3 ms·

So many similar studies, including this one, suffer from the same flaws pointed out by Olympic coach Steve Magness. In brief, the training protocols used in th

So many similar studies, including this one, suffer from the same flaws pointed out by Olympic coach Steve Magness. In brief, the training protocols used in these papers are not representative at all of how actual athletes train. And athletes do not train that way because it doesn't work nearly as well as the training protocols that have become popular since the 1960s or so. With this I am not trying to invalidate the research. What I am doing is warning laypeople from drawing overly simplistic conclusions from studies like these, such as concluding that "Exercising hard is good". Successful endurance athletes spend the overwhelming majority of their training at low and moderate intensities, because that is what works best in the long term.

amelius 2mo ago
But athletes don't have health as their main goal.
andy_ppp 2mo ago
Isn't it likely that blended exercise is best for longevity anyway? i.e. per week 1-2h Zone 2 and 20 minutes HIIT (nordic 4x4?) and then as much strength training as you can fit in, say 3 x 1h PPL per week, and maybe some sauna too. This is likely around what is best for most people and probably cutting the strength training time to 1h before cutting the rest if you "don't have time".
- Gravityloss 2mo ago
  Thought experiment, not completely serious but something worth considering. This would be 5 h per week, or 250 h per year, or over 10 years, 3.5 months of continuous 24/7 exercise. This is a large amount of training. 4% of your waking time would be spent on exercising. Or 6% of free time. At what point does it turn net negative, ie as time that it eats away from life. You can't attend events or hang out with family since you're always at the gym. I have understood smoking reduces your life span 8%. On the other hand, if you replace watching reels with gym, maybe it's also positive time otherwise.
  - andy_ppp 2mo ago
    You will feel better and be in hospital at the end of your life for a lot less time on average so yes it’s a lot but potentially the chances of being a fit 80 year old could be worth it.
  - PowerElectronix 2mo ago
    The logic of exchanging 3.5 months every 10 years to be as healthy and able as possible for as long as you are alive seems to me to be absurdly compelling. Who wouldn't take that deal?
  - arrrg 2mo ago
    I totally get your thought process, especially with the dry exercise description in the comment you responded to. That’s maybe an approach for some people but it also doesn’t seem that sustainable. My view on exercise is that it should give me something in the moment. That also helps keep me motivated. So arduous hikes and bike tours aren’t something I do for the exercise, that’s just a nice side benefit. I do those because I want to get to exciting places or explore the world at a pace that makes sense. I ride my exercise bike to keep in form and be able to do those hikes and bikes tours, even to go further and enable me to reach new places and do new things. Same with swimming, though that also helps me to clear my head and think about stuff. Both of those can potentially be boring, but at least I always feel amazing and energized afterwards. Strength training is admittedly something I do almost exclusively for its long-term health benefits (and struggle the most with), though I also like feeling stronger and seeing my body change at least a tiny bit. Oh, and it’s an activity (as well as some Yoga and flexibility exercises) I do together with my partner, so it always has that social component. Bouldering and badminton (both of which I absolutely suck at) also have that social component: it’s something I do with other people. Oh, and then I don’t own a car, so my bike is my only means of getting from a to b and transporting things. So I automatically get moving that way and it never feels like wasted time or even exercise to me. That’s much more than five hours per week spent exercising and very little of it is boring or feels like empty time that is merely an investment into my future. I do think that’s the trick to being and staying active. At least for me.
  - nradov 2mo ago
arrrg 2mo ago
Good and best is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. What are you talking about when you speak of good/best outcomes? I think especially when it comes to talking about fitness it is important to be explicit about outcomes because only with outcomes in mind can you talk about what “good” actually means. In that context I’m a bit confused by your focus on (endurance) athletes. Their overriding goal is obviously increasing their athletic performance in a way that keeps them injury free. Their main focus aren’t health outcomes. That’s not the same. So if you focus on them you are in danger of talking past each other. To that point: sure, those studies often have unrealistic protocols but the way (performance) athletes train is also unrealistic for most people! If those studies are about population health they should have realistic protocols (in terms of: realistically achievable and adhered to by non-athletes, in the best case also empirically grounded in the sense of: this is a realistic range of activities non-athletes might actually engage in on a regular basis) for non-athletes.
sigmoid10 2mo ago
Professional athletes don't train for cardiometabolic health. They train to perform at competitions. The study is perfectly fine for the people it is intended to serve in the context of their lives. Normal people neither want nor need to train like athletes. They certainly don't need to follow a training program to compete at the Olympics. But they would still be well served to train in some form because of their increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Optimizing that form for efficiency is a key to population health. This paper is just the latest in a stream of evidence that suggests shorter but higher intensity bursts of exercise might be the more efficient way of training if you want to min-max your workout time and health as a normal person who has a real job and possibly a family and other hobbies.
- david-gpu 2mo ago
  I do recommend learning what Steve Magness says about the subject. He covers that as well. Even as a complete amateur you still would not structure your training as they did in that paper, because it makes zero sense.
  - aqme28 2mo ago
    > you still would not structure your training as they did in that paper, because it makes zero sense. That isn't relevant. The paper is not setting out to find the optimal way for people to train.
    - david-gpu 2mo ago
      With this I am not trying to invalidate the research. What I am doing is warning laypeople from drawing overly simplistic conclusions from studies like these, such as concluding that "Exercising hard is good".
      - hobojojo 2mo ago
        There are a lot of studies on one side showing that high intensity training is probably better than developibg skill and efficiency for very moderate health goals and how an Olympic coach thinks lay people should train on the other. How much experience does an Olympic coach have with someone who wants to do less than 2000 calories of exercise a week for the rest of their life?
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
koliber 2mo ago
Most people don't exercise at all. If some of these people draw the wrong conclusion from such a study and start exercising at high intensity, it will still be better than their current couch-potato training protocol.
- HumblyTossed 2mo ago
  Probably not. They'll train like hell for a few weeks, their bodies unable to properly recover, they'll feel wrecked the entire time and they will never develop the habit of exercise. Likely best for most people is to just start moving and once you have _actually_ established the habit of exercise, slowly add intensity. Let your body accommodate.
francisofascii 2mo ago
Just to add my interpretation of what Magness would say, which is: intense interval training tends to show significant gains over moderate work in shorter (8 weeks) study periods, but those gains level off quickly in the long term. A more blended training approach that incorporates all types of training intensities (hard, moderate, easy) will outperform just doing hard interval training, over the long term. And this advice applies to all types of athletes, not just people training at a high level.
- david-gpu 2mo ago
  Yes. And he emphasizes spending most of your time doing easy volume. Because especially as a regular Joe you won't recover well from doing high intensity intervals three or four times a week, especially when you haven't built a strong aerobic base through lots of easy volume. And Magness isn't saying anything revolutionary here. Every other coach says very similar things. But Magness has the credentials to make him more authoritative than a random coach out there.
matwood 2mo ago
> actual athletes Probably need to define. Are we talking about professional athletes or just people who have a lot of training experience? Exercising hard for a person who has never trained is very different than someone with years under their belt training. An untrained person can't even tap into what hard means compared to a trained person. I'm also confused about the focus on endurance. Yes, all people need some cardio, but everyone would do better with additional strength. The stronger someone is going into their 50s, they better they will end up in the 60s and 70s.
kerabatsos 2mo ago
Former professional distance runner here. I’ve not read the study but I can comment on the statement regarding training at low to moderate intensities - I can agree that low intensities have an important role in endurance training but a lot of training is at or near threshold levels which can be on the moderate to high levels of intensity. Easy efforts are critical but there is a lot of effort, in a “normal” training segment, that are at or near high intensity effort.
- david-gpu 2mo ago
  In the study we are discussing they did six 30-second "all out" efforts, three or four times per week, and nothing else. This is far beyond threshold intensities. I other words, I agree with you. And I think hopefully you now also agree with me.
- Revisional_Sin 2mo ago
  Isn't low intensity effort generally 70-80% of the volume?
  - its_down_again 2mo ago
    But let’s say you’re an elite marathoner running 100 miles a week. Maybe 20 are at low 5 or sub 5 pace. The other 80 are closer to 6:30/mile. Then you might add more race specific work as race day gets closer. In one week you might do 2 days of track or threshold workouts before your long run of 14 miles at 6:00 pace with 8 at goal marathon pace (~4:50/mile).

amelius 2mo ago

But athletes don't have health as their main goal.

andy_ppp 2mo ago

Isn't it likely that blended exercise is best for longevity anyway? i.e. per week 1-2h Zone 2 and 20 minutes HIIT (nordic 4x4?) and then as much strength training as you can fit in, say 3 x 1h PPL per week, and maybe some sauna too. This is likely around what is best for most people and probably cutting the strength training time to 1h before cutting the rest if you "don't have time".

Gravityloss 2mo ago
Thought experiment, not completely serious but something worth considering. This would be 5 h per week, or 250 h per year, or over 10 years, 3.5 months of continuous 24/7 exercise. This is a large amount of training. 4% of your waking time would be spent on exercising. Or 6% of free time. At what point does it turn net negative, ie as time that it eats away from life. You can't attend events or hang out with family since you're always at the gym. I have understood smoking reduces your life span 8%. On the other hand, if you replace watching reels with gym, maybe it's also positive time otherwise.
- andy_ppp 2mo ago
  You will feel better and be in hospital at the end of your life for a lot less time on average so yes it’s a lot but potentially the chances of being a fit 80 year old could be worth it.
- PowerElectronix 2mo ago
  The logic of exchanging 3.5 months every 10 years to be as healthy and able as possible for as long as you are alive seems to me to be absurdly compelling. Who wouldn't take that deal?
- arrrg 2mo ago
  I totally get your thought process, especially with the dry exercise description in the comment you responded to. That’s maybe an approach for some people but it also doesn’t seem that sustainable. My view on exercise is that it should give me something in the moment. That also helps keep me motivated. So arduous hikes and bike tours aren’t something I do for the exercise, that’s just a nice side benefit. I do those because I want to get to exciting places or explore the world at a pace that makes sense. I ride my exercise bike to keep in form and be able to do those hikes and bikes tours, even to go further and enable me to reach new places and do new things. Same with swimming, though that also helps me to clear my head and think about stuff. Both of those can potentially be boring, but at least I always feel amazing and energized afterwards. Strength training is admittedly something I do almost exclusively for its long-term health benefits (and struggle the most with), though I also like feeling stronger and seeing my body change at least a tiny bit. Oh, and it’s an activity (as well as some Yoga and flexibility exercises) I do together with my partner, so it always has that social component. Bouldering and badminton (both of which I absolutely suck at) also have that social component: it’s something I do with other people. Oh, and then I don’t own a car, so my bike is my only means of getting from a to b and transporting things. So I automatically get moving that way and it never feels like wasted time or even exercise to me. That’s much more than five hours per week spent exercising and very little of it is boring or feels like empty time that is merely an investment into my future. I do think that’s the trick to being and staying active. At least for me.
- nradov 2mo ago

arrrg 2mo ago

Good and best is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. What are you talking about when you speak of good/best outcomes? I think especially when it comes to talking about fitness it is important to be explicit about outcomes because only with outcomes in mind can you talk about what “good” actually means. In that context I’m a bit confused by your focus on (endurance) athletes. Their overriding goal is obviously increasing their athletic performance in a way that keeps them injury free. Their main focus aren’t health outcomes. That’s not the same. So if you focus on them you are in danger of talking past each other. To that point: sure, those studies often have unrealistic protocols but the way (performance) athletes train is also unrealistic for most people! If those studies are about population health they should have realistic protocols (in terms of: realistically achievable and adhered to by non-athletes, in the best case also empirically grounded in the sense of: this is a realistic range of activities non-athletes might actually engage in on a regular basis) for non-athletes.

sigmoid10 2mo ago

Professional athletes don't train for cardiometabolic health. They train to perform at competitions. The study is perfectly fine for the people it is intended to serve in the context of their lives. Normal people neither want nor need to train like athletes. They certainly don't need to follow a training program to compete at the Olympics. But they would still be well served to train in some form because of their increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Optimizing that form for efficiency is a key to population health. This paper is just the latest in a stream of evidence that suggests shorter but higher intensity bursts of exercise might be the more efficient way of training if you want to min-max your workout time and health as a normal person who has a real job and possibly a family and other hobbies.

david-gpu 2mo ago
I do recommend learning what Steve Magness says about the subject. He covers that as well. Even as a complete amateur you still would not structure your training as they did in that paper, because it makes zero sense.
- aqme28 2mo ago
  > you still would not structure your training as they did in that paper, because it makes zero sense. That isn't relevant. The paper is not setting out to find the optimal way for people to train.
  - david-gpu 2mo ago
    With this I am not trying to invalidate the research. What I am doing is warning laypeople from drawing overly simplistic conclusions from studies like these, such as concluding that "Exercising hard is good".
    - hobojojo 2mo ago
      There are a lot of studies on one side showing that high intensity training is probably better than developibg skill and efficiency for very moderate health goals and how an Olympic coach thinks lay people should train on the other. How much experience does an Olympic coach have with someone who wants to do less than 2000 calories of exercise a week for the rest of their life?

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

koliber 2mo ago

Most people don't exercise at all. If some of these people draw the wrong conclusion from such a study and start exercising at high intensity, it will still be better than their current couch-potato training protocol.

HumblyTossed 2mo ago
Probably not. They'll train like hell for a few weeks, their bodies unable to properly recover, they'll feel wrecked the entire time and they will never develop the habit of exercise. Likely best for most people is to just start moving and once you have _actually_ established the habit of exercise, slowly add intensity. Let your body accommodate.

francisofascii 2mo ago

Just to add my interpretation of what Magness would say, which is: intense interval training tends to show significant gains over moderate work in shorter (8 weeks) study periods, but those gains level off quickly in the long term. A more blended training approach that incorporates all types of training intensities (hard, moderate, easy) will outperform just doing hard interval training, over the long term. And this advice applies to all types of athletes, not just people training at a high level.

david-gpu 2mo ago
Yes. And he emphasizes spending most of your time doing easy volume. Because especially as a regular Joe you won't recover well from doing high intensity intervals three or four times a week, especially when you haven't built a strong aerobic base through lots of easy volume. And Magness isn't saying anything revolutionary here. Every other coach says very similar things. But Magness has the credentials to make him more authoritative than a random coach out there.

matwood 2mo ago

> actual athletes Probably need to define. Are we talking about professional athletes or just people who have a lot of training experience? Exercising hard for a person who has never trained is very different than someone with years under their belt training. An untrained person can't even tap into what hard means compared to a trained person. I'm also confused about the focus on endurance. Yes, all people need some cardio, but everyone would do better with additional strength. The stronger someone is going into their 50s, they better they will end up in the 60s and 70s.

kerabatsos 2mo ago

Former professional distance runner here. I’ve not read the study but I can comment on the statement regarding training at low to moderate intensities - I can agree that low intensities have an important role in endurance training but a lot of training is at or near threshold levels which can be on the moderate to high levels of intensity. Easy efforts are critical but there is a lot of effort, in a “normal” training segment, that are at or near high intensity effort.

david-gpu 2mo ago
In the study we are discussing they did six 30-second "all out" efforts, three or four times per week, and nothing else. This is far beyond threshold intensities. I other words, I agree with you. And I think hopefully you now also agree with me.
Revisional_Sin 2mo ago
Isn't low intensity effort generally 70-80% of the volume?
- its_down_again 2mo ago
  But let’s say you’re an elite marathoner running 100 miles a week. Maybe 20 are at low 5 or sub 5 pace. The other 80 are closer to 6:30/mile. Then you might add more race specific work as race day gets closer. In one week you might do 2 days of track or threshold workouts before your long run of 14 miles at 6:00 pace with 8 at goal marathon pace (~4:50/mile).