6 ms·

> This study determined if the interruption of prolonged sitting (i.e.; 8-h of inactivity) with hourly cycling sprints of only 4-s duration each (i.e.; 4-s x 5

> This study determined if the interruption of prolonged sitting (i.e.; 8-h of inactivity) with hourly cycling sprints of only 4-s duration each (i.e.; 4-s x 5 per h x 8-h = 160-s per day; SPRINTS) improves PPL. The 4-s sprints employed an inertial load ergometer and were followed by 45-s of seated rest. So you would need to take a 5 x (4-s sprint + 45-s rest) = 245 seconds exercise break from work every hour and in return you could get the following results? > No differences (p>0.05) between interventions were found for plasma insulin or glucose AUC. However, SPRINTS displayed a 31% (408±119 vs. 593±88 mg/dL/6h; p=0.009) decrease in plasma triglyceride incremental AUC and a 43% increase in whole body fat oxidation (P=0.001) when compared to SIT. Does "whole body fat oxidation" mean that the an average male calorie burn of 2500 per day would be multiplied with 1,43 to 3575 calories per day?

swader999 6y ago
Fairly easy to incorporate this into a pomodoro cadence. Every other break do some high intensity bursts.
renewiltord 6y ago
Well, presumably you can work while resting. Honestly, I haven't found that to be too hard (I take a mid-day bike ride up the hill here in SF).
mikekchar 6y ago
> Does "whole body fat oxidation" mean that the an average male calorie burn of 2500 per day would be multiplied with 1,43 to 3575 calories per day? It seems extremely unlikely to me. I hesitate to bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics because I know if frustrates a lot of people in these discussions. However, bear with me. "Calories" in this context refers to kilocalories. Burning 1 kilocalorie produces enough energy to raise 1 kg of water 1 degree C. So burning an extra 1000 kilocalories per day means producing enough heat to raise the body temperature of a 100 kg person 10 degrees over the course of a day. Although our bodies are really good at cooling, that's not an insigificant amount of heat. It's of a magnitude that is relatively easily measured. If such a phenomenon were to exist, it seems inconceivable to me that the researchers would not try to measure it. I mean it is literally the holy grail of dieting. I think it is considerably more likely that the effect they are measuring is very interesting, but does not extrapolate out to this logical conclusion.
- covidSurvivor19 6y ago
  Your analysis seems to be in the right direction but I think that the body uses this energy in many more ways than just heat. Moving muscles, pumping blood, keeping ionic gradients in the kidneys, and in cells, producing waste products, do seem to take energy. Also, consider the water we lose due to evaporation just by breathing, we are constantly creating a significant amount of heat and dissipating it into the environment. This extra 1000Kcal would be roughly a 50 watt increase in average metabolic rate during a whole day. It does seem a bit high but anecdotally, my body temperature is 1C higher on days I do some tennis early in the morning. And more importantly my oftenly cold hands go away, so radiating more of it away.
  - samatman 6y ago
    > This extra 1000Kcal would be roughly a 50 watt increase in average metabolic rate during a whole day. This calculation makes the theory implausible. A resting human burns about 100 watts[0], this would imply 50% more energy output than that, over the whole day. I too find that I'm warmer after a workout, and sweat lightly for up to a few hours after my heart rate returns to normal, which itself takes almost an hour. So burning more energy than the workout itself? Absolutely. 1000 calories extra seems high for ~4 minutes of cycle sprinting per hour. The HIIT pacing of it is probably ~just as good as spending the whole 4 minutes cycling steadily though. All energy leaves the body as either work or heat, so of the processes you mentioned, moving things or yourself with your muscles is the only one that wouldn't raise temperature.
    - covidSurvivor19 6y ago
      I'm not denying the 2nd law, but metabolism is more complicated than just heat or mechanical work. One example, the process by which the body transforms ammonia into urea, requires energy. Not 100% sure of the details but some of this energy might be captured chemically, not sure if urea has a higher (free energy? I don't remember the exact term). Furthermore with this example, since urine is hyperosmotic, the body has to do a process against normal ion/water diffusion, in order to excrete minerals and not excessive water. This osmotic pressure, contains some potential energy.
alecco 6y ago
> Does "whole body fat oxidation" mean that the an average male calorie burn of 2500 per day would be multiplied with 1,43 to 3575 calories per day? No, it means they burned (oxidized) more fat. This would mostly be a higher % with same calories. Doing those tiny intervals of total 2m40s shouldn't raise significantly the total calorie consumption.
Someone 6y ago
I think we get energy directly out of carbohydrates and proteins, too. If so, that factor will be (¿much?) lower.
ZeroFries 6y ago
No it means the amount of calories coming from body fat is increased by 43%, which may amount to nothing over the course of the day if it also simultaneously increases appetite. Almost all forms of weight loss suffer from this problem - the amount of fat lost is generally proportional to the long-term appetite increase, so that 95% of people regain the weight.
bagacrap 6y ago
2500 calories is way over the average male rmr

swader999 6y ago

Fairly easy to incorporate this into a pomodoro cadence. Every other break do some high intensity bursts.

renewiltord 6y ago

Well, presumably you can work while resting. Honestly, I haven't found that to be too hard (I take a mid-day bike ride up the hill here in SF).

mikekchar 6y ago

> Does "whole body fat oxidation" mean that the an average male calorie burn of 2500 per day would be multiplied with 1,43 to 3575 calories per day? It seems extremely unlikely to me. I hesitate to bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics because I know if frustrates a lot of people in these discussions. However, bear with me. "Calories" in this context refers to kilocalories. Burning 1 kilocalorie produces enough energy to raise 1 kg of water 1 degree C. So burning an extra 1000 kilocalories per day means producing enough heat to raise the body temperature of a 100 kg person 10 degrees over the course of a day. Although our bodies are really good at cooling, that's not an insigificant amount of heat. It's of a magnitude that is relatively easily measured. If such a phenomenon were to exist, it seems inconceivable to me that the researchers would not try to measure it. I mean it is literally the holy grail of dieting. I think it is considerably more likely that the effect they are measuring is very interesting, but does not extrapolate out to this logical conclusion.

covidSurvivor19 6y ago
Your analysis seems to be in the right direction but I think that the body uses this energy in many more ways than just heat. Moving muscles, pumping blood, keeping ionic gradients in the kidneys, and in cells, producing waste products, do seem to take energy. Also, consider the water we lose due to evaporation just by breathing, we are constantly creating a significant amount of heat and dissipating it into the environment. This extra 1000Kcal would be roughly a 50 watt increase in average metabolic rate during a whole day. It does seem a bit high but anecdotally, my body temperature is 1C higher on days I do some tennis early in the morning. And more importantly my oftenly cold hands go away, so radiating more of it away.
- samatman 6y ago
  > This extra 1000Kcal would be roughly a 50 watt increase in average metabolic rate during a whole day. This calculation makes the theory implausible. A resting human burns about 100 watts[0], this would imply 50% more energy output than that, over the whole day. I too find that I'm warmer after a workout, and sweat lightly for up to a few hours after my heart rate returns to normal, which itself takes almost an hour. So burning more energy than the workout itself? Absolutely. 1000 calories extra seems high for ~4 minutes of cycle sprinting per hour. The HIIT pacing of it is probably ~just as good as spending the whole 4 minutes cycling steadily though. All energy leaves the body as either work or heat, so of the processes you mentioned, moving things or yourself with your muscles is the only one that wouldn't raise temperature.
  - covidSurvivor19 6y ago
    I'm not denying the 2nd law, but metabolism is more complicated than just heat or mechanical work. One example, the process by which the body transforms ammonia into urea, requires energy. Not 100% sure of the details but some of this energy might be captured chemically, not sure if urea has a higher (free energy? I don't remember the exact term). Furthermore with this example, since urine is hyperosmotic, the body has to do a process against normal ion/water diffusion, in order to excrete minerals and not excessive water. This osmotic pressure, contains some potential energy.

alecco 6y ago

> Does "whole body fat oxidation" mean that the an average male calorie burn of 2500 per day would be multiplied with 1,43 to 3575 calories per day? No, it means they burned (oxidized) more fat. This would mostly be a higher % with same calories. Doing those tiny intervals of total 2m40s shouldn't raise significantly the total calorie consumption.

Someone 6y ago

I think we get energy directly out of carbohydrates and proteins, too. If so, that factor will be (¿much?) lower.

ZeroFries 6y ago

No it means the amount of calories coming from body fat is increased by 43%, which may amount to nothing over the course of the day if it also simultaneously increases appetite. Almost all forms of weight loss suffer from this problem - the amount of fat lost is generally proportional to the long-term appetite increase, so that 95% of people regain the weight.

bagacrap 6y ago

2500 calories is way over the average male rmr