a Ted talk or something like that and don't make a life discipline out of them. I don't HIIT because I think it's more for runners (and I cycle), but Intermittent Fasting has been the easiest adoptable technique for me to keep my calorie intake in check. Just count the hours, really. I try to push a little bit more fasting hours than the typical 16:8, more like 18:6, and stick to a low carb, high fat sorta diet. I've been doing this for eight years and I don't see me stopping that soon, it's so simple to follow. There's no TED talk (not that I have seen one on IF) that can convince me more than direct first hand experience.