7 ms·

Note, this isn't for all types of aerobic activity. They're specifically saying that high-intensity aerobics, such as sprinting, are beneficial. > "Our results

• zagrebian 4y ago
  Is a daily 7-minute workout enough? I perform it at a very high intensity (40 jumping jacks, 16 push ups). https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-minute-workout/ https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/0...
  • imnotlost 4y ago
    For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate... If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right. Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times. Rowing and sprinting works really well.
    • mrleinad 4y ago
      Would swimming work as well? I can see myself doing some laps really fast that will leave me panting by the poolside after 50 mts.
      • nradov 4y ago
        Swimming can work as well, but only if you have good technique. I'm not a great swimmer so when I'm panting by the poolside it's because I wasn't breathing correctly, not because I was exceeding my aerobic capacity. Highly trained competitive swimmers don't have this problem.
      • nanomonkey 4y ago
        I wouldn't suggest using swimming to calculate your maximum heart rate, as you have less control over when you breath. Also, you don't want to be out of breath anywhere near water, the potential for passing out and drowning is too great. Just put on your heart rate monitor, get warmed up, and then sprint as fast as you can until you collapse, most easily done by sprinting uphill. Note your maximum heart rate recorded.
        • sportslife 4y ago
          Just hill sprints will get you a better read than 220-age, but the reason, I believe, lab test build up heartrate gradually is that you don't want to test the abilities of your leg muscles to sprint and recover. Very well trained athletes will notice that they bounce between different body systems limiting their performance as the move through training periods.
    • pedrosorio 4y ago
      How does one determine maximum pulse rate? I do workouts where I'm constantly at 160-170 bpm for 15 minutes and my lungs aren't burning nor am I about to collapse (aged mid-30s, if that matters)
      • richiebful1 4y ago
        CDC says 220 beats per minute, minus your age in years: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartrate.htm https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartr...
        • pedrosorio 4y ago
          I've heard that estimate before (80% would be ~150bpm for me). But then the physiological effects described by the GP don't seem right as I need to go much higher to feel anything like "my lungs burning" (maybe 190+?)
          • dilyevsky 4y ago
            I’m 35 and this year I had actual measured hr of 198 so that formula is bs for trained individuals
        • boplicity 4y ago
          If you need an accurate number, it should be measured manually. Some sports clinics can do this; measuring true VO2 Max, as well as actual max heart rate.
      • carl_dr 4y ago
        It might sound stupid but work as hard as you can and note your maximum. I’m 180bpm-ish as a 45 year old male, I get that trying to cycle uphill as hard as I can and can sustain it for some minutes. They say the equation is 220bpm minus your age, so you should be able to go a bit higher.
        • popotamonga 4y ago
    • twawaaay 4y ago
      I believe running your heart at such high intensity every day isn't particularly healthy. It causes scarring of the heart tissue and possible problems as you age. I think watching this Ted might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0
      • Retric 4y ago
        5-10 minutes of high intensity exercise daily is well outside what that Ted talk was describing. With up to 45 minutes of daily exercise you see an improvement. After that there is a period where more exercise has negligible impact and only at the extreme upper end to you see a decline. But even people running regular marathons have lower risks than couch potatoes, you need to get really extreme before it’s an issue.
      • canucker2016 4y ago
        those researchers from the YouTube video have amended their suggestions. from https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20806916/excessive-exercise-proponents-soften-their-views/ https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20806916/excessive-exerci... : “First, low exercise is a much more prevalent problem for our society than is excessive exercise. Second, the maximal health benefits of exercise typically occur at quite low levels. More exercise may burn more calories and improve athletic performance, but probably does not lead to better health outcomes. “Three, in keeping with what Ben Levine said in his Circulation Commentary in 2014, I do not believe that we should go overboard to frighten athletes who want to compete in vigorous endurance sports like marathons and triathlons.” Lavie also pointed out two new exercise studies in JAMA Internal Medicine.... When mortality rates were adjusted for exercise levels, the researchers found the lowest rate among those who exercised about three to five times the amount recommended by federal guidelines (i.e., 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise, or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise like running). However, the increased benefit of working out three to five times more than the guidelines was modest, the researchers wrote. More importantly to serious runners, there was no evidence of harm at ten or more times the recommended minimum. Another JAMA Internal Medicine paper looked at mortality rates in relation to moderate vs. vigorous exercise. In other words, what’s the proof for the federal government’s guideline showing vigorous exercise is roughly twice as good per minute as moderate exercise (75 minutes vs. 150 minutes)? The conclusion, based on an analysis of 204,000 Australians aged 45 to 75: The current federal guidelines likely underestimate the value of vigorous exercise. The Australian results showed an inverse relationship between vigorous exercise and mortality rates.
    • sometimeshuman 4y ago
      Or buy one 30lb kettle bell. No running shoes, low cost, no finding space in your home, no buyer's remorse. A swing with good form works your entire body. 100 reps once or twice a day literally takes 2-4 minutes. Do it after hitting start on the microwave.
      • aqme28 4y ago
        An exercise that takes 2-4 minutes is not the same as a HIIT exercise where you exhaust yourself in 30 seconds.
        • encoderer 4y ago
          Swing it faster.
          • 1letterunixname 4y ago
            That's high-impact exercise a sizable fraction of people cannot do and has inherent risks of serious injury. HIIT isn't necessarily high-impact.
    • dilyevsky 4y ago
      If you’re training regularly 80-85% is nowhere near where your lungs burn - that’s like below 165bpm for most people
      • canucker2016 4y ago
        80-85% max heart rate is tempo pace - people suggest it's around the pace that one can hold for one hour
        • dilyevsky 4y ago
          Most runners i follow on strava and myself can sustain 85% hr over entire marathon race (with nutrition). It hurts after a while but it’s quite doable
    • rollo 4y ago
      That doesn't sound right. Even 95% of max heart rate is sustainable for a long, long time. Intervals one can only sustain for 30s are way above VO2max intensity deep in the anaerobic zone. Heart rate pretty much maxes out on those.
      • sushisource 4y ago
        This really isn't accurate at all. I'm in very strong aerobic shape and 95% of my max heart rate is not at all sustainable for more than a few minutes, and it is also a deeply anaerobic activity. VO2Max != max heart rate. Your heartrate @ VO2 max is typically much lower than your max heartrate. Max genuinely means max in this case, as in, literally the highest you can get your heartrate up. By definition, you are way above your VO2 max in that situation and it is not going to be sustainable for long at all. Something like 90% approaches what you're talking about, maybe being sustainable for 15 minutes or so, but that 5% makes an enormous difference.
        • rollo 4y ago
          You might be right and my 95% was a bit off. But the main point is that 80-85% being sustainable for only 30s might only be the case for someone who is in absolutely terrible shape.
      • m463 4y ago
        It's possible you haven't calculated actual max heart rate. From what I can tell 220-age seems to be a rough population calculation - sort of like BMI. It is a starting point, but fit individuals increase their max heart rate and should take a stress test. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Maximum_heart_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Maximum_heart_rate
      • plorkyeran 4y ago
        90% of maximum heart rate is the start of the anaerobic zone, and maintaining it for multiple minutes requires intense training. If you think you're sustaining 95% for any sort of time then that means you've failed to measure your maximum heart rate correctly.
    • imnotlost 4y ago
      Don't think about actual pulse numbers and % of pulse numbers. If you're not thinking about quitting and almost falling off the rower you're not going hard enough. You will think of every excuse known to man to avoid doing it.
    • wazoox 4y ago
      Nope. A rough estimate of my old fart MHR is 169. 85% of which is 143. I run literally for several hours at this heart rate every week. The burning intensity you're talking about is at 100-110% of max HR.
  • anonporridge 4y ago
    It's absolutely better than nothing. If that's all you can do, keep doing it. But it's far less than ideal. Unfortunately, long, low intensity cardio (zone 2 on the order of 4 hours per week) is also incredibly important for longevity and health. You also ideally should be doing some kind of real strength training (e.g. barbells) for 1-3 hours per week for long term well being. A good maximum strength building program is usually going to require 30-60 minutes 2-3x a week. Muscle mass degradation is one of the most significant factors affecting quality of life in later age. You mitigate this decline by a) maximizing your potential in your youth and b) doing consistent maintenance work in your middle to late age. Again, something is always going to be better than nothing. Sadly, our current society doesn't really allow for people to get an adequate amount of exercise, at least for many white collar workers with families.
• spmurrayzzz 4y ago
  That would explain the relationship to glucose consumption as noted in the subheading of the article . In events like sprinting, the glycolytic pathway is the primary one. This also seems somewhat related to the fact that we inject an irradiated glucose analog to make certain types of malignancy show up better on a PET scan (re: Warburg effect)
• mftb 4y ago
  One issue with the intensity thing. In my experience, as you age, it gets harder, and harder to up the intensity without incurring injury, and if you're injured it's harder to exercise at all.
  • AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    As an aging (50-something) fitness nazi, the key to this is having several different activities of varying impact levels that you can use to attain high intensity. Spinning classes, running, swimming, HIIT / Crossfit derivatives (man be careful with that though), or the elliptical machines. Even aqua aerobics can work well. And I don't think you need a 40 minute zone 4 workout. You can probably do intervals in zone 4 with as much recovery as you need over 20 minutes and induce a lot of (beneficial) stress. Interval training is the key to really good fitness, especially on limited time budgets.
    • mftb 4y ago
      Couldn't agree more about the multiple activities thing. It's helped me out a couple of different ways, consistency definitely being one.
    • m463 4y ago
      I found with the pandemic slowing down, used exercise equipment is plentiful. Elyptical, rowing machines, stairmasters, all types of weights... breaks things up and helps to easily get exercise into your schedule.
  • gregwebs 4y ago
    I used to tackle this issue by spending more time warming up than actually exercising. I am now using specific strengthening exercises from the kneesovertoesguy program to make my lower body more robust. I am not spending a lot of time on this but am seeing encouraging signs where I can engage in more vigorous activities with less warmup and less pain. If you have any pain (other than muscle exertion pain) during exercise, or even joint discomfort, etc, that's a potential road to injury that you have to step back and address. I stopped lifting heavy weights for now while I focus instead on improving my weak spots.
• adamredwoods 4y ago
  Derek Lowe has discussed possibilities of brown-fat and cold temperatures: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/cancer-cold https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/cancer-cold