5 ms·

The fact that 1 minute of high intensity exercise (in 10 minutes of lower-intensity stuff) is as good as 50 minutes of moderate-intensity training does really p

The fact that 1 minute of high intensity exercise (in 10 minutes of lower-intensity stuff) is as good as 50 minutes of moderate-intensity training does really put things into perspective. What I wonder now is - what if you combine both? What if you do 50 minutes of moderate exercise but intersperse that with that same 1 minute of all-out sprints? Is there a bigger benefit, or is it inconsequential? And another question, one that I couldn't tell from looking at the page: What about a control group doing 10-minute moderate exercise? It'd be great to compare the 10-minute moderate vs the 10-minute with the high-intensity exercise. Since these were sedentary men, it stands to reason the there's a big amount of low-hanging fruit that might well be captured by the simple 10 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise. I'm sure it won't fare as well as the 50 minute group, but if it's close enough to be statistically insignificant, the conclusion would change to "any exercise is better than no exercise, even 10 minutes of moderate whatever".

deafpolygon 4y ago
They studied sedentary men. > Methods: Sedentary men [...] performed three weekly sessions of SIT [...] or MICT [...] for 12 weeks or served as non-training controls
MengerSponge 4y ago
It's probably far more beneficial to save the max effort for the very end. Fatigue and lactic acid concentration work in your favor that way
- matsemann 4y ago
  It depends. While your total work done might be higher like that, training for longer with the lactic in your muscles also has some benefits. Doing the intensity earlier also increases your heart rate earlier, and it will probably remain higher throughout, which can be a good thing if your goal is to work it.
  - MengerSponge 4y ago
    Spending more time in Zone 3 is harder, sure, but it isn't more beneficial than spending that time in Zone 2. You're training different metabolic states, and working harder/suffering more doesn't actually matter.
    - matsemann 4y ago
      Yes. But if we're at the level where we care about zones and total intensity because of recovery, one probably isn't doing a combined workout at all. Either it's a low intensity or a high intensity workout, not a combination of both.
      - MengerSponge 4y ago
        Plenty of people who care about zones and total intensity do a low intensity session with a high intensity kicker. I got the idea from Prof. San Millan: https://peterattiamd.com/inigosanmillan/ https://peterattiamd.com/inigosanmillan/
      - jeltz 4y ago
        Not my experience at all. Plenty of people do long runs (2h+) with faster portions. Maybe it turns out it is inefficient but it is a common practice among marathon runners.
        MengerSponge 4y ago
        There's a difference between a faster portion and Tabata portion. Mixing in some faster cadences helps keep things interesting even if there isn't a huge physiological benefit.
matsemann 4y ago
Note that these were untrained people. I doubt a fit person would get any response at all for such a low load. Actually, once you get really fit, you want to decrease the high intensity. Because otherwise it increases your recovery time so much, that the amount you actually can work out is low. Almost all volume a professional endurance athlete does in addition to what a normal amateur does, is low intensity.
- presentation 4y ago
  Agreed but untrained people are the vast majority of society so findings like this probably hold outsized value.

deafpolygon 4y ago

They studied sedentary men. > Methods: Sedentary men [...] performed three weekly sessions of SIT [...] or MICT [...] for 12 weeks or served as non-training controls

MengerSponge 4y ago

It's probably far more beneficial to save the max effort for the very end. Fatigue and lactic acid concentration work in your favor that way

matsemann 4y ago
It depends. While your total work done might be higher like that, training for longer with the lactic in your muscles also has some benefits. Doing the intensity earlier also increases your heart rate earlier, and it will probably remain higher throughout, which can be a good thing if your goal is to work it.
- MengerSponge 4y ago
  Spending more time in Zone 3 is harder, sure, but it isn't more beneficial than spending that time in Zone 2. You're training different metabolic states, and working harder/suffering more doesn't actually matter.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    Yes. But if we're at the level where we care about zones and total intensity because of recovery, one probably isn't doing a combined workout at all. Either it's a low intensity or a high intensity workout, not a combination of both.
    - MengerSponge 4y ago
      Plenty of people who care about zones and total intensity do a low intensity session with a high intensity kicker. I got the idea from Prof. San Millan: https://peterattiamd.com/inigosanmillan/ https://peterattiamd.com/inigosanmillan/
    - jeltz 4y ago
      Not my experience at all. Plenty of people do long runs (2h+) with faster portions. Maybe it turns out it is inefficient but it is a common practice among marathon runners.
      - MengerSponge 4y ago
        There's a difference between a faster portion and Tabata portion. Mixing in some faster cadences helps keep things interesting even if there isn't a huge physiological benefit.

matsemann 4y ago

Note that these were untrained people. I doubt a fit person would get any response at all for such a low load. Actually, once you get really fit, you want to decrease the high intensity. Because otherwise it increases your recovery time so much, that the amount you actually can work out is low. Almost all volume a professional endurance athlete does in addition to what a normal amateur does, is low intensity.

presentation 4y ago
Agreed but untrained people are the vast majority of society so findings like this probably hold outsized value.