28 ms·

The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

401 points by tilt 13y ago

aet 13y ago
aka circuit training
- edtechdev 13y ago
  Here are videos showing the 7 exercises, along with some tips for avoiding potential damage (don't slide down after the wall sit, for example, push up, so you don't damage your knees): http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-form-for-a-7-minute-ful-499199366 http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-form-f...
  - Detrus 13y ago
    Squat form video is wrong. Don't do that with weight. Your toes need to be pointed out 30 degrees and knees spread apart, crotch opened as far as possible. You'll find a lot of wrong YouTube videos. It's a minefield of fitness non-experts trying to make a profit. Follow Starting Strength form recommendations and make sure the videos you're watching follow them approximately.
chasb 13y ago
80% intensity is no joke - this should not be comfortable. Might want to do a little easy warmup first.
zdw 13y ago
The full article is here: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050... It's surprisingly readable and goes into much more detail. Also, a downloadable PDF.
Kurtz79 13y ago
“There’s very good evidence” that high-intensity interval training provides “many of the fitness benefits of prolonged endurance training but in much less time"" Sorry, but there's no way that I'll believe that a 7 minute "heavy intensity workout" can burn the same number of calories of an involved 45 minute run, and have the same beneficial effect on weight control. Better than nothing, maybe very efficient in terms of results/time, but in no way "combines a long run and a visit to the weight room" as the article claims. EDIT : It's useful to separate what the NYT says and the actual article does.
- H3g3m0n 13y ago
  From your years of work in scientific medical research or just 'cus'? You do understand this is scientific research and not just an idea someone thought up on a whim.
  - Kurtz79 13y ago
    From my years of actually exercising, and reading articles that deal with nutrition an physical exercise.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    It's not original research. It's a sample program in a puffy review article that goes out of its way to avoid using barbells, dumbbells or kettlebells.
  - Goladus 13y ago
    Most of the science you need to reach the same conclusions as Kurtz79 is high school biology and some basic physics and thermodynamics. Calories are a measure of work (Force x mass). To burn Calories your body has to be doing work of some sort. To burn the same number of Calories in 7 minutes as 45 requires doing an equivalent amount of work. In my case, 45 minutes running is 800 calories. 800 calories in 7 minutes is like 114 Calories/minute. I don't think even maximum anaerobic sprinting comes close to 114 kcal/min, and even if it does I certainly can't maintain that intensity for more than 15-20 seconds. For a comparison, my 2800 lb Honda Civic burns probably 400 kcal/minute in gasoline during city driving at an average speed of 20mph. The article is very vague about how reasonable this 7-minute set of exercises actually is. From the article: Interval training, though, requires intervals; the extremely intense activity must be intermingled with brief periods of recovery. How intense? It doesn't say. This should be possible to measure. To explain more though I will have to read the original paper to see exactly what sort of "benefits" they were talking about and how intense this exercise has to be.
jacques_chester 13y ago
OK, I'll say it: this is not a very good program. Which is fine, because it's a sample program in a fairly silly ACSM article[1]. "The exercises selected should ... promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body". Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accomodation. "... create a balance of strength throughout the body ..." Then drop the isometrics. Isometric exercises only produce strength increases in a limited range of motion close to the joint angle of the isometric exercise. And most of those studies were done with maximal voluntary isometric contraction -- ie pushing as hard as possible against an immobile object. Wall sits do not fit those studies. "... adapted as necessary to increase or decrease exercise intensity" Which can't be done with most of these exercises. "To maximize the metabolic impact of the exercise, time should be sufficient enough to allow for the proper execution of 15 to 20 repetitions (15) of an exercise." Which further breaks the link with strength. " Individuals who previously believed that they did not have the time for exercise can now trade total exercise time for total exercise effort and get similar or better health and fitness benefits." Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially done with elite athletes, I'm not certain it shows that at all. This is about as scientific as two guys spitballing over beer. It hasn't been tested as a program and the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke. If you want to get stronger and improve cardiovascular condition, simple barbell exercises and running or swinging a kettlebell will do it better, for longer. When I write programs for my trainees, I am apparently equivalently scientific. I too take the general principles I am taught and go through a process of exercise selection, exercise ordering, repetition and set layout, rest period selection and then sprinkle in modifications. I'll be right back, I have a scientific program for figure competitors I need to flog to the Wall Street Journal. [1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  This has nothing at all to do with strength training. They specifically note in the cited article that this is to 'manage and expand their physical energy, prevent fatigue, and sustain engagement'. Simple barbell and kettlebell exercises do not address this in the least. (Well, kettlebell helps, but you're lacking a lot of lower-body plyometrics). And I don't see why you would argue against increasing strength at the joint angle. It's very important for people with the potential for joint pain or injury to strengthen supporting muscles around the joint. I agree that there's little to no science in the article. It seems like everything i've seen concerning athletic performance is based on cherry-picked ideas distributed by non-scientists.
H3g3m0n 13y ago
I couldn't even do some of these ☹ I think I'll try the bike peddling one first, repeatedly sprint for eight seconds, then pedal slowly for 12 and repeat. http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-the-single-most-efficient-exercise-regimen http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-...
- alangfiles 13y ago
  I read about this and put together a quick js page so that I can run it in the corner of my computer while I bike, or watch a movie. http://alangfiles.github.io/bike-workout/ http://alangfiles.github.io/bike-workout/
charlesju 13y ago
I have struggled with fitness my whole life, and I have realized that not everyone is genetically disposed to the same effects of specific exercises. However, I believe that most people can get in shape, it's just a function of resistance. Diet and fitness is one of those things in life where you should just overkill the plan. Keep your diet stricter than you have to, lift more weights than you have to, do more cardio than you have to. When you overkill the situation, you will get in and stay in excellent shape, trying to walk the line of "just enough" gets your burned and loses precious time towards proper progress.
- gaius 13y ago
  Fitness is environmentally specific. For example, a predisposition to fat storage, in most of human history, was a powerful survival trait. Your body doesn't know that you want to look good on the beach, only that winter is coming. Speaking from experience, don't overkill. You won't be able to sustain it over the long term.
- gearoidoc 13y ago
  I'd suggest that your struggles with fitness may be down to your views on "overkilling" the situation. Slow progress and sustainable changes are the key to success my friend :-)
jvdh 13y ago
This reminds me a lot of the 5BX (5 Basic Exercises) plan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX That has 5 exercises which you should be able to do in 5 minutes. It has a complete scheme of exercises building up in intensity as you get better at them.
marknutter 13y ago
I believe there is some disagreement among elite endurance sport athletes about whether interval training is actually better for performance over the long term when compared to long distance training. High intensity interval training did become very popular in the 80s/90s because one could seemingly get very quick results from relatively few hours spent training. However, Americans were always outperformed by African runners. That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status. It seems counter-intuitive that low intensity running over long distances should improve high intensity short-distance times, but the proof is in the pudding. Interval training can increase your lactate threshold, or your body's ability to remove lactic acid from your muscles while you are engaging in high intensity activities (the same acid that causes that burning sensation we all love to hate), but it doesn't do that much for your VO2max which determines how effectively your body uses oxygen. Most pro endurance athletes mix interval training with long distance training to get the benefit of both strategies. As with anything in physical activity, there is no silver bullet.
- jsdalton 13y ago
  Are you referring specifically to marathon training, or some other form of competitive running?
  - marknutter 13y ago
    Any non-sprint running, actually. So from the mile run all the way up to ultra marathoners. I would imagine that these tactics just as effective for other endurance sports, too, such as swimming or biking, but AFIAK there's been less talk about it in those sports.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status. This conclusion is premature. We have no way of knowing whether the increase in performance in American athletes comes from them changing their training methods, as opposed to countless other factors. As far as I know, no random controlled trials have been conducted in this area (and those are the only truly reliable scientific method for answering questions like this). edit: only someone who doesn't understand science would downvote this comment. :)
rickdale 13y ago
A lot of the get fit in 60-90 days fitness programs that sell on TV are based on these types of workouts. I was a fatass my whole life until 1.5 years ago I decided to lose weight and get in shape. I followed the slow carb diet and now try to recommend it every time I get the chance. I exercise daily, but without the diet aspect I dont think my body would have changed at all. The supplement and weight loss industry has made in very difficult for people to achieve results. I lost 50 pounds fat and put on 20 pounds of muscle with zero supplements, not even a protein shake, just lots of good nutrition, patience, and little understanding that my body might change.
- nlh 13y ago
  Congrats! It's a huge sense of accomplishment, no? I did a similar thing around the same time ago -- started eating better (out with the Frosted Mini Wheats for breakfast, in with the Greek Yogurt), started running, and lost 30 lbs in about 6 months. No supplements either. Best life improvement I've ever made.
  - rickdale 13y ago
    Thanks and congrats to you too. I have found a lot of people that are into fitness on hn. Taken a few tips here and there. The no supplements thing was something I was just determined to do. In my mind, I ate to get fat, and now I needed to eat to get fit. That perspective helped me out a lot. I wanted to mention that I achieved my results so far without a gym membership. I did put together a small @ home gym, but its not the same as a gym. Just been able to really stay motivated.
draugadrotten 13y ago
BBC medical guru Michael Mosley(PhD) has a very interesting show about 3 minute high intensity training, and there are indeed couch potatoes that can reap huge benefits: ...research from a number of centres has shown that three minutes of HIT a week improves insulin sensitivity by an average of 24% ... Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20% showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders"). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251
gojomo 13y ago
This cries out for an app, which uses both visual and audio cues to prompt the next exercise, and count down each period. EG: "Starting your 7 minute workout with Jumping Jacks in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..." "Start Jumping Jacks for 30... [optional chirp-per-second]... 20 seconds... 10 seconds... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..." "Rest now, next is Wall Sit... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..." "Begin Wall Sit for 30... [etc]" Obviously, it could be a static recording. But some obvious enhancements would be: • visual countdown timer • changing images of the exercises to precede/accompany each phase • optional chirps/clicks each second • alternate trainer voices • optional extra voiced 'encouragement' ("keep up intensity", "good", "almost there", "all done") • automatic logging/reminders of when/how-often circuit is completed (either based on how many times started run through uninterrupted, or based on a prompted "did you finish and what was your self-rated 1-10 intensity?" question at the end)
- dalore 13y ago
  Sounds like Wii Fit.
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  There are several apps that do this. Some of them even have videos or pictures showing you how to do it. But a very basic HIIT interval timer works perfectly well, just write down each exercise on a sheet of paper and do them one at a time.
- joshuahedlund 13y ago
  There's at least one already; http://willwilson.co/7minworkout/ http://willwilson.co/7minworkout/
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  How about use some FFT analysis so the user can call out "One! Two! Three!" and the app will automatically advance?
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  This is basically what every fitness video since the 80s does. If you want something longer than 7 minutes, this one is pretty good: http://www.teambeachbody.com/workout-routines/insanity-workout http://www.teambeachbody.com/workout-routines/insanity-worko...
sdoctor86 13y ago
There's a good chance this will be able to deplete most of the glucose stores in your muscles just like lifting does. You do have to make sure you aren't cheating and are actually teetering on the brink of the activation of golgi tendon reflex (overload). As far as strength goes this is not quite as good at lifting for actually creating new muscles. But this will definitively improve overall use of muscles and cardio system.
kawsper 13y ago
Interesting, this is very close to the training exercises they use in the danish military.
tibbon 13y ago
While I don't think this workout is actually a great one, I have found that you definitely can do a killer workout in a short period of time, depending on your fitness. I started Crossfit a few months back, and its entirely possible to do 2-3 simple movements (thrusters + pullups for example) in a short time period (2-10 minutes) and really push yourself to complete exhaustion.
locofacetwice 13y ago
There is nothing like the feeling after 3 hour workout at the gym. 7 minute workout sounds like complete bs.
scottcanoni 13y ago
I have developed the 6-minute workout and it is by far superior to the 7-minute workout. Anything done in less time is technically impossible.
saosebastiao 13y ago
When someone tries to distinguish their X by saying it is rooted in science, all they really mean is that someone with a grad degree and a lab coat came up with it. That is a pretty limited, and IMO flawed view of what science is. Are they really trying to say that other workouts don't use the scientific method at all? That they don't do anything like formulating and nullifying hypotheses with evidence, without any semblance of control? Is your workout really better because it came out of a university research center? Science isn't peer review. Peer review is merely a filter mechanism to discard bad from good...a filter mechanism that has both false positives and false negatives. We shouldn't conflate peer review with science.
pvnick 13y ago
This is a waste of time. Let me explain. After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground. As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches. Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat. Really look into Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe for actual good advice. "Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general." - Mark Rippetoe Edit: Btw, time comparison: spend years chasing the latest "scientific" fitness fad (see article) and going nowhere or get in better shape while working an office job than 99% of highschool/college guys in a few months for a time commitment of 2-3 hours per week. That's the kind of math I'm talking about when I talk about starting strength and leangains.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches. Actually, the headline is targeted towards people who know very little science. Tech folks like us approach things like this with a great deal of skepticism. I bet more than half the posters in this thread have at least skimmed the study on which the article is based. You can't really expect the general populace to be so inquisitive.
- graeme 13y ago
  I'll add that, if you've never been strong, you don't know what you're missing. You could try it, and decide it's not for you. But a lot of self-professed nerds disdain it, assuming it's something only stupid jocks do. It's not. Getting strong has been one of the most fulfilling things I've ever done. It's also had lasting effects in pain reduction, how other perceive me, and my self-confidence.
desireco42 13y ago
I think this would be excellent starting exercise for people who don't exercise much. As soon as they would gain some strength, hackers as they are, would explore and find better things to do. I think criticism of this article, which is legitimate, is missing the point of this being targeted to beginners who are just starting.
jeffheard 13y ago
This is not a waste of time. Let me explain. Sometimes you only have 7 minutes. What's the difference between 7 minutes of this and 7 minutes of sitting, reading HN or Reddit? Lots. I did this one yesterday, just to try it out. Now me, personally, I'm quite active. I did it three times with 30-second stretch breaks because that's what it took to work up a good sweat. The point of exercise like this, to my mind, is that you can do it anytime and work it into your work day. Exercise during the work day, even minimal exercise sharpens your concentration and "shakes out the dead leaves" so to speak. It makes you sharper, and sharper at 3:30 in the afternoon (empirically determined to be the least productive time of the day by several studies) is exactly what most of us need. What are your goals when you work out? Depending on that, this is not a waste of time. If you want to lose 50lbs, this will not help you. If you want massive muscles, this will not help you. If you want to be an "active person", this will not by itself achieve that, although it may make it easier to get into exercise later, when you do something short and see nearly immediate results. It's rewarding, and that's the first thing you need when starting an exercise program of any sort. My point is, don't let anyone -- or yourself -- shame you out of working out. Yes, you read it in the NYT. It's a fad and it's mass-media. That doesn't make it stupid by definition. If it starts you off on finding ways to hack your body and make it strong, endurant, and resilient, then by all means, go for it.
- te_chris 13y ago
  This should be the top comment. I never realised the tech crowd were as bad/the same as the bodybuilding.com crowd.
hydralist 13y ago
this is a workout WARMUP
mathattack 13y ago
I'm absolutely not a believer of this. It's beyond just their bad math. (It's an 8 minute workout) To do a proper sprint interval workout, you'd need to warm up (5 minutes at least), and go so hard in those 30 intervals that you'd need 90 seconds to recover. So 120 seconds * 12 + 5 = 29 minutes. Add in stretching and you're beyond a half hour. The other issue is many of these exercises won't get your heartrate up to the right threshold to be good interval training. Yes, it's better than nothing. No, it's not better than a real workout, and not scientifically valid.
krat0sprakhar 13y ago
If you're a beginner and looking to start a bodyweight(BW) program see this[0]. Intermediate fitness enthusiasts can have a look at this[1]. If you're clueless about what the jargons are checkout this[2] 'cheat sheet' for a list of youtube videos for guidance [0] - http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png [1] - http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png [2] - http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/exercise_cheatsheet_for_the_basic_beginner_routine/c7l3osw http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/ex...
novakinblood 13y ago
The illustration for the air squat shows the worst possible form. The push-ups diagram looks incorrect too. I'm pretty sure the chest should touch the ground. What's the use of rapid succession if you are using bad form?
- shardling 13y ago
  The nytimes illustration, or the original article?
  - novakinblood 13y ago
    The nytimes illustration. The subject keeps straight back in the original article. Doing this exercise wrong can really screw things up.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    NYT. Illustrators don't know what they don't know. I don't hold that against them, especially if there's a sharp deadline looming.
fatjokes 13y ago
The authors of the study actually recommend you do it 3 times. So it's actually a 21-minute workout.
GigabyteCoin 13y ago
About 50% of those moves look like the yoga poses I do every week.
androtheos 13y ago
Nothing worth having is easy. Anything easy isn't worth having Getting fit is hard work. If it was easy everyone would look like a Greek God / Goddess! No Pain, No Gain
dmourati 13y ago
Consider the source. Periodicals are in the business of selling you content (and advertising). Therefore, it is in their interests to create the latest "fad" and to sell it to you as tested. And then create something new and sell it to you again. And then... Is this workout terrible? No. It beats nothing. Is it the key to your ongoing physical fitness? Of course not. The fitness world is overrun with so-called experts. One problem is that we are all different. We have different body types, different goals, different strengths, different weaknesses, and different likes/dislikes. What works for me may not work for you. Can a periodical take this into account for all readers? Of course not. Consider their workout as a first step. If you are doing nothing, do the 7-minute workout. It will help you, to a point. Thereafter, you'll need to challenge your body to do harder things. Also, consider the physics definition of mechanical work: W=f*d. So, go apply some force of a distance. That's a workout. Do work.
bernardom 13y ago
The best article I found on this was "Everything You Know About Fitness Is A Lie" [1] I'd summarize the contents as: 1- Most gyms are 45% cardio, 45% stretching 10% weights. This is bad. 2- You need to lift heavy things. 3- There are no shortcuts. Favorite excerpt: My conversion moment came in a garage-like industrial space next to an ATV rental yard in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I was lying on a concrete floor, near puking, having just humiliated myself on the king of all strength exercises, the old-school back squat. "The best thing I can do for an athlete," coach Rob Shaul said to me as I struggled to get up, "is to make him strong. Strength is king, and you're fucking little-girl weak." [1] http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-about-fitness-is-a-lie-20120504 http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-abou...
mtext 13y ago
It seems great. if people spend less time at the gym and more time doing interesting things, like learning to play a violin or reading james joyce, the world would be a little less boring.
nazgulnarsil 13y ago
I have a secret about fitness to share. It's the reason there are so many snake oil programs out there. Everything works. For a sedentary person ANY random stimulus is going to give you a couple months of improvement. The true measure of a program is if after the first year you are still making quantifiable improvements.
gregPC 13y ago
I see a lot of negatives here over this.. but here is how I see this workout. You are a person who does work out on a fairly regular basis, but, are thrown 'off course' by a two week business trip, or stuck at a desk coding for hours on end to meet a deadline. This is perfect for that reason.. get in a few good minutes of strenuous activity, recover quickly with a water or shake, and go on with your busy schedule. If you can do this 2 or 3 times a day during that period... the better off you are, nothing scientific about that.
thret 13y ago
Lift some weights, 2-3 minutes a day, every day. Eat/drink/do whatever else you want and you will stay fit regardless, because it is about increasing your metabolism and not how much or even what you do, just that you do it every single day before eating. Oh and don't drink sweet drinks of any kind. #unsubstantiated personal experience
kleiba 13y ago
Fellow HN'ers - I'm slightly disappointed. How come I go to the comments and all I see is a battle of the anecdotes? Where's the fact-checking? This being HN, I would at least have expected someone pointing out that 12 exercises à 30 seconds plus 11 x 10 seconds rest between them is closer to an 8-minute workout than a 7-minute workout ;-)
D9u 13y ago
It doesn't take much endurance to do 7 minutes of training... If you're not going to expend the hard work then you shouldn't expect to see much improvement. "Sua Sponte!"
5partan 13y ago
I'm all for bodyweight training (you are your own gym, convict conditioning, al kavadlo, naked warrior, barstarzz, coach sommer, calisthenic kings...), and have better results than with metal, without the pain, but this is not it. Seriously, not one exercise for your back, but useless crunches? Do some yoga sun salutation, add some resistance by tensing your body and you have a by far better workout in the same amount of time than this.
tn13 13y ago
"Scientific" ? I dont see science in this article or the science in this article is the same science behind those late night tv ads where they sell 8-minute-ab-pro (among the others). The original paper that articles cites does not provide any concrete data to defend their claims. Secondly the most important thing is what is the objective of this workout. Clearly it is neither to keep your weight in control or to build strength. It is merely to provide "some" exercise. There are some fundamental truths about workouts which everyone should know. 1. Your body starts burning fat at higher rate only when you heartbeat is above average for around 20 minutes. Till then your body is mostly burning calories from the carbs. So no matter how hard you work for those 7 minutes you are not gonna lose that extra fat. 2. Even if you do these exercises regularly it is only within a week that your muscles will get strong enough to get used to your body weight. After that same number of reps wont have any effect on your body. (Yes it might be little better than being idle). 3. Actually no matter what is your goal if you keep your regimen fixed you very soon find yourself in a local minima. After that the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the benefit of exercise becomes negligible compared to the time you spend doing it. Here is a quick checklist to see if the advertised regimen should be taken seriously 1. Is the lower limit on duration around 20 minutes ? 2. Is there any variable that can be changed with time to increase difficulty level ? 3. Does it cover all core muscle groups ? Arms, Chest, Back, Abs, Legs and shoulders?
XEKEP 13y ago
Am I the only one who noticed, that the other, more realistic number 20 minutes is omitted in the NYT article. See "the established ACSM guidelines for high-intensity exercise of at least 20 minutes is recommended" in the original article.
orangethirty 13y ago
I actually like spending time exercising. It allows me to relax and think more clearly. I run about 15 miles a week, and enjoy every minute of it.

401 points by tilt 13y ago

aet 13y ago

aka circuit training

edtechdev 13y ago
Here are videos showing the 7 exercises, along with some tips for avoiding potential damage (don't slide down after the wall sit, for example, push up, so you don't damage your knees): http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-form-for-a-7-minute-ful-499199366 http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-form-f...
- Detrus 13y ago
  Squat form video is wrong. Don't do that with weight. Your toes need to be pointed out 30 degrees and knees spread apart, crotch opened as far as possible. You'll find a lot of wrong YouTube videos. It's a minefield of fitness non-experts trying to make a profit. Follow Starting Strength form recommendations and make sure the videos you're watching follow them approximately.

chasb 13y ago

80% intensity is no joke - this should not be comfortable. Might want to do a little easy warmup first.

zdw 13y ago

The full article is here: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050... It's surprisingly readable and goes into much more detail. Also, a downloadable PDF.

Kurtz79 13y ago

“There’s very good evidence” that high-intensity interval training provides “many of the fitness benefits of prolonged endurance training but in much less time"" Sorry, but there's no way that I'll believe that a 7 minute "heavy intensity workout" can burn the same number of calories of an involved 45 minute run, and have the same beneficial effect on weight control. Better than nothing, maybe very efficient in terms of results/time, but in no way "combines a long run and a visit to the weight room" as the article claims. EDIT : It's useful to separate what the NYT says and the actual article does.

H3g3m0n 13y ago
From your years of work in scientific medical research or just 'cus'? You do understand this is scientific research and not just an idea someone thought up on a whim.
- Kurtz79 13y ago
  From my years of actually exercising, and reading articles that deal with nutrition an physical exercise.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  It's not original research. It's a sample program in a puffy review article that goes out of its way to avoid using barbells, dumbbells or kettlebells.
- Goladus 13y ago
  Most of the science you need to reach the same conclusions as Kurtz79 is high school biology and some basic physics and thermodynamics. Calories are a measure of work (Force x mass). To burn Calories your body has to be doing work of some sort. To burn the same number of Calories in 7 minutes as 45 requires doing an equivalent amount of work. In my case, 45 minutes running is 800 calories. 800 calories in 7 minutes is like 114 Calories/minute. I don't think even maximum anaerobic sprinting comes close to 114 kcal/min, and even if it does I certainly can't maintain that intensity for more than 15-20 seconds. For a comparison, my 2800 lb Honda Civic burns probably 400 kcal/minute in gasoline during city driving at an average speed of 20mph. The article is very vague about how reasonable this 7-minute set of exercises actually is. From the article: Interval training, though, requires intervals; the extremely intense activity must be intermingled with brief periods of recovery. How intense? It doesn't say. This should be possible to measure. To explain more though I will have to read the original paper to see exactly what sort of "benefits" they were talking about and how intense this exercise has to be.

jacques_chester 13y ago

OK, I'll say it: this is not a very good program. Which is fine, because it's a sample program in a fairly silly ACSM article[1]. "The exercises selected should ... promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body". Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accomodation. "... create a balance of strength throughout the body ..." Then drop the isometrics. Isometric exercises only produce strength increases in a limited range of motion close to the joint angle of the isometric exercise. And most of those studies were done with maximal voluntary isometric contraction -- ie pushing as hard as possible against an immobile object. Wall sits do not fit those studies. "... adapted as necessary to increase or decrease exercise intensity" Which can't be done with most of these exercises. "To maximize the metabolic impact of the exercise, time should be sufficient enough to allow for the proper execution of 15 to 20 repetitions (15) of an exercise." Which further breaks the link with strength. " Individuals who previously believed that they did not have the time for exercise can now trade total exercise time for total exercise effort and get similar or better health and fitness benefits." Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially done with elite athletes, I'm not certain it shows that at all. This is about as scientific as two guys spitballing over beer. It hasn't been tested as a program and the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke. If you want to get stronger and improve cardiovascular condition, simple barbell exercises and running or swinging a kettlebell will do it better, for longer. When I write programs for my trainees, I am apparently equivalently scientific. I too take the general principles I am taught and go through a process of exercise selection, exercise ordering, repetition and set layout, rest period selection and then sprinkle in modifications. I'll be right back, I have a scientific program for figure competitors I need to flog to the Wall Street Journal. [1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...

peterwwillis 13y ago
This has nothing at all to do with strength training. They specifically note in the cited article that this is to 'manage and expand their physical energy, prevent fatigue, and sustain engagement'. Simple barbell and kettlebell exercises do not address this in the least. (Well, kettlebell helps, but you're lacking a lot of lower-body plyometrics). And I don't see why you would argue against increasing strength at the joint angle. It's very important for people with the potential for joint pain or injury to strengthen supporting muscles around the joint. I agree that there's little to no science in the article. It seems like everything i've seen concerning athletic performance is based on cherry-picked ideas distributed by non-scientists.

H3g3m0n 13y ago

I couldn't even do some of these ☹ I think I'll try the bike peddling one first, repeatedly sprint for eight seconds, then pedal slowly for 12 and repeat. http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-the-single-most-efficient-exercise-regimen http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-...

alangfiles 13y ago
I read about this and put together a quick js page so that I can run it in the corner of my computer while I bike, or watch a movie. http://alangfiles.github.io/bike-workout/ http://alangfiles.github.io/bike-workout/

charlesju 13y ago

I have struggled with fitness my whole life, and I have realized that not everyone is genetically disposed to the same effects of specific exercises. However, I believe that most people can get in shape, it's just a function of resistance. Diet and fitness is one of those things in life where you should just overkill the plan. Keep your diet stricter than you have to, lift more weights than you have to, do more cardio than you have to. When you overkill the situation, you will get in and stay in excellent shape, trying to walk the line of "just enough" gets your burned and loses precious time towards proper progress.

gaius 13y ago
Fitness is environmentally specific. For example, a predisposition to fat storage, in most of human history, was a powerful survival trait. Your body doesn't know that you want to look good on the beach, only that winter is coming. Speaking from experience, don't overkill. You won't be able to sustain it over the long term.
gearoidoc 13y ago
I'd suggest that your struggles with fitness may be down to your views on "overkilling" the situation. Slow progress and sustainable changes are the key to success my friend :-)

jvdh 13y ago

This reminds me a lot of the 5BX (5 Basic Exercises) plan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX That has 5 exercises which you should be able to do in 5 minutes. It has a complete scheme of exercises building up in intensity as you get better at them.

marknutter 13y ago

I believe there is some disagreement among elite endurance sport athletes about whether interval training is actually better for performance over the long term when compared to long distance training. High intensity interval training did become very popular in the 80s/90s because one could seemingly get very quick results from relatively few hours spent training. However, Americans were always outperformed by African runners. That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status. It seems counter-intuitive that low intensity running over long distances should improve high intensity short-distance times, but the proof is in the pudding. Interval training can increase your lactate threshold, or your body's ability to remove lactic acid from your muscles while you are engaging in high intensity activities (the same acid that causes that burning sensation we all love to hate), but it doesn't do that much for your VO2max which determines how effectively your body uses oxygen. Most pro endurance athletes mix interval training with long distance training to get the benefit of both strategies. As with anything in physical activity, there is no silver bullet.

jsdalton 13y ago
Are you referring specifically to marathon training, or some other form of competitive running?
- marknutter 13y ago
  Any non-sprint running, actually. So from the mile run all the way up to ultra marathoners. I would imagine that these tactics just as effective for other endurance sports, too, such as swimming or biking, but AFIAK there's been less talk about it in those sports.
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status. This conclusion is premature. We have no way of knowing whether the increase in performance in American athletes comes from them changing their training methods, as opposed to countless other factors. As far as I know, no random controlled trials have been conducted in this area (and those are the only truly reliable scientific method for answering questions like this). edit: only someone who doesn't understand science would downvote this comment. :)

rickdale 13y ago

A lot of the get fit in 60-90 days fitness programs that sell on TV are based on these types of workouts. I was a fatass my whole life until 1.5 years ago I decided to lose weight and get in shape. I followed the slow carb diet and now try to recommend it every time I get the chance. I exercise daily, but without the diet aspect I dont think my body would have changed at all. The supplement and weight loss industry has made in very difficult for people to achieve results. I lost 50 pounds fat and put on 20 pounds of muscle with zero supplements, not even a protein shake, just lots of good nutrition, patience, and little understanding that my body might change.

nlh 13y ago
Congrats! It's a huge sense of accomplishment, no? I did a similar thing around the same time ago -- started eating better (out with the Frosted Mini Wheats for breakfast, in with the Greek Yogurt), started running, and lost 30 lbs in about 6 months. No supplements either. Best life improvement I've ever made.
- rickdale 13y ago
  Thanks and congrats to you too. I have found a lot of people that are into fitness on hn. Taken a few tips here and there. The no supplements thing was something I was just determined to do. In my mind, I ate to get fat, and now I needed to eat to get fit. That perspective helped me out a lot. I wanted to mention that I achieved my results so far without a gym membership. I did put together a small @ home gym, but its not the same as a gym. Just been able to really stay motivated.

draugadrotten 13y ago

BBC medical guru Michael Mosley(PhD) has a very interesting show about 3 minute high intensity training, and there are indeed couch potatoes that can reap huge benefits: ...research from a number of centres has shown that three minutes of HIT a week improves insulin sensitivity by an average of 24% ... Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20% showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders"). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251

gojomo 13y ago

This cries out for an app, which uses both visual and audio cues to prompt the next exercise, and count down each period. EG: "Starting your 7 minute workout with Jumping Jacks in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..." "Start Jumping Jacks for 30... [optional chirp-per-second]... 20 seconds... 10 seconds... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..." "Rest now, next is Wall Sit... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..." "Begin Wall Sit for 30... [etc]" Obviously, it could be a static recording. But some obvious enhancements would be: • visual countdown timer • changing images of the exercises to precede/accompany each phase • optional chirps/clicks each second • alternate trainer voices • optional extra voiced 'encouragement' ("keep up intensity", "good", "almost there", "all done") • automatic logging/reminders of when/how-often circuit is completed (either based on how many times started run through uninterrupted, or based on a prompted "did you finish and what was your self-rated 1-10 intensity?" question at the end)

dalore 13y ago
Sounds like Wii Fit.
peterwwillis 13y ago
There are several apps that do this. Some of them even have videos or pictures showing you how to do it. But a very basic HIIT interval timer works perfectly well, just write down each exercise on a sheet of paper and do them one at a time.
joshuahedlund 13y ago
There's at least one already; http://willwilson.co/7minworkout/ http://willwilson.co/7minworkout/
nsxwolf 13y ago
How about use some FFT analysis so the user can call out "One! Two! Three!" and the app will automatically advance?
ricardobeat 13y ago
This is basically what every fitness video since the 80s does. If you want something longer than 7 minutes, this one is pretty good: http://www.teambeachbody.com/workout-routines/insanity-workout http://www.teambeachbody.com/workout-routines/insanity-worko...

sdoctor86 13y ago

There's a good chance this will be able to deplete most of the glucose stores in your muscles just like lifting does. You do have to make sure you aren't cheating and are actually teetering on the brink of the activation of golgi tendon reflex (overload). As far as strength goes this is not quite as good at lifting for actually creating new muscles. But this will definitively improve overall use of muscles and cardio system.

kawsper 13y ago

Interesting, this is very close to the training exercises they use in the danish military.

tibbon 13y ago

While I don't think this workout is actually a great one, I have found that you definitely can do a killer workout in a short period of time, depending on your fitness. I started Crossfit a few months back, and its entirely possible to do 2-3 simple movements (thrusters + pullups for example) in a short time period (2-10 minutes) and really push yourself to complete exhaustion.

locofacetwice 13y ago

There is nothing like the feeling after 3 hour workout at the gym. 7 minute workout sounds like complete bs.

scottcanoni 13y ago

I have developed the 6-minute workout and it is by far superior to the 7-minute workout. Anything done in less time is technically impossible.

saosebastiao 13y ago

When someone tries to distinguish their X by saying it is rooted in science, all they really mean is that someone with a grad degree and a lab coat came up with it. That is a pretty limited, and IMO flawed view of what science is. Are they really trying to say that other workouts don't use the scientific method at all? That they don't do anything like formulating and nullifying hypotheses with evidence, without any semblance of control? Is your workout really better because it came out of a university research center? Science isn't peer review. Peer review is merely a filter mechanism to discard bad from good...a filter mechanism that has both false positives and false negatives. We shouldn't conflate peer review with science.

pvnick 13y ago

This is a waste of time. Let me explain. After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground. As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches. Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat. Really look into Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe for actual good advice. "Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general." - Mark Rippetoe Edit: Btw, time comparison: spend years chasing the latest "scientific" fitness fad (see article) and going nowhere or get in better shape while working an office job than 99% of highschool/college guys in a few months for a time commitment of 2-3 hours per week. That's the kind of math I'm talking about when I talk about starting strength and leangains.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches. Actually, the headline is targeted towards people who know very little science. Tech folks like us approach things like this with a great deal of skepticism. I bet more than half the posters in this thread have at least skimmed the study on which the article is based. You can't really expect the general populace to be so inquisitive.
graeme 13y ago
I'll add that, if you've never been strong, you don't know what you're missing. You could try it, and decide it's not for you. But a lot of self-professed nerds disdain it, assuming it's something only stupid jocks do. It's not. Getting strong has been one of the most fulfilling things I've ever done. It's also had lasting effects in pain reduction, how other perceive me, and my self-confidence.

desireco42 13y ago

I think this would be excellent starting exercise for people who don't exercise much. As soon as they would gain some strength, hackers as they are, would explore and find better things to do. I think criticism of this article, which is legitimate, is missing the point of this being targeted to beginners who are just starting.

jeffheard 13y ago

This is not a waste of time. Let me explain. Sometimes you only have 7 minutes. What's the difference between 7 minutes of this and 7 minutes of sitting, reading HN or Reddit? Lots. I did this one yesterday, just to try it out. Now me, personally, I'm quite active. I did it three times with 30-second stretch breaks because that's what it took to work up a good sweat. The point of exercise like this, to my mind, is that you can do it anytime and work it into your work day. Exercise during the work day, even minimal exercise sharpens your concentration and "shakes out the dead leaves" so to speak. It makes you sharper, and sharper at 3:30 in the afternoon (empirically determined to be the least productive time of the day by several studies) is exactly what most of us need. What are your goals when you work out? Depending on that, this is not a waste of time. If you want to lose 50lbs, this will not help you. If you want massive muscles, this will not help you. If you want to be an "active person", this will not by itself achieve that, although it may make it easier to get into exercise later, when you do something short and see nearly immediate results. It's rewarding, and that's the first thing you need when starting an exercise program of any sort. My point is, don't let anyone -- or yourself -- shame you out of working out. Yes, you read it in the NYT. It's a fad and it's mass-media. That doesn't make it stupid by definition. If it starts you off on finding ways to hack your body and make it strong, endurant, and resilient, then by all means, go for it.

te_chris 13y ago
This should be the top comment. I never realised the tech crowd were as bad/the same as the bodybuilding.com crowd.

hydralist 13y ago

this is a workout WARMUP

mathattack 13y ago

I'm absolutely not a believer of this. It's beyond just their bad math. (It's an 8 minute workout) To do a proper sprint interval workout, you'd need to warm up (5 minutes at least), and go so hard in those 30 intervals that you'd need 90 seconds to recover. So 120 seconds * 12 + 5 = 29 minutes. Add in stretching and you're beyond a half hour. The other issue is many of these exercises won't get your heartrate up to the right threshold to be good interval training. Yes, it's better than nothing. No, it's not better than a real workout, and not scientifically valid.

krat0sprakhar 13y ago

If you're a beginner and looking to start a bodyweight(BW) program see this[0]. Intermediate fitness enthusiasts can have a look at this[1]. If you're clueless about what the jargons are checkout this[2] 'cheat sheet' for a list of youtube videos for guidance [0] - http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png [1] - http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png [2] - http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/exercise_cheatsheet_for_the_basic_beginner_routine/c7l3osw http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/ex...

novakinblood 13y ago

The illustration for the air squat shows the worst possible form. The push-ups diagram looks incorrect too. I'm pretty sure the chest should touch the ground. What's the use of rapid succession if you are using bad form?

shardling 13y ago
The nytimes illustration, or the original article?
- novakinblood 13y ago
  The nytimes illustration. The subject keeps straight back in the original article. Doing this exercise wrong can really screw things up.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  NYT. Illustrators don't know what they don't know. I don't hold that against them, especially if there's a sharp deadline looming.

fatjokes 13y ago

The authors of the study actually recommend you do it 3 times. So it's actually a 21-minute workout.

GigabyteCoin 13y ago

About 50% of those moves look like the yoga poses I do every week.

androtheos 13y ago

Nothing worth having is easy. Anything easy isn't worth having Getting fit is hard work. If it was easy everyone would look like a Greek God / Goddess! No Pain, No Gain

dmourati 13y ago

Consider the source. Periodicals are in the business of selling you content (and advertising). Therefore, it is in their interests to create the latest "fad" and to sell it to you as tested. And then create something new and sell it to you again. And then... Is this workout terrible? No. It beats nothing. Is it the key to your ongoing physical fitness? Of course not. The fitness world is overrun with so-called experts. One problem is that we are all different. We have different body types, different goals, different strengths, different weaknesses, and different likes/dislikes. What works for me may not work for you. Can a periodical take this into account for all readers? Of course not. Consider their workout as a first step. If you are doing nothing, do the 7-minute workout. It will help you, to a point. Thereafter, you'll need to challenge your body to do harder things. Also, consider the physics definition of mechanical work: W=f*d. So, go apply some force of a distance. That's a workout. Do work.

bernardom 13y ago

The best article I found on this was "Everything You Know About Fitness Is A Lie" [1] I'd summarize the contents as: 1- Most gyms are 45% cardio, 45% stretching 10% weights. This is bad. 2- You need to lift heavy things. 3- There are no shortcuts. Favorite excerpt: My conversion moment came in a garage-like industrial space next to an ATV rental yard in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I was lying on a concrete floor, near puking, having just humiliated myself on the king of all strength exercises, the old-school back squat. "The best thing I can do for an athlete," coach Rob Shaul said to me as I struggled to get up, "is to make him strong. Strength is king, and you're fucking little-girl weak." [1] http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-about-fitness-is-a-lie-20120504 http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-abou...

mtext 13y ago

It seems great. if people spend less time at the gym and more time doing interesting things, like learning to play a violin or reading james joyce, the world would be a little less boring.

nazgulnarsil 13y ago

I have a secret about fitness to share. It's the reason there are so many snake oil programs out there. Everything works. For a sedentary person ANY random stimulus is going to give you a couple months of improvement. The true measure of a program is if after the first year you are still making quantifiable improvements.

gregPC 13y ago

I see a lot of negatives here over this.. but here is how I see this workout. You are a person who does work out on a fairly regular basis, but, are thrown 'off course' by a two week business trip, or stuck at a desk coding for hours on end to meet a deadline. This is perfect for that reason.. get in a few good minutes of strenuous activity, recover quickly with a water or shake, and go on with your busy schedule. If you can do this 2 or 3 times a day during that period... the better off you are, nothing scientific about that.

thret 13y ago

Lift some weights, 2-3 minutes a day, every day. Eat/drink/do whatever else you want and you will stay fit regardless, because it is about increasing your metabolism and not how much or even what you do, just that you do it every single day before eating. Oh and don't drink sweet drinks of any kind. #unsubstantiated personal experience

kleiba 13y ago

Fellow HN'ers - I'm slightly disappointed. How come I go to the comments and all I see is a battle of the anecdotes? Where's the fact-checking? This being HN, I would at least have expected someone pointing out that 12 exercises à 30 seconds plus 11 x 10 seconds rest between them is closer to an 8-minute workout than a 7-minute workout ;-)

D9u 13y ago

It doesn't take much endurance to do 7 minutes of training... If you're not going to expend the hard work then you shouldn't expect to see much improvement. "Sua Sponte!"

5partan 13y ago

I'm all for bodyweight training (you are your own gym, convict conditioning, al kavadlo, naked warrior, barstarzz, coach sommer, calisthenic kings...), and have better results than with metal, without the pain, but this is not it. Seriously, not one exercise for your back, but useless crunches? Do some yoga sun salutation, add some resistance by tensing your body and you have a by far better workout in the same amount of time than this.

tn13 13y ago

"Scientific" ? I dont see science in this article or the science in this article is the same science behind those late night tv ads where they sell 8-minute-ab-pro (among the others). The original paper that articles cites does not provide any concrete data to defend their claims. Secondly the most important thing is what is the objective of this workout. Clearly it is neither to keep your weight in control or to build strength. It is merely to provide "some" exercise. There are some fundamental truths about workouts which everyone should know. 1. Your body starts burning fat at higher rate only when you heartbeat is above average for around 20 minutes. Till then your body is mostly burning calories from the carbs. So no matter how hard you work for those 7 minutes you are not gonna lose that extra fat. 2. Even if you do these exercises regularly it is only within a week that your muscles will get strong enough to get used to your body weight. After that same number of reps wont have any effect on your body. (Yes it might be little better than being idle). 3. Actually no matter what is your goal if you keep your regimen fixed you very soon find yourself in a local minima. After that the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the benefit of exercise becomes negligible compared to the time you spend doing it. Here is a quick checklist to see if the advertised regimen should be taken seriously 1. Is the lower limit on duration around 20 minutes ? 2. Is there any variable that can be changed with time to increase difficulty level ? 3. Does it cover all core muscle groups ? Arms, Chest, Back, Abs, Legs and shoulders?

XEKEP 13y ago

Am I the only one who noticed, that the other, more realistic number 20 minutes is omitted in the NYT article. See "the established ACSM guidelines for high-intensity exercise of at least 20 minutes is recommended" in the original article.

orangethirty 13y ago

I actually like spending time exercising. It allows me to relax and think more clearly. I run about 15 miles a week, and enjoy every minute of it.