22 ms·

It's 8 minutes, not one minute The people in the study were out of shape to start with The improved measures were insulin sensitivity index, peak oxygen uptak

It's 8 minutes, not one minute The people in the study were out of shape to start with The improved measures were insulin sensitivity index, peak oxygen uptake, and "skeletal muscle mitochondrial content" No change in body mass In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over 12 weeks

newaccount74 4y ago
I think it was 10 minutes in total: 2min warmup 20sec max effort 2min recovery 20sec max effort 2min recovery 20sec max effort 3min cooldown
- petesergeant 4y ago
  You’re right, I can’t count
oxfordmale 4y ago
Exercise doesn't result in changes in body mass (weight loss), unless accompanied with a diet. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveals-that-exercise-alone-wont-cause-weight-loss#:~:text=Exercise%20alone%20is%20not%20enough,extra%20calories%2C%20researchers%20have%20found https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveal....
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Yes it can. I had an injury that prevented me from cycling for over a year and slowly gained weight. It all came off after resuming a normal routine without dietary changes.
  - epolanski 4y ago
    Well whether you lose/gain weight depends on (caloriesIn - caloriesOut) it's no rocket science. If you didn't compensate anymore as much for lowering the calories out you're obviously going to gain weight.
    - nolok 4y ago
      So what you mean is your original comment could just have much said "exercice results in weight loss unless accompanied by a corresponding change in diet to increase calories intake", aka exercise alone as a change results in weight loss.
      - newaccount74 4y ago
        People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. If you start exercising, but don't watch your nutrition, you will most likely not lose weight.
        saiya-jin 4y ago
        I don't get why folks often need to reduce such a complex and unique system as our body and its metabolism into some few word description. You are correct, and there is more, much more: psychology, how our body adapts to training, and so does metabolism. One random example of this vast topic - its well known in weightlifting community if you do hard compound exercises near your limits (squats, deadlifts etc) your metabolism switches to 'higher' burn rate (basal metabolic rate IIRC) and you can basically consume more. One sure way to lose weight if thats the goal, but one should never start weightlifting with those exercises, at that intensity. Also, again generally, its pretty non-smart to take sedentary individuals and expose them to HIIT as the study did, even if its just spinning. Body should gradually adapt to workload (=stress) and HIIT should be the final step in training, since its so taxing. Otherwise injuries and lose of motivation will happen more often than not. The systems that need adaptation are numerous - muscles, tendons, ligaments, cardiovascular system, nervous system etc. People are just looking for quick solutions to problems that don't have ones, not good long term at least. Same as diet fads. The cold hard truth that permanent change of fitness/BMI/overall health for the better requires permanent change in nutrition, training and TBH at least a bit overall life approach. Why not start with that?
        cj 4y ago
        >People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. This isn't universally true. Exercise significantly decreases my appetite for about 3 hours post exercise. And for me, it's not just a barely noticeable decrease - it's an extremely noticeable long-lasting appetite decrease where I'll often end up skipping meals. Do a quick google search for "exercise decrease appetite" for supporting evidence.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    A part of that weight gain is caused by no longer burning let's say an additional 500 calories a day from cycling, another part is due to lack of activity and muscle atrophy lowering your base metabolic rate. And all of this accounts to one thing: you eat too much for a sedentary lifestyle. Cycling just allows you to compensate. So, sure, exercise helps at a certain point. But, take into account: * If you're fat, your base metabolic rate is insanely high. Obese people are easily at 3000+ calories needed _just_ to maintain that mass. * If you're fat, it's going to be almost impossible for you to do sessions where you burn 500 calories, simply because you're out of shape and possibly exercising injures you. Running isn't exactly good on your knees if you're overweight. Realistically, you'll do 200-300 cal sessions, at best, every day. * If you're fat and you manage to burn these 500 calories... Good job, but that's less than 20% of your daily intake. Not eating something is infinitely more simple and efficient. Our bodies are incredibly efficient at exercising without using lots of energy. Unless you do it for long and hard enough that you reach huge numbers of calories burned, diet is the most important component of losing weight.
    - hhmc 4y ago
      It's 'basal metabolic rate' not 'base', and it's not going to change materially over a year, even with a shift to inactivity.
      - ohgodplsno 4y ago
        Muscle atrophy from not maintaining exercise for a year will absolutely make your BMR change. In the same way, spend a year at the gym lifting weights and your BMR will absolutely go up, even if at the same weight.
        hhmc 4y ago
        Change, but not materially, maybe 5% or something that doesn't really move the needle like the claim of 500 calories.
    - sasawpg 4y ago
      That simply isn't true. Unlike running, cycling at an low endurance pace is quite gentle on your body. Reaching 500kcal/session isn't going to be a problem after a few weeks of getting your mind and body accustomed to biking for more than 15-30 minutes, and chances of injuries will be quite low, especially if you use a stationary bike. You can hit 400kcal in an hour of biking without too many issues. Larger people will generally put out more power and therefore burn more calories.
  - adql 4y ago
    > It all came off after resuming a normal routine without dietary changes. well, doh, if you eat the same and use less you will gain mass. It's not because (lack of) excercise, it's because diet not fitting lifestyle Excercises help in burning more calories so you can actually eat some tasty food from time to time without getting fatter and not going crazy from eating only low calorie stuff and that's about the only effect for weight loss...
    - Fricken 4y ago
      I think what the parent meant by "no dietary changes" is that they didn't have to exercise any special discipline over their diet. If I'm exercising regularly with sufficient intensity my appetite will go up, yes, but I still lose weight. For me, when training, keeping weight on is the dietary challenge. It's hard to eat enough!
- petesergeant 4y ago
  I think it’s safe to assume that many inactive people start to exercise because they believe it will help them lose weight, however
  - Scarblac 4y ago
    I find changing diet much easier when I'm also workig to get into shape at the same time.
- CPLX 4y ago
  This is nonsense. Try running 70 miles a week on the same diet and see if you weight the same after a few months.
  - etothepii 4y ago
    I can't abide this line that it's all about diet. I'm a big guy >270lb. When I moved in 2017 I was living 4.5 miles away from my job down this beautiful disused old railway line. "Jogging" and eventually running the 9 miles a day to get to and from work caused me to lose 80 lbs. Stupidly once the weight was off I bought a car and stopped and over 3 years the weight came back. So much of this stuff is whether you were conditioned from childhood to be active. You can change that, but you probably won't do it on a treadmill in a gym a couple times a week.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gadders 4y ago
  Like the saying goes, you can't out-train a bad diet (unless you're a complete outlier like Eddie Hall or Micheal Phelps or DK Metcalf). This is a good podcast on the topic as well: https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-science-of-metabolism-podcast/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-sci...
  - mister_mister 4y ago
    Reading about the diet of DK Metcalf that is Low carb, Intermittent fasting, with plenty of vegetables is according to the latest science. Eddie Hall has goal based diets, Normal people wouldn't be able to process the amount of food he eats, can't be healthy to eat that much. But at the same time it's clearly working for him. Just saying genetics does a disservice to them.
    - VerminOctopus1 4y ago
      Intermittent fasting contributes nothing to weight loss beyond the psychological effect, which may result in calorie restriction. This is the latest science.
      - mister_mister 4y ago
        Calories concept is from 1819.[0] Are you aware how calories are measured? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
    - gadders 4y ago
      I think they are genetic outliers, but they are also outliers in the stresses they are putting on their body. They genuinely need ~12k calories per day (Hall and Phelps).
      - mister_mister 4y ago
        They are genetic outliers because are able to operate at a elite level, but if you would learn more about sport and nutrition then those diets wouldn't look so extreme. They are eating goal based diets, that's different diet then normal person could or should consume. Hall and Phelps diet is not one that very sustainable but Metcalf one is actually the quite similiar to longevity diets. As such statements about that they are just genetic freaks this a disservice to diets they are eating and what we can learn from that. If they would 4k their bodies will start to adjust to those levels, would that be their top performance probably not. The human body is very adaptable to any kind of circumstance.
lynx23 4y ago
Or you just eat less, which is probably going to change your body mass without exercise :-)
- dkdbejwi383 4y ago
  But still have low cardio fitness. A healthy body needs exercise and a good diet.
  - lynx23 4y ago
    Question is, how to get that "exercise". I am going to be downvoted, but I am convinced sex twice a week is more or less sufficient for the "exercise" part.
    - bt4u 4y ago
      [dead]
    - dkdbejwi383 4y ago
      I doubt it. It doesn’t target enough muscle groups and you ideally need some variations of push/pull/lift as muscle groups are engaged in different ways for different motions. Probably not fantastic for cardio either, ideally you want a lot of training in zone 2 for endurance and some training at max for power.
      - lynx23 4y ago
        Everyone their own. I prefer to feel fine without a training regime and without assuming that everything I do is insufficient. I feel very good with that attitude and approach. However, I am not overweight, so its easy for me to feel that way.
        scott_w 4y ago
        Smokers feel absolute fine for years. Until one day they don't.
mindhash 4y ago
such an important point here. The benefits of exercise are maximum when you start from a sedentary life. You will hit plateau at some point and then one has to re-think the plan. I am doubtful that just 10 min exercise over a few years will get you in a better shape. Another factor greatly ignored is HRV as key indicator of recovery and response to an exercise. Andrew Flatt (1) is a researcher and has been studying his cardio fitness through HRV for over 10 years. His observation is 10 sec high intensity + 50 sec break in between for 10 minutes improved his hrv. He also thinks 15000 steps contribute to better HRV as good as athlete level. While there are plenty of questions about 10k steps, what if 15k steps do the trick? In general, I think since HRV and VO2 max are trackable using hand-held and would be best parameters to track usefulness of an exercise over time. It is always likely that an exercise works at some point and doesn't at other. Possibly because you are more fit now or you have other life stresses dragging you down. In my experience, a lot of these studies are not reproducible. Because every person is different and context is different too. Genetics add another layer to this. Best is to keep track of your own parameters and try things out. References: [1] https://hrvtraining.com/ https://hrvtraining.com/
- mindhash 4y ago
  My recommendation will be to track HRV (1) and do the high intensity only when you are on or above your baseline. This is to avoid unexpected side effects of HIIT. If you can't get a hrv tracker then best to keep track of your heart rate recovery. It is common to see heart rate stay high after the exercise, it should return to normal in a few hours (3-4 hours). if not then you are over doing it. 1 - Apps like Elite HRV, hrv4training or Devices like Garmin (watch), CoreSense (Elite HRV), Scosche Rhythm+, polar or garmin chest wrap.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > such an important point here. The benefits of exercise are maximum when you start from a sedentary life. You will hit plateau at some point and then one has to re-think the plan. I'd bet that by the time they end up hitting that plateau it'll be a lot easier for someone who has been sedentary to up their game than it would have been if they'd started a more difficult and time consuming workout from the start. Easing into being more active seems like a really good thing and one that might make it easier for someone to start exercising and stay with it long term.
throwaway292939 4y ago
If you're completely out of shape, going at HIIT level intensity is also risky. Better to build some kind of baseline before jumping into the deep end.
- antupis 4y ago
  It is not risky but it is hard and I rather do low intensity running 60 minutes than 8 minutes HIIT.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    It is risky. People push themselves too hard to keep up and end up with rabdo. (Edit: I was thinking more of a normal HIIT class, not the 1 minute one)
    - newaccount74 4y ago
      Does that really happen for 3x 20sec max effort on a stationary bike?
      - scott_w 4y ago
        No, this is a common theme I see. People who know nothing about exercise take real medical things that happen to people who massively overtrain and assume it can happen to a regular unfit person exercising for 10 minutes a day. For the 3x20s intervals, the max effort of a person is far, far, below the max effort that, say, I can put out (as a trained cyclist). I strongly doubt the people doing this were actually pushing the 500W for 20s that I saw bandied in another thread. They're more likely pushing 200W and tickling 300W for a few seconds. This is still a high perceived exertion (though lower absolute kcal expenditure), so it's a good effort on their part. But they're unlikely to black out or cause major muscle injuries beyond feeling a bit sore in the morning.
        matsemann 4y ago
        The rabdo I'm talking about doesn't just happen to people that overtrain on a regular basis. It happens often to beginners doing their first workout at a gym being pushed to hard. But I agree, for 1 minute total effort it's probably not a risk. My comment was more in the general sense of giving untrained people high intensity workouts, especially in a group context where they take it too far (like crossfit).
l33tman 4y ago
"SIT involved 3x20-second 'all-out' cycle sprints (~500W) interspersed with 2 minutes of cycling at 50W, whereas MICT involved 45 minutes of continuous cycling at ~70% maximal heart rate (~110W). Both protocols involved a 2-minute warm-up and 3-minute cool-down at 50W."
Existenceblinks 4y ago
Coming back from out of shape with intensive exercise doesn't sound good to me. I often start with cycling for 25km x 3 days. Walk 10 km x 2 days rest 2 days. Something like this and then start to run / basket ball / swimming etc.
marcosscriven 4y ago
I'm just imagining the scene in There's Something About Mary. "No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6."
cycomanic 4y ago
While you are somewhat dismissive about the results, they really only confirm many other studies which found that HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times. This has been found for both non-athletes and athletes and in fact training for professional endurance athletes has drastically changed in the last 5-10 years (read interviews with e.g. professional cyclists, they train significantly less, but at much higher intensities than 7 years ago, lots of them have observed this transition). However, your point about body mass is correct, without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight. I also recall that there have been some studies that found it might be harder with HIT, because you are hungrier after HIT than low intensity exercise.
- stabbles 4y ago
  Do you have references for this? My understanding is that low heart rate training is still standard for elite endurance athletes.
  - fsloth 4y ago
    How many people benefitting from more exercise are elite endurance athletes?
    - PaulHoule 4y ago
      You might not want to emulate elite endurance athletes in that they get too much of a good thing…. That kind of training puts you at risk of atrial fibrillation.
      - kritiko 4y ago
        A recent study on this encourages exercise regardless. https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002154 https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002154 > Conclusion: Although older male endurance athletes experienced an increased risk of AF, the long-term risk of stroke was substantially reduced compared with non-athletes.
bjornsing 4y ago
> It's 8 minutes, not one minute > 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise Not exactly (unless I got something wrong): ”SIT involved 3x20-second 'all-out' cycle sprints (~500W) interspersed with 2 minutes of cycling at 50W”.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  This comment does the maths: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34515924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34515924 In fact, it’s 10 minutes not 8
- geraldwhen 4y ago
  50W is nothing, and 500W isn’t really a sprint. For an adult male, you should be pushing 1000-2000 over 20 second sprints. Walking slightly uphill is probably more intense than a 50w bike.
  - bjornsing 4y ago
    So? If the article says 50/500W then I’d say that’s the best objective description of the effort level.
    - sebastianz 4y ago
      > So? If the article says 50/500W then I’d say that’s the best objective description of the effort level. It is an objective description of the power they produced. NOT their effort level. Their effort level would be established via their BPM, perceived extersion, lactate levels, etc etc
    - oriolid 4y ago
      The question is whether 500W counts as high intensity, and whether the results are applicable for people whose high intensity is 2 to 4 times higher than the test subjects. I have to admit that I didn't read the linked article, but previous similar ones had the low intensity reference at so low intensity it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that it didn't produce any results.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over 12 weeks This seems like a pretty negative reading. How about: Sedentary people (who have the most issues and highest healthcare costs), can see significant improvements in health by exercising for a fraction of time normally recommended. Sounds like wins all around.
- notafraudster 4y ago
  It's a win _if_ the barrier to getting sedentary people to improve their health through fitness is time cost and not all of the other costs associated with habit formation. My guess is for most sedentary people the biggest thing is that they manage to talk themselves out of doing anything, or once they start, talk themselves into allowing cheating/skipping rather than drilling in the habit. (Not that this is bad news regardless, it's good to have tools in the toolbox and some people might prefer lower time higher intensity stuff, but I do think the result is pretty limited)
  - Arch-TK 4y ago
    Time cost is one of the major obstacles for more than just the reason of "it takes this X minutes out of your week". If you tell me I have to spend 45 minutes doing exercise 3 times a week my mind will be filled with excuses and the dread of how exhausted I will feel after 45 minutes and how it will likely be more like a 2 hour time commitment every time I do it. It's a much easier sell to say: 10 minutes where you're only spending 1 minute of time doing something intense and the rest is spent doing something quite light.
    - nottorp 4y ago
      45 min is a streaming series episode. I've found that the only way to get my ass on a stationary bike is to stick it where I can see the TV and watch something brainless. Ideally fast paced and violent so I can pick up the rythm :) And admit it, no matter how busy you are you do watch some entertainment once in a while.
watwut 4y ago
The measures that improved are more important then body mass itself. Body mass is an aesthetic measure. The improved measures were directly related to the health. And "fitness" itself is measured by performance, not by how you look like - which would make it third measure.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> The people in the study were out of shape to start with > In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures While this isn’t going to make athletes change their exercise programs, it’s a great reminder that if you’re sedentary you can get significant health improvements by doing literally any exercise at all. Some times dramatic improvements. Exercise doesn’t have to be complicated. Doing anything is significantly better than being sedentary.
ianai 4y ago
Is HiiT really a good idea for people with increasing levels of being out of shape? That sounds like a recipe for doing way too much way too fast and getting injured.
- tootie 4y ago
  You can just vary the intensity. The general approach is go as hard as you can for brief bursts then back to a comfortable pace to recover, then burst again. Your peak burst may be pretty slow at first, but if it gets your heart pumping, then you're doing it. That peak should just go up as you train and build your strength.
bitL 4y ago
10 years ago I started doing HIIT via the 7-minute workout while initially out of shape. The first month was horrible, then my body substantially improved, I stopped being lactose intolerant (could suddenly drink a gallon of milk a day without any issues), then I could stack 2 HIITs and later 3 HIITs in a row, then I could push more and more reps in each 30 second interval, achieving like 4-6x improvement compared to when I started and my fitness exploded.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
What if you aren't super out of shape? Do the results translate/is the "hack" too good to be true? Working out for 45 minutes a day isn't fun
Dwedit 4y ago
Seven Minute Abs
TheRealPomax 4y ago
If we're going to dismissively summarize, shall we at least summarize it correctly? > The SIT protocol consisted of 3x20-second ‘all-out’ cycling efforts against 0.05kg/kg body mass, separated by 2 minutes of low-intensity cycling (50W). You're right, that's not one minute. That's 20 seconds high intensity spinning spaced out with 2 minute "just regular biking" sets. Turning that into "it's 8 minutes, not one minute" takes some doing. Anyone with a home exercise bike can comfortably repeat this regime.
seeingfurther 4y ago
No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel
kilgnad 4y ago
>In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over 12 weeks Make no mistake. The metric HIIT improves are limited, but these metrics are the ones we anecdotally use to observationally to separate people who are fit and people who are unfit. In other words, the people who we consider to be "fit" when exercising tend to be extremely high in these specific metrics. I've been doing HIIT almost exclusively for a decade. You may still have high cholesterol after doing HIIT, but your VO2 max will be through the roof. And not just a little. This isn't just for people who are unfit, it can bring those specific metrics to near athlete level performance if you go at it consistently. From a more laymans perspective, VO2 max is the main metric that this type of exercise improves which dramatically improves your observed athleticism in sprinting, running and almost every sport that involves endurance. It won't help you lose your gut or lose weight though. This is just my own anecdotal observations after a decade of using HIIT as my main exercise.
kirso 4y ago
This is a common misconception for a lot of studies. The selection bias is strong when trying to make us eat fake meat, nutritious sugar, keto diets etc. etc.

newaccount74 4y ago

I think it was 10 minutes in total: 2min warmup 20sec max effort 2min recovery 20sec max effort 2min recovery 20sec max effort 3min cooldown

petesergeant 4y ago
You’re right, I can’t count

oxfordmale 4y ago

Exercise doesn't result in changes in body mass (weight loss), unless accompanied with a diet. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveals-that-exercise-alone-wont-cause-weight-loss#:~:text=Exercise%20alone%20is%20not%20enough,extra%20calories%2C%20researchers%20have%20found https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveal....

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Yes it can. I had an injury that prevented me from cycling for over a year and slowly gained weight. It all came off after resuming a normal routine without dietary changes.
- epolanski 4y ago
  Well whether you lose/gain weight depends on (caloriesIn - caloriesOut) it's no rocket science. If you didn't compensate anymore as much for lowering the calories out you're obviously going to gain weight.
  - nolok 4y ago
    So what you mean is your original comment could just have much said "exercice results in weight loss unless accompanied by a corresponding change in diet to increase calories intake", aka exercise alone as a change results in weight loss.
    - newaccount74 4y ago
      People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. If you start exercising, but don't watch your nutrition, you will most likely not lose weight.
      - saiya-jin 4y ago
        I don't get why folks often need to reduce such a complex and unique system as our body and its metabolism into some few word description. You are correct, and there is more, much more: psychology, how our body adapts to training, and so does metabolism. One random example of this vast topic - its well known in weightlifting community if you do hard compound exercises near your limits (squats, deadlifts etc) your metabolism switches to 'higher' burn rate (basal metabolic rate IIRC) and you can basically consume more. One sure way to lose weight if thats the goal, but one should never start weightlifting with those exercises, at that intensity. Also, again generally, its pretty non-smart to take sedentary individuals and expose them to HIIT as the study did, even if its just spinning. Body should gradually adapt to workload (=stress) and HIIT should be the final step in training, since its so taxing. Otherwise injuries and lose of motivation will happen more often than not. The systems that need adaptation are numerous - muscles, tendons, ligaments, cardiovascular system, nervous system etc. People are just looking for quick solutions to problems that don't have ones, not good long term at least. Same as diet fads. The cold hard truth that permanent change of fitness/BMI/overall health for the better requires permanent change in nutrition, training and TBH at least a bit overall life approach. Why not start with that?
      - cj 4y ago
        >People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. This isn't universally true. Exercise significantly decreases my appetite for about 3 hours post exercise. And for me, it's not just a barely noticeable decrease - it's an extremely noticeable long-lasting appetite decrease where I'll often end up skipping meals. Do a quick google search for "exercise decrease appetite" for supporting evidence.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  A part of that weight gain is caused by no longer burning let's say an additional 500 calories a day from cycling, another part is due to lack of activity and muscle atrophy lowering your base metabolic rate. And all of this accounts to one thing: you eat too much for a sedentary lifestyle. Cycling just allows you to compensate. So, sure, exercise helps at a certain point. But, take into account: * If you're fat, your base metabolic rate is insanely high. Obese people are easily at 3000+ calories needed _just_ to maintain that mass. * If you're fat, it's going to be almost impossible for you to do sessions where you burn 500 calories, simply because you're out of shape and possibly exercising injures you. Running isn't exactly good on your knees if you're overweight. Realistically, you'll do 200-300 cal sessions, at best, every day. * If you're fat and you manage to burn these 500 calories... Good job, but that's less than 20% of your daily intake. Not eating something is infinitely more simple and efficient. Our bodies are incredibly efficient at exercising without using lots of energy. Unless you do it for long and hard enough that you reach huge numbers of calories burned, diet is the most important component of losing weight.
  - hhmc 4y ago
    It's 'basal metabolic rate' not 'base', and it's not going to change materially over a year, even with a shift to inactivity.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      Muscle atrophy from not maintaining exercise for a year will absolutely make your BMR change. In the same way, spend a year at the gym lifting weights and your BMR will absolutely go up, even if at the same weight.
      - hhmc 4y ago
        Change, but not materially, maybe 5% or something that doesn't really move the needle like the claim of 500 calories.
  - sasawpg 4y ago
    That simply isn't true. Unlike running, cycling at an low endurance pace is quite gentle on your body. Reaching 500kcal/session isn't going to be a problem after a few weeks of getting your mind and body accustomed to biking for more than 15-30 minutes, and chances of injuries will be quite low, especially if you use a stationary bike. You can hit 400kcal in an hour of biking without too many issues. Larger people will generally put out more power and therefore burn more calories.
- adql 4y ago
  > It all came off after resuming a normal routine without dietary changes. well, doh, if you eat the same and use less you will gain mass. It's not because (lack of) excercise, it's because diet not fitting lifestyle Excercises help in burning more calories so you can actually eat some tasty food from time to time without getting fatter and not going crazy from eating only low calorie stuff and that's about the only effect for weight loss...
  - Fricken 4y ago
    I think what the parent meant by "no dietary changes" is that they didn't have to exercise any special discipline over their diet. If I'm exercising regularly with sufficient intensity my appetite will go up, yes, but I still lose weight. For me, when training, keeping weight on is the dietary challenge. It's hard to eat enough!
petesergeant 4y ago
I think it’s safe to assume that many inactive people start to exercise because they believe it will help them lose weight, however
- Scarblac 4y ago
  I find changing diet much easier when I'm also workig to get into shape at the same time.
CPLX 4y ago
This is nonsense. Try running 70 miles a week on the same diet and see if you weight the same after a few months.
- etothepii 4y ago
  I can't abide this line that it's all about diet. I'm a big guy >270lb. When I moved in 2017 I was living 4.5 miles away from my job down this beautiful disused old railway line. "Jogging" and eventually running the 9 miles a day to get to and from work caused me to lose 80 lbs. Stupidly once the weight was off I bought a car and stopped and over 3 years the weight came back. So much of this stuff is whether you were conditioned from childhood to be active. You can change that, but you probably won't do it on a treadmill in a gym a couple times a week.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gadders 4y ago
Like the saying goes, you can't out-train a bad diet (unless you're a complete outlier like Eddie Hall or Micheal Phelps or DK Metcalf). This is a good podcast on the topic as well: https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-science-of-metabolism-podcast/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-sci...
- mister_mister 4y ago
  Reading about the diet of DK Metcalf that is Low carb, Intermittent fasting, with plenty of vegetables is according to the latest science. Eddie Hall has goal based diets, Normal people wouldn't be able to process the amount of food he eats, can't be healthy to eat that much. But at the same time it's clearly working for him. Just saying genetics does a disservice to them.
  - VerminOctopus1 4y ago
    Intermittent fasting contributes nothing to weight loss beyond the psychological effect, which may result in calorie restriction. This is the latest science.
    - mister_mister 4y ago
      Calories concept is from 1819.[0] Are you aware how calories are measured? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
  - gadders 4y ago
    I think they are genetic outliers, but they are also outliers in the stresses they are putting on their body. They genuinely need ~12k calories per day (Hall and Phelps).
    - mister_mister 4y ago
      They are genetic outliers because are able to operate at a elite level, but if you would learn more about sport and nutrition then those diets wouldn't look so extreme. They are eating goal based diets, that's different diet then normal person could or should consume. Hall and Phelps diet is not one that very sustainable but Metcalf one is actually the quite similiar to longevity diets. As such statements about that they are just genetic freaks this a disservice to diets they are eating and what we can learn from that. If they would 4k their bodies will start to adjust to those levels, would that be their top performance probably not. The human body is very adaptable to any kind of circumstance.

lynx23 4y ago

Or you just eat less, which is probably going to change your body mass without exercise :-)

dkdbejwi383 4y ago
But still have low cardio fitness. A healthy body needs exercise and a good diet.
- lynx23 4y ago
  Question is, how to get that "exercise". I am going to be downvoted, but I am convinced sex twice a week is more or less sufficient for the "exercise" part.
  - bt4u 4y ago
    [dead]
  - dkdbejwi383 4y ago
    I doubt it. It doesn’t target enough muscle groups and you ideally need some variations of push/pull/lift as muscle groups are engaged in different ways for different motions. Probably not fantastic for cardio either, ideally you want a lot of training in zone 2 for endurance and some training at max for power.
    - lynx23 4y ago
      Everyone their own. I prefer to feel fine without a training regime and without assuming that everything I do is insufficient. I feel very good with that attitude and approach. However, I am not overweight, so its easy for me to feel that way.
      - scott_w 4y ago
        Smokers feel absolute fine for years. Until one day they don't.

mindhash 4y ago

such an important point here. The benefits of exercise are maximum when you start from a sedentary life. You will hit plateau at some point and then one has to re-think the plan. I am doubtful that just 10 min exercise over a few years will get you in a better shape. Another factor greatly ignored is HRV as key indicator of recovery and response to an exercise. Andrew Flatt (1) is a researcher and has been studying his cardio fitness through HRV for over 10 years. His observation is 10 sec high intensity + 50 sec break in between for 10 minutes improved his hrv. He also thinks 15000 steps contribute to better HRV as good as athlete level. While there are plenty of questions about 10k steps, what if 15k steps do the trick? In general, I think since HRV and VO2 max are trackable using hand-held and would be best parameters to track usefulness of an exercise over time. It is always likely that an exercise works at some point and doesn't at other. Possibly because you are more fit now or you have other life stresses dragging you down. In my experience, a lot of these studies are not reproducible. Because every person is different and context is different too. Genetics add another layer to this. Best is to keep track of your own parameters and try things out. References: [1] https://hrvtraining.com/ https://hrvtraining.com/

mindhash 4y ago
My recommendation will be to track HRV (1) and do the high intensity only when you are on or above your baseline. This is to avoid unexpected side effects of HIIT. If you can't get a hrv tracker then best to keep track of your heart rate recovery. It is common to see heart rate stay high after the exercise, it should return to normal in a few hours (3-4 hours). if not then you are over doing it. 1 - Apps like Elite HRV, hrv4training or Devices like Garmin (watch), CoreSense (Elite HRV), Scosche Rhythm+, polar or garmin chest wrap.
autoexec 4y ago
> such an important point here. The benefits of exercise are maximum when you start from a sedentary life. You will hit plateau at some point and then one has to re-think the plan. I'd bet that by the time they end up hitting that plateau it'll be a lot easier for someone who has been sedentary to up their game than it would have been if they'd started a more difficult and time consuming workout from the start. Easing into being more active seems like a really good thing and one that might make it easier for someone to start exercising and stay with it long term.

throwaway292939 4y ago

If you're completely out of shape, going at HIIT level intensity is also risky. Better to build some kind of baseline before jumping into the deep end.

antupis 4y ago
It is not risky but it is hard and I rather do low intensity running 60 minutes than 8 minutes HIIT.
- matsemann 4y ago
  It is risky. People push themselves too hard to keep up and end up with rabdo. (Edit: I was thinking more of a normal HIIT class, not the 1 minute one)
  - newaccount74 4y ago
    Does that really happen for 3x 20sec max effort on a stationary bike?
    - scott_w 4y ago
      No, this is a common theme I see. People who know nothing about exercise take real medical things that happen to people who massively overtrain and assume it can happen to a regular unfit person exercising for 10 minutes a day. For the 3x20s intervals, the max effort of a person is far, far, below the max effort that, say, I can put out (as a trained cyclist). I strongly doubt the people doing this were actually pushing the 500W for 20s that I saw bandied in another thread. They're more likely pushing 200W and tickling 300W for a few seconds. This is still a high perceived exertion (though lower absolute kcal expenditure), so it's a good effort on their part. But they're unlikely to black out or cause major muscle injuries beyond feeling a bit sore in the morning.
      - matsemann 4y ago
        The rabdo I'm talking about doesn't just happen to people that overtrain on a regular basis. It happens often to beginners doing their first workout at a gym being pushed to hard. But I agree, for 1 minute total effort it's probably not a risk. My comment was more in the general sense of giving untrained people high intensity workouts, especially in a group context where they take it too far (like crossfit).

l33tman 4y ago

"SIT involved 3x20-second 'all-out' cycle sprints (~500W) interspersed with 2 minutes of cycling at 50W, whereas MICT involved 45 minutes of continuous cycling at ~70% maximal heart rate (~110W). Both protocols involved a 2-minute warm-up and 3-minute cool-down at 50W."

Existenceblinks 4y ago

Coming back from out of shape with intensive exercise doesn't sound good to me. I often start with cycling for 25km x 3 days. Walk 10 km x 2 days rest 2 days. Something like this and then start to run / basket ball / swimming etc.

marcosscriven 4y ago

I'm just imagining the scene in There's Something About Mary. "No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6."

cycomanic 4y ago

While you are somewhat dismissive about the results, they really only confirm many other studies which found that HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times. This has been found for both non-athletes and athletes and in fact training for professional endurance athletes has drastically changed in the last 5-10 years (read interviews with e.g. professional cyclists, they train significantly less, but at much higher intensities than 7 years ago, lots of them have observed this transition). However, your point about body mass is correct, without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight. I also recall that there have been some studies that found it might be harder with HIT, because you are hungrier after HIT than low intensity exercise.

stabbles 4y ago
Do you have references for this? My understanding is that low heart rate training is still standard for elite endurance athletes.
- fsloth 4y ago
  How many people benefitting from more exercise are elite endurance athletes?
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    You might not want to emulate elite endurance athletes in that they get too much of a good thing…. That kind of training puts you at risk of atrial fibrillation.
    - kritiko 4y ago
      A recent study on this encourages exercise regardless. https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002154 https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002154 > Conclusion: Although older male endurance athletes experienced an increased risk of AF, the long-term risk of stroke was substantially reduced compared with non-athletes.

bjornsing 4y ago

> It's 8 minutes, not one minute > 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise Not exactly (unless I got something wrong): ”SIT involved 3x20-second 'all-out' cycle sprints (~500W) interspersed with 2 minutes of cycling at 50W”.

petesergeant 4y ago
This comment does the maths: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34515924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34515924 In fact, it’s 10 minutes not 8
geraldwhen 4y ago
50W is nothing, and 500W isn’t really a sprint. For an adult male, you should be pushing 1000-2000 over 20 second sprints. Walking slightly uphill is probably more intense than a 50w bike.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  So? If the article says 50/500W then I’d say that’s the best objective description of the effort level.
  - sebastianz 4y ago
    > So? If the article says 50/500W then I’d say that’s the best objective description of the effort level. It is an objective description of the power they produced. NOT their effort level. Their effort level would be established via their BPM, perceived extersion, lactate levels, etc etc
  - oriolid 4y ago
    The question is whether 500W counts as high intensity, and whether the results are applicable for people whose high intensity is 2 to 4 times higher than the test subjects. I have to admit that I didn't read the linked article, but previous similar ones had the low intensity reference at so low intensity it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that it didn't produce any results.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over 12 weeks This seems like a pretty negative reading. How about: Sedentary people (who have the most issues and highest healthcare costs), can see significant improvements in health by exercising for a fraction of time normally recommended. Sounds like wins all around.

notafraudster 4y ago
It's a win _if_ the barrier to getting sedentary people to improve their health through fitness is time cost and not all of the other costs associated with habit formation. My guess is for most sedentary people the biggest thing is that they manage to talk themselves out of doing anything, or once they start, talk themselves into allowing cheating/skipping rather than drilling in the habit. (Not that this is bad news regardless, it's good to have tools in the toolbox and some people might prefer lower time higher intensity stuff, but I do think the result is pretty limited)
- Arch-TK 4y ago
  Time cost is one of the major obstacles for more than just the reason of "it takes this X minutes out of your week". If you tell me I have to spend 45 minutes doing exercise 3 times a week my mind will be filled with excuses and the dread of how exhausted I will feel after 45 minutes and how it will likely be more like a 2 hour time commitment every time I do it. It's a much easier sell to say: 10 minutes where you're only spending 1 minute of time doing something intense and the rest is spent doing something quite light.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    45 min is a streaming series episode. I've found that the only way to get my ass on a stationary bike is to stick it where I can see the TV and watch something brainless. Ideally fast paced and violent so I can pick up the rythm :) And admit it, no matter how busy you are you do watch some entertainment once in a while.

watwut 4y ago

The measures that improved are more important then body mass itself. Body mass is an aesthetic measure. The improved measures were directly related to the health. And "fitness" itself is measured by performance, not by how you look like - which would make it third measure.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> The people in the study were out of shape to start with > In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures While this isn’t going to make athletes change their exercise programs, it’s a great reminder that if you’re sedentary you can get significant health improvements by doing literally any exercise at all. Some times dramatic improvements. Exercise doesn’t have to be complicated. Doing anything is significantly better than being sedentary.

ianai 4y ago

Is HiiT really a good idea for people with increasing levels of being out of shape? That sounds like a recipe for doing way too much way too fast and getting injured.

tootie 4y ago
You can just vary the intensity. The general approach is go as hard as you can for brief bursts then back to a comfortable pace to recover, then burst again. Your peak burst may be pretty slow at first, but if it gets your heart pumping, then you're doing it. That peak should just go up as you train and build your strength.

bitL 4y ago

10 years ago I started doing HIIT via the 7-minute workout while initially out of shape. The first month was horrible, then my body substantially improved, I stopped being lactose intolerant (could suddenly drink a gallon of milk a day without any issues), then I could stack 2 HIITs and later 3 HIITs in a row, then I could push more and more reps in each 30 second interval, achieving like 4-6x improvement compared to when I started and my fitness exploded.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago

What if you aren't super out of shape? Do the results translate/is the "hack" too good to be true? Working out for 45 minutes a day isn't fun

Dwedit 4y ago

Seven Minute Abs

TheRealPomax 4y ago

If we're going to dismissively summarize, shall we at least summarize it correctly? > The SIT protocol consisted of 3x20-second ‘all-out’ cycling efforts against 0.05kg/kg body mass, separated by 2 minutes of low-intensity cycling (50W). You're right, that's not one minute. That's 20 seconds high intensity spinning spaced out with 2 minute "just regular biking" sets. Turning that into "it's 8 minutes, not one minute" takes some doing. Anyone with a home exercise bike can comfortably repeat this regime.

seeingfurther 4y ago

No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel

kilgnad 4y ago

>In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over 12 weeks Make no mistake. The metric HIIT improves are limited, but these metrics are the ones we anecdotally use to observationally to separate people who are fit and people who are unfit. In other words, the people who we consider to be "fit" when exercising tend to be extremely high in these specific metrics. I've been doing HIIT almost exclusively for a decade. You may still have high cholesterol after doing HIIT, but your VO2 max will be through the roof. And not just a little. This isn't just for people who are unfit, it can bring those specific metrics to near athlete level performance if you go at it consistently. From a more laymans perspective, VO2 max is the main metric that this type of exercise improves which dramatically improves your observed athleticism in sprinting, running and almost every sport that involves endurance. It won't help you lose your gut or lose weight though. This is just my own anecdotal observations after a decade of using HIIT as my main exercise.

kirso 4y ago

This is a common misconception for a lot of studies. The selection bias is strong when trying to make us eat fake meat, nutritious sugar, keto diets etc. etc.