4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - Someone1234 7y ago
      > They are adherence rates within a pre-selected group of people for a specific study (apologies if i am reading this wrong). Yes, that's generally how studies work. > 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. You have to view it in context, diet and exercise changes have a very low adherence rate historically. It may be "low" but even that is a marked improvement over a lot of the alternatives. You asked for data that showed these strategies had good adherence rates, which I provided. I could find additional studies, but those too would have a scope and would therefore be dismissed just as readily. I don't have a population-level study to link.

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.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    > They are adherence rates within a pre-selected group of people for a specific study (apologies if i am reading this wrong). Yes, that's generally how studies work. > 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. You have to view it in context, diet and exercise changes have a very low adherence rate historically. It may be "low" but even that is a marked improvement over a lot of the alternatives. You asked for data that showed these strategies had good adherence rates, which I provided. I could find additional studies, but those too would have a scope and would therefore be dismissed just as readily. I don't have a population-level study to link.