3 ms·

“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"

by 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.
hkmurakami 13y ago
This 7 minute routine is just a very very basic circuit training session. It definitely doesn't make up for "a visit to the weight room" and while fairly 'effective' in its ROI, the 7 minute span definitely gives it a hard limit on its benefits (when I used to row, we'd do 15-station circuits for an hour or so). Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  > Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion. Isn't high intensity self-defined? Meaning someone out of shape's high intensity will be less intense than someone who is in shape?
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    In sports science, "intensity" refers to a percentage of some maximal performance. In weight / strength training, "intensity" refers to percentage of a 1-rep maximum. So if you squat 100kg, a 70kg squat is 70% intensity. Meanwhile, in various aerobic trials, "intensity" could be defined as percentage of measured VO2 max. This is important because one of the most influential studies on high intensity interval training (Tabata) was calibrated this way. Cyclists were tested to their sprint VO2 max and then made to push past that level for 20 seconds, then 10 seconds of rest; repeated 8 times.
UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
I love how you quote the part which lists the potential benefits of this, then argue that it is nonsense because it doesn't accomplish [other benefits as listed]. The quote you quoted says nothing about "weight control." Also since when is exercise effective for losing substantial amounts of body fat/weight? You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR. Even just knowing some numbers should tell you how bonkers losing weight through exercise as opposed to diet is (e.g. calories burnt per hour running, calories in a chocolate bar, calories per pound of weight, and BMR). Plus, you're basically dumping on a scientific article with your nonsense anecdotes. Your belief is not required.
- Kurtz79 13y ago
  I have solid personal experience in weight loss using regular cardio exercise. "You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR". This is just BS, that you would know if you ever tried to lose weight. I'm not dumping the scientific article at all, I'm criticising the claims the NYT makes of what it means. The scientific text clearly states that this is a program that provides some of the benefits of a regular regime, and it's suited with people that doesn't have either time or easy access to facilities.
  - UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
    > This is just BS, that you would know if you ever tried to lose weight. Let's look at some numbers then. Let's take a hypothetical person, 250 pounds, male, age 25, 6' tall. This person does NOT change their diet. They exercise instead. Since exercise means weight loss, and diet is unimportant... Or so you claim. So to get to be 250 pounds you have to eat 2370 calories a day. Since they haven't change their diet and are 250 pound we know for a FACT they're eating 2370 on average a day... So how do we beat that with nothing but exercise? If they ran at 5 MpH they would burn 960 calories/hour, therefore at 2370 calories a day, in order to start losing weight they need to run at least 1.2 hrs a day, 7 days a week. How many even fit people do that much exercise? Not damn many. Do you? I don't. But contrast that against diet changes... In order to have the same amount of weight loss as 1.2 hrs/day/7 days they would need to eat the equivalent of four less McDonalds meals a week. What is harder? 8.5 hrs/week of running or eating four less McDonalds meals?
marknutter 13y ago
It's well known in endurance sports circles that high-intensity interval training is a great way to increase your speed over long distances as opposed to running very long distances for your training. There's some disagreement about whether or not long-distance training is actually better though because that's what runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do and it seems to be working well for them.
ovi256 13y ago
An alternative hypothesis is that the calories burned during exercise are not the main driver of weight loss/maintenance. But exercise does promote muscle mass gain/maintenance. This increased lean muscle mass will then increase your daily calorie consumption simply by existing, thus helping weight control.
Dewie 13y ago
As far as burning calories goes, it doesn't burn more calories during the actual exercise: it burns more calories overall because the HIIT raises your metabolism more post-workout. There have been done studies on this so you can search for them if you want.

by Kurtz79 13y ago

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.

hkmurakami 13y ago

This 7 minute routine is just a very very basic circuit training session. It definitely doesn't make up for "a visit to the weight room" and while fairly 'effective' in its ROI, the 7 minute span definitely gives it a hard limit on its benefits (when I used to row, we'd do 15-station circuits for an hour or so). Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion.

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
> Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion. Isn't high intensity self-defined? Meaning someone out of shape's high intensity will be less intense than someone who is in shape?
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  In sports science, "intensity" refers to a percentage of some maximal performance. In weight / strength training, "intensity" refers to percentage of a 1-rep maximum. So if you squat 100kg, a 70kg squat is 70% intensity. Meanwhile, in various aerobic trials, "intensity" could be defined as percentage of measured VO2 max. This is important because one of the most influential studies on high intensity interval training (Tabata) was calibrated this way. Cyclists were tested to their sprint VO2 max and then made to push past that level for 20 seconds, then 10 seconds of rest; repeated 8 times.

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago

I love how you quote the part which lists the potential benefits of this, then argue that it is nonsense because it doesn't accomplish [other benefits as listed]. The quote you quoted says nothing about "weight control." Also since when is exercise effective for losing substantial amounts of body fat/weight? You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR. Even just knowing some numbers should tell you how bonkers losing weight through exercise as opposed to diet is (e.g. calories burnt per hour running, calories in a chocolate bar, calories per pound of weight, and BMR). Plus, you're basically dumping on a scientific article with your nonsense anecdotes. Your belief is not required.

Kurtz79 13y ago
I have solid personal experience in weight loss using regular cardio exercise. "You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR". This is just BS, that you would know if you ever tried to lose weight. I'm not dumping the scientific article at all, I'm criticising the claims the NYT makes of what it means. The scientific text clearly states that this is a program that provides some of the benefits of a regular regime, and it's suited with people that doesn't have either time or easy access to facilities.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  > This is just BS, that you would know if you ever tried to lose weight. Let's look at some numbers then. Let's take a hypothetical person, 250 pounds, male, age 25, 6' tall. This person does NOT change their diet. They exercise instead. Since exercise means weight loss, and diet is unimportant... Or so you claim. So to get to be 250 pounds you have to eat 2370 calories a day. Since they haven't change their diet and are 250 pound we know for a FACT they're eating 2370 on average a day... So how do we beat that with nothing but exercise? If they ran at 5 MpH they would burn 960 calories/hour, therefore at 2370 calories a day, in order to start losing weight they need to run at least 1.2 hrs a day, 7 days a week. How many even fit people do that much exercise? Not damn many. Do you? I don't. But contrast that against diet changes... In order to have the same amount of weight loss as 1.2 hrs/day/7 days they would need to eat the equivalent of four less McDonalds meals a week. What is harder? 8.5 hrs/week of running or eating four less McDonalds meals?

marknutter 13y ago

It's well known in endurance sports circles that high-intensity interval training is a great way to increase your speed over long distances as opposed to running very long distances for your training. There's some disagreement about whether or not long-distance training is actually better though because that's what runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do and it seems to be working well for them.

ovi256 13y ago

An alternative hypothesis is that the calories burned during exercise are not the main driver of weight loss/maintenance. But exercise does promote muscle mass gain/maintenance. This increased lean muscle mass will then increase your daily calorie consumption simply by existing, thus helping weight control.

Dewie 13y ago

As far as burning calories goes, it doesn't burn more calories during the actual exercise: it burns more calories overall because the HIIT raises your metabolism more post-workout. There have been done studies on this so you can search for them if you want.