This is probably part of the reason why power lifting is so beneficial. If you are doing near maximal weight for few reps, every set is very hard exercise.
The problem I have seen with intervals training is that few people really go all out.
> The problem I have seen with intervals training is that few people really go all out.
Just because the duration of high-intensity interval exercise is short (maybe 10-20 minutes vs 45-60 minutes), it doesn't mean it's easy. In my experience, this is the most difficult type of exercise to do because of the amount of mental conditioning it requires to push yourself that hard, especially beyond the first couple of intense intervals.
Like the commenter above stated, many people do not go all out enough to get the maximum desired benefit.
What's new here in this study is how little or how few intense intervals may be required to get a large benefit, which may make it more attainable.
exactly. the thing is though before you get to your 80%+ of your RM work sets you'll be in the gym for 30-45 min (or risk an injury on top of already reasonably high risk of getting injured).
I have been power lifting (deads, squats, bench, OH press) in addition to beach lifts for 10+ years. I have never needed 30-45 minutes to warm up. Ever. I have also never been hurt lifting. It is much safer than the stupidity I see with XFit.
The key is good form and gradually warm up to work weight. I was doing okay DL singles in the #405 range the other day, and it only takes a few sets to get to work weight. If someone can DL #405, they are not adding #10 each set to warmup.
I pulled/squatted in a 5-plate range which ain't much by any serious standards for a 242lbs lifter so I'm just mentioning the numbers to put things in perspective as it isn't something to brag about :)
So typically my GPP workouts - pull-ups, curls, direct triceps work etc would take 45 min tops.
PL workouts (5/3/1 or Cube style) would typically take about the same time or longer with less work sets - warm up, rest between the sets etc. The only PL workouts that were shorter than that for me were the PR style workouts where I'd warm up, try for the PR, go home.
Serious lifters (the likes of Elitefts crew) take forever to warm up but then again they are moving some insane weights. We're literally talking going up in quarters from 125 up to 600+ for the bench with 2-3 minute rest intervals once they get above 405 and sometimes would start going up in dimes from there.
What would really help is if the exercise machines were geared towards interval training.
That makes me wonder if I can program my somewhat fancy elliptical. Why don't we have a machine that you can program from your phone yet? It has like 20 built in things, none of which are optimal for what I want to do, why can't I create a new program with an app and upload it to the machine?!
You don't need a machine other than a watch. You can use almost any exercise. Keep a thirds ratio. So 1 minute full, 2 minutes not full. Or 20 seconds full, 40 seconds not full.
I have used the treadmill and just ran. Or the stationary bike. Or when I want to really get at it I'll use the treadmill at a jog for my 'rest' and do my full on with heavy DB snatches or something.
It is really not that complicated, and only requires that someone put in some effort.
It works for everyone. Bodybuilders use HIIT as a way to cut fat by getting a lot of work done in a short amount of time (this is also great conditioning work for athletes too).
The difference is a fit person who is adapted to exercise will need to do more of it to see a benefit.
As pointed out above, 1 minute per day is clickbait. The study used 10 minutes per session. If you are fit, you probably will need more than a 3x20s session on a stationary bike as well.
HIIT "works". Even with fit people. Probably especially with fit people. Think how sprinters train for instance.
It's a bit hyped now of course. I've seen a lot on the web that puts together a standard circuit training type exercise and calls it as "HIIT". Wrong. Nothing wrong with circuits at all, they are great, but you're not going to get to 90% heart rate with planks. :)
"Works" too depends on your goals. "Just HIIT" is better than nothing, I'm sure. But HIIT is (typically) cardio; for best benefit, you would also strength train and do some mobility / flexibility training as well. Diet is an important part of fitness as well.
I'll be honest, I personally think HIIT is a better solution for the modestly fit versus the completely untrained. HIIT is much more physically demanding than a standard circuit or jog. Consequently, I think there is a greater possibility of "overtraining" or over-exerting yourself, perhaps to the point of injury. It really shouldn't be "1 minute per day" for instance because 24 hours is probably not enough time for most people to recover from a legitimate HIIT session.
If you already have a reasonable amount of fitness then it simply becomes sport specific conditioning. The groups that do 1 minute intense exercise will improve their all out efforts and make adaptations mainly in their anaerobic glycotic energy systems while the longer efforts will result in mainly aerobic improvements (increased capillarization, improved lactate threshold, etc).
There's a whole host of literature wrt track and field athletes on this topic.
Professional athletes already know that intervals work for them. If you want to win the Tour de France you probably need to bike for more than 10 minutes a day, but longer intervals work at increasing your power.
The headline is clickbait. It's a huge stretch to say that the volunteers engaged in 1 minute of hard exercise. The workout was:
"[they] warmed up for two minutes on stationary bicycles, then pedaled as hard as possible for 20 seconds; rode at a very slow pace for two minutes, sprinted all-out again for 20 seconds; recovered with slow riding for another two minutes; pedaled all-out for a final 20 seconds; then cooled down for three minutes."
Sure, the exertions total to one minute, but the recovery periods and cooldown are a very important aspect of the workout. Muscles are still burning glucose and oxygen, clearing lactic acid, and generally doing all the things that exercise is good for during this time.
Exactly. Let alone the fact that they are using completely untrained individuals, where doing any amount exercise will result in the adaptations they check for.
Wish there was a third group that simply did 10 minutes exercise at the same exertion as the endurance group.
“But if you are someone, like me, who just wants to boost health and fitness and you don’t have 45 minutes or an hour to work out, our data show that you can get big benefits from even a single minute of intense exercise.”
For my marathon training, between my long runs, I did spend one day a week to just do one 5-10 minute sprint, at 95-105% max heart rate. ("Oh god I'm going to die..")
The days after I did those, were the clearest, most relaxed days of all.
It's not the literal maximum (the maximum you can achieve), it's the average based on age. So you find the maximum for your age in the chart (or calculate it) and set target zones when exercising.
Ah, I was wondering, as a runner you should get a HR monitor and calculate your real maximum. The charts are crap; as a 51 year old runner, I routinuely hit 185+BPM when hill or interval training (at about 95% effort) so I'm also doing 105-110% of my chart "max".
That's a good point. I'd treat it like BMI. It's a good guideline, but it's a heuristic and won't fit everyone. In this case, if you've been a longtime runner, you'll almost certainly have a healthier heart than your age-wise peers (not guaranteed, but as a general rule).
> It's a huge stretch to say that the volunteers engaged in 1 minute of hard exercise.
Active recovery just means staying in some sort of minimal motion to keep your blood circulating and let your heart rate come down a little more gently. It's usually nowhere near the intensity of regular base cardio, so I think the headline is reasonably accurate.
They could not sustain this rate over 1 minute. So, it's 10 minutes of interval training with 1 minute of high intensity. Not, 1 minute of working out.
They also did not check to see if people 'capped out' sooner.
NYT seems to have a number of highly similar articles extolling the benefits of HIIT, but this[0] one reads a bit more honest than the one posted, IMO.
Specifically, the author delves into 10-20-30 training, which I've personally started in the past few weeks. It definitely kicks my ass, but I feel great afterwards and it requires significantly less time than moderate exercise.
I don't think this is true at all. My experience of years of sprinting has given zero such injuries, and usually it's first thing in the morning, and the only warm up I have is walking to the car, driving to the track, walking from the car to the track.
I've also never did more than a few incremental warm up sets before lifting (relatively heavy) and have never had a pull or a tear.
Warming up is one of those seemingly agreed upon myths in which the scientific evidence is minimal and typically shows the contrary.
And to add to this, it doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Having a physiology that requires warming up muscles before needing to escape a threat would be weeded out pretty quickly. A predator attacking a camp of humans, for instance, would allow those that can run fast without their "muscles pulling or tearing" to escape leaving those without such an advantage laying about groaning in pain while the predator gets their fill.
Upvoted for the evolutionary perspective. One thing to add though: ancient humans were undoubtedly in better overall fitness than the average modern person, so maybe that would lead to it being unlikely that they would suffer sprinting-related injuries in general -- in other words they were more "warmed up" at any given time than the modern human.
> ancient humans were undoubtedly in better overall fitness than the average modern person
Is this true? I mean we have different nutrition now. Ancient humans could have had problems putting on muscle mass and fat. Maybe they exercised more, maybe not. When I watch documentaries with hunter/gatherers they sit around quite a bit.
I wouldn't entirely agree. If you aren't lifting any relatively heavy, extra weights, e.g. running or something, warming up isn't as important. However, when lifting relatively heavy weights, I think warming up is pretty important.
Warming up has the benefit of lubing up your joints. I think we've all had the instance where our body are relatively stiff and if we do, say, a push up, our joints pop or make cracking sounds. I remember squatting once when I didn't fully warm up. My knee wanted to pop during the squat and it felt extremely uncomfortable trying to exert force on that leg. When there isn't any extra weight, merely extending your leg with a pop wouldn't bother anybody, but exerting a lot of force and doing so slowly sure wasn't a pleasant experience. What are the chances of serious injury? I don't know, but it hurt enough for me to not want to find out.
Another thing warming up helps with is to acclimate you to your working set weight. I know the first set of my bench press usually ends in a grinder and is the roughest out of all my sets. I'm not sure if it's just my mind acclimating to the weight or a physiological thing like more blood getting pumped to my muscles. Either way, I'm fairly certain (but do not have any sources) injury rates would be increased if you tried to deadlift your max without properly warming up.
I think you missed that stated I do a few warmup sets for all of my main lifts and that I lift heavy (5 rep max, sometimes 3rm and 1rm depending on lift and day). However, I believe most people do too many warmup sets which limits their working set and slows progress and gains. Doing 3-4 working sets in reasonable increments is just fine. I know people that do 20 total sets per "body part", only 3-5 of them that are working sets (because that's what the bodybuilding magazine reported <today's Mr. Universe candidate) said they lift).
The running thing seems less likely to be true though. I wouldn't put my bed in a field, sleep 8 hours, hop out and go full out on a sprint, but I'm not going to do 20 minutes of stretching or ride a bike before doing a few sets of sprints.
Long distance warm ups seem even less likely to be needed than Sprints.
And, for what it's worth, I've done "max effort" deadlifts without warming up once or twice. Mostly to show off, but I had lifted those weights before (that day in one case, a couple days back in the other), and didn't have any issues. I could have been hurt, I guess, so my 'anecdata' is no evidence, but even so, not warming up isn't a guarantee of injury either.
Interesting.. I feel like I've definitely injured myself from not warming up enough. I actually don't even see how you can sprint at 100% when you are cold.
That's not to say I don't believe but that I wonder if there is something more nuanced which explains the differences in our experiences.
If you don't mind me asking, what kinds of sprinting do you do and how fast/fit/flexible are you?
Your evolutionary point makes sense but for example, my cats do stretch whenever they wake up. I imagine it's not necessary for them to stretch before moving but by stretching every time they remain very flexible. Kids for example don't really need to warm up and seem to have no trouble running right away, but they also are way more flexible than adults typically are so I wonder if that has something to do with it..
Also upvoted for the involuntary visual of giant cave bear rampaging through paleolithic camp while people get cramps and groin pulls from running away without stretching first. lol.
>>And to add to this, it doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
You aren't thinking it through. Humans evolved to be long distance runners, not sprinters. Early hunters were all about patiently chasing prey at a very moderate speed over miles and miles until the prey literally collapsed out of exhaustion.
In stark contrast, you have felines such as lions, which are all about short bursts of incredible speed and agility. Their entire bodies are designed for quick acceleration to very high speeds, but if they couldn't catch their prey during that short interval they would be screwed.
Edit: your scenario of "a predator attacking a camp of humans" is not realistic. Most predators are afraid of fire, and even fewer would attack groups of other predators (which humans are).
Count me in the category that would definitely get weeded out for not having a warmup time before fleeing from the bear.
Sample size of one: I just started to "get fit" after 10 years of sitting on my ass. I'm running every morning when I wake up (I always wake up about 5am, but usually I just go back to sleep until the 7am alarm). So I open eyes, put on clothes, and hit the road within 5 minutes of waking up. I have to start at a slow jog, and I'm not able to go much faster than a speedy walk for about 10 minutes before I can actually jog. So for 10 minutes I'm pacing for a 15 minute mile. I can literally feel the moment at which I can comfortably jog, and then I'm able to do 10 minute miles for the duration of the run.
When I started this at the beginning of April, I could only do 30 minutes at a time and was hitting about 2.25 miles. This week I ran 5.5 miles in 60 minutes, still have to take my slow start.
> Sample size of one: I just started to "get fit" after 10 years of sitting on my ass.
As a contrast, I've been fit all my life (two sport college athlete, resting heart rate in the 30s) and I absolutely cannot imagine sprinting without a warmup.
GP, how fast are you? 100m time? I have never, ever seen a coach or trainer recommend anything other than a long slow warmup. As someone who has a chronic hamstring injury, warmup is crucial to any exercise that I do.
if warming up is just a myth, i dare you to deep-squat two plates without any warmup or mobility exercises. even better, try it after a day at the office sitting for 8 hours. i'll have the wheelchair ready to wheel you out when you slip a disc.
Something has definitely gone wrong in either the study, the journalism, or with the person who wrote the headline. From the reporting here, there is nothing whatsoever that makes me believe the one minute of strenuous exertion had anything to do with the result.
Why on earth didn't they have a control group that did 10 minutes of slow cycling instead of a bunch of couch potatoes that did nothing? For all we know, the people who actually turned up for the study regularly to do the actual rides walked far further to get to and from the study than the people who did nothing. And for all we know, 10 minutes of slow cycling has the same measurable effect as 45 minutes of cycling.
What on earth is wrong with medical science/science journalism, that this is the end result of however many dollars of public money? Are they worried that if they actually do a really large, robust study that all future funding will have dried up?
Surely there is a massive public interest in such research. Why doesn't someone just do the sodding research and find out once and for all?
Why on earth didn't they have a control group that did 10 minutes of slow cycling instead of a bunch of couch potatoes that did nothing?
It's the journalism that failed you. If you go to a quality site like mensfitness rather than NYT, you'll find:
"To prove it, the researchers put 27 sedentary men to the test. For 12 weeks, nine of the men were asked to perform three weekly sessions of intense sprint interval training on stationary bikes, 10 were assigned to moderate-intensity continuous training (also on bikes), and six served as the control group, completing no exercise. ...
"After three months, all the athletes exhibited similar results and health benefits—even though the moderate-intensity continuous training involved five times as much exercise and a five-fold greater time commitment."
I believe wbhart is saying the control group should be 10 minutes of low-intensity cycling, not 45 minutes or 0 minutes. Or the control group could even just come to the lab to sit on the bike without pedaling! This study has too many variables.
At a quick glance, everything here is totally consistent with "exercise is good" and "HIIT can get you benefits faster than steady-pace exercise". Both of which seem way more obvious and evidence-backed than the claims actually made here.
"[they] warmed up for two minutes on stationary bicycles, then pedaled as hard as possible for 20 seconds; rode at a very slow pace for two minutes, sprinted all-out again for 20 seconds; recovered with slow riding for another two minutes; pedaled all-out for a final 20 seconds; then cooled down for three minutes."
Sounds very similar to the Tabata interval protocol, with the difference being the extended rest period between the "sprint" sections. I have done a variation of this in my own training in the past. It works really well on an elliptical trainer. My subjective feeling is that training this way works pretty well for building endurance and burning fat.
I very briefly skimmed the linked study[1] -- love that they actually linked to the study, especially love that the study is published openly, for free -- but there was one question/concern that I didn't see addressed.
They found that both groups (long and slow & short and intense) were basically equivalent, especially compared to the control; but they didn't address potential safety concerns or risk of injuries. Surely the group doing the short, intense workouts is at a substantially higher risk of injury.
My biggest question would be, what is the added risk, and given that is it still a good "value proposition" overall?
The sample size (total N = 25) is also kind of low. Interesting nonetheless...
I can offer an anecdotal answer: it depends. This is honestly an area where "individuals should speak with their physician before beginning any new intense physical exercise program."
I'm a runner and a basketball player. In basketball, especially at the higher levels, fast twitch muscles and explosive bursts are favored ... which results in quite a bit of weight+sprint training and plyometrics. The common injuries you see are generally torque related: sprains, strains, ligament tears/detachments.
In distance running, it's the opposite: slow twitch muscles and cardiovascular endurance are favored, resulting in some bits of high impact work but mostly just "putting in the miles". In this sport, the common injuries are related to overuse, poor physiodynamics (bad form), and congenital/degenerative problems (mostly joint-related).
The short of it is probably something along these lines: not everyone is cut out to do well at both, so there will probably be a fairly obvious option for part of the population. For the majority who are "average", it probably pays to try both, but I'd insert a caveat that easing into a new training routine is CRITICAL and also that endurance sports carry risks that may not surface immediately but which can have long lasting impacts, so be careful, talk to experts, and pay attention to your body.
It's a clickbaity title, because it's not really one total minute of exercise. What this is unraveling is the benefits of HIIT (high intensity interval training). They did a very basic and very minimal form of intervals, because they tested on a population of untrained, unadapted individuals. They basically did a:
* 2 minute warmup
* 20 seconds all out sprint
* 120 seconds of slow pace to catch your breath
* repeat 2 more times
So in total, the "hard work" was 1 minute, but you're actually active and in the gym for about 10-11 minutes.
The benefit here is the metabolic boost from strenuous work lasts much longer than steady-state cardio, and this has been observed in previous studies.
The problem is that humans are incredibly adaptable - so 1 minute of hard exercise cannot be applied indefinitely. You will need to increase that time in order to see continuous benefits, as well as vary the amount of strenuous exercise that is continuously performed. Anyone who has never trained before is going to see benefit from some physical activity, but as soon as they are adapted, the benefits disappear without progressive loading.
There's two ways to make exercise more strenuous: increase the load/intensity, or increase the duration/volume.
So practically speaking for HIIT, if the premise here was you went "all out", you can't possible go more intense than "all out" because you gave a max effort. So the only other variable to fix is to do more of it.
While I agree with you that you'll need to increase the time to see real benefits it's also not true that you can't go more "all out". As you get stronger you'll be able to peddle harder, your peak wattage will go up, and you'll have effectively increased the intensity compared to where you were before. Now obviously if this is the only exercise you're getting you're still going to hit a ceiling pretty soon.
Also continuously modify / rotate the movement / exercise being done. Avoids the adaptation to a specific type of movement, all else being equal.
[edit]
But also, speaking from many years of experience with Crossfit and military high intensity circuit training... your explanation leaves out a little bit:
High intensity can be achieved in different ways depending on how your workout is structured.
If a given workout specifies the movements, how much weight to use, and how many reps / sets to do, then your independent variable becomes the time it takes to complete. To increase the intensity, complete the workout faster. Thus you see in many interval workouts, one's "score" is their time. Getting better over a period of time means decreasing the time for a given workout of this structure.
Second, a given workout can specify movement(s), weight, and workout time, say 20 mins. And the independent variable becomes reps and/or sets. Your score, and axis to increase intensity then is doing more reps/sets.
Third, workout specifies movement, time, rep/sets. Variable / score / axis for improvement is then what weight did you use. Or, if it is some kind of increasing weight ladder within the workout (work up to X rep max)... what weight did you work up to.
Lastly, one can view selection of movement(s) themselves that , put together make up a given workout, holding weight, time, and reps generally constant, as a another axis along which one can move along to avoid a plateau / adaptation to a workout one would see from repeating the same workout structure over and over.
Increases in overall work capacity are achieved by improving performance along all of these different axes, for multiple different exercises / movements, as well as collections of movements that together make up specific "workouts / circuits".
While not necessarily randomizing, but at least varying workout structure along these axes deliver optimal efficiency (most bang for your buck... time and effort spent in the gym) and results when results are measured in terms of GPP[0]
These are the general principles that Crossfit and other circuit style workouts follow. The key insight these programs use is not falling into one repeated structure of workout done over and over without variation, that most people naively employ when working out in the gym, that is never modified and thus quickly becomes adapted to.
(Go to gym and do X reps for Y sets at Z weight. Take your time, no sense of urgency or goal of completing in as little time as possible. Time thus becomes fixed, as well as the general rep/set structure. Plateau is reached and intensity of workout is low).
>you can't possible go more intense than "all out"
Sure you can - the stronger you are, the more energy you burn during an 'all out' sprint. My 'all out' peak wattage and cadence on a bike today is far from what it was when I was at my cycling best, so the load/intensity does vary.
> You will need to increase that time in order to see continuous benefits
If you don't increase, do you lose any benefits you gained? A few years ago I made a modest workout plan because I wanted to be a bit stronger, a bit more flexible, and have more stamina. I achieved my goals and flipped into a maintenance mode where I basically do just enough exercise to stay where I am. By not pushing for new bests, am I no better off than if I had done nothing?
In short, no. If you're happy with where you're at by all means maintain and you'll be better for it. If you did nothing you'd slowly slip back to your previous condition.
Increasing the intensity as you adapt will prolong the benefits, as will shortening rest. For example, a tabata is pretty much the standard of this type of training, and is 20 seconds of work followed by 10 seconds of rest for 4 minutes (8 rounds total) and can be completed with any movement.
And the goal is typically to maintain the same intensity throughout, not to get the highest total number. So if you're doing calories on a stationary bike, 10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10 is much better than 15-13-12-10-8-6-5-5 (usually).
Yeah, the Tabata study[1] came out about 20 years ago and works well as part of Olympic athletic training (initially developed with speed skaters), is widely used as part of CrossFit, etc.
Can you really maintain the same intensity with Tabata if you push as much as you can during each interval? I see a downwards trend all the time on myself, and after 3rd minute I can't feel my legs at all, so I am sure I am giving it all I can. On the other hand, when doing 3x 7-minute HIIT, I increase load in each subsequent try, going to like >2 pushups/second etc. (but this was motivated by knee injuries in the first try when I went all out from the start)
Also, from personal experience, try stationary bike for 30 minutes, maintain >60rpm all the time and do 1-3 minutes of "easy" (meaning 1/3 difficulty setting on your bike) and then 1 minute "hard" (100% difficulty setting, still >60rpm), and repeat. I always start sweating like being in a rain after 20 minutes, and this exercise is doing wonders to my anaerobic capacity.
It's a lot harder to maintain the same numbers when you are going all out, which is why it's "better" (subjectively) to meet that goal. Obviously if you phone it in the first four rounds you're not doing yourself much good comparatively.
Alright, I understood Tabata incorrectly then - I thought you have to do all-out every single interval and once you can maintain the 100% level in each, you are ready for Olympics ;-)
My first thought too. Tabata workouts are fantastic, and in my experience can achieve the same weight loss as much longer cardio workouts, with proportionally less stress on the joints.
Ignoring the clickbait article, HIIT (high intensity interval training) is incredible. I did this routine 3-4 times a week for a couple months: http://www.fitocracy.com/knowledge/dr-layne-nortons-best-dam... and got my resting heartrate down to 48 from the mid 60s. The best part? This was from just 45-60 minutes a week of fairly easy exercise (compared to running) on a bike machine.
Agreed with this. For me, to avoid adaption and based on how I feel, I get on the bike three times a week. I will pick a number of KM to target (1-5) and do it as fast as possible, with the goal of beating my prior benchmark, even by a second. And then I just let my body decide how fast or slow to go to manage my time, but beat my prior one. Feels amazing.
Although this is an interesting result, beware, n=25 for the whole study, which means there were only eight people per group.
We did a data analysis on several thousand Apple Watch users, looking at whether step count or exercise intensity really drives one key outcome (a lower resting heart rate):
Like this study, our conclusion was that intensity matters most: you need to get your heart rate above 150 to get the best benefit. In our data set, 45 minutes of exercise per week was the "knee" of the curve.
I'd actually love to run a scaled-up version of the NYT study. I think with wearables generating so much data, we really can start to answer questions like: "What is the best workout?" Or perhaps more importantly, "What is the best workout for you?"
> Although this is an interesting result, beware, n=25 for the whole study, which means there were only eight people per group.
I'm so tired of this comment being made about every single study that finds itself on HN. It's a complete misunderstanding about how statistics work. The whole point is to use a small sample to say that something about the larger population.
Pardon my ignorance, as my memory is a little foggy when it comes to statistics and scientific studies, but doesn't the sample size need to be large enough to represent the population? I forget exactly how that works.
Yes, but virtually every published peer-reviewed study will have a large enough sample size and will have done the math to make sure that it is large enough.
If it's the first thing that comes to the mind of random HN commenters who haven't even read the actual article, it's probably also going to occur to the experts writing and reviewing the article.
Peer reviewed articles aren't perfect, but it's pretty arrogant to think that the authors and reviewers are so bad at research that you can find problems with them without even reading them.
I've been weightlifting all my life and I go through periods of very committed lifting followed by periods of working out whatsoever. These days I just don't have time to stick to a steady routine of lifting 2-3 times per week, so instead I've taken a different approach.
When you think about it, a good portion of the time spent working out is getting ready; gathering your stuff up, getting to the gym, getting your clothes on, warming up, cooling down, taking your clothes off, maybe showering, leaving the gym to go back to wherever you need to be. This all adds up and turns what should be a quick 10-15 minute workout into an hour or more ordeal.
So my new thing is to just work out immediately, in my clothes I'm wearing, in a space that's immediately accessible. I have a rack and weights in my basement and also a free workout space at work, so when I feel like I need a break from work or whatever, I just walk right over and knock out a few sets of the Stronglifts 5x5 routine in whatever I'm wearing at the time. It's very hard to use the excuse that I don't have time for it any more and I'm positive I'm getting just as much benefit.
In the paper the article references, it seems that the sample size is small . n<=9 in all the three groups (Sprint interval training, Moderate intensity , Control) in the test. This should make it really hard to generalize this result across the population , no?
The way I've been doing it (I'm no expert), is after pedaling normally for a minute or two, I turn up the resistance and pedal all out for 30 seconds or so, then turn the resistance back down and pedal normally for a few minutes until my heart settles back down, then repeat a few times or so. I go more by distance than time. I try to pedal at least a mile, with high intensity bursts of at least a tenth of a mile or more. It will make you sweat and heart race if you are really going all out.
I can't speak for edtechdev, but it certainly has been effective for me. I've dropped about 20kg since christmas through a combination of diet changes and doing HIIT on an exercise bike 2 - 3 times a week. Obviously the diet has the most to do with the weight loss, but over the past 4 months I've gone from barely being able to do 30 seconds high intensity / 1:30m low over 20 minutes(total time), to being able to do 1 min high 1 min low at a higher resistance for around 40 minutes.
If you want weight loss, "HIIT" is of no use to you. The best track sprinters in the world can barely summon the power necessary for toasting a single slice of bread. Very few people have energy reserves >30kJ when doing work above VO2max.
Meanwhile, you can just spin at 150W on a cycle trainer and burn >2 MJ (that's quite a few slices of toast) for every hour you put in.
Regarding jogging, what I found is the best (for sustained jogging) is the following (or a variation of.) I've done a bit of research that gave me the idea to try this, and it works.
General Advice:
---) Most importantly, pay attention to how you feel. Always consider that before anything I say. If your body isn't feeling up to it, don't do it: if you get injured you'll be out for a while.
1) You're going to have good and bad days. Just make sure you don't push yourself so hard that you quit. This is for you: go at your pace. Push yourself, but don't make yourself frustrated.
2) You should and can jog or run when you're under the weather, due to a small cold, or hungover, or whatever. Run in the rain. But see ---.
3) If while you're jogging you get a bad cramp, or something feels a bad kind of sore, evaluate. Often you can run through it: you'll loosen up and it'll be okay. But sometimes you're going to hurt yourself. Don't feel bad about stopping. Start off slow. One day cut short is better than a few months because you have a bad sprain.
4) Take breaks. Don't feel bad about taking a day off, as long as YOU KNOW you will be back out there. Listen to your body, and let it heal.
5) Get a lot of sleep, and drink a LOT of water.
The Routine: Alternate days between the below.
Sustained jog: near-constant pace, no walking.
I do a good 3-5 miles (I'm not very in shape: anyone can work up to this easily). On these days I do not push myself, I try a sustained jog. Sometimes I can do a 5k in ~30 minutes fairly easily, other days it takes me over an hour to do 4-5 miles. Point is to reach my goal without stopping. If I get tired, I slow down, but keep jogging.
Running: My goal here is to do 1-2 miles as quickly as I can. I try to set my personal best using an app like Strava. Try to shave off even 5 seconds from that one mile. If I feel good after one mile I do two.
The Mix: I do a run where I'm trying to get a good time on a 5k. This means: sprinting when I can, as much as I can. When I get tired, I jog, but I do not stop running.
Most days are the Sustained Jog. I try to run 5+ times a week. So probably 3-4 of the days are a sustained, 40-70 minute job. I try to do the quick sprint once a week to see how I do, then I try to do the mix once a week as well. Usually I do the mix at the beginning of the week, after a break day (or two). You'll have the most energy then: use it.
Using this, I've seen very sustained and continued improvement with both endurance and speed. I don't know what else I could ask for. The mentality of jogging for me has also helped with motivation: I know I want to get out there, but I'm doing it to be healthy, not for anyone else. So, I do it at my pace. Getting out there is enough.
It's very important to: 1) Make sure you jog as often as your own body will allow 2) Push yourself, but be safe 3) Take breaks, don't get burned out!
Good point! Yeah you really just have to do what you feel. It's okay to try as long as you don't push yourself too hard. There's always tomorrow to run!
Ever pushed above 45 min continuous jogging ? Very often I experienced a change in metabolism around 40min. All of a sudden I feel my temperature raising, lungs opening, sweating more, all of this with significantly less pain overall.
Funny I've been trying a variation on this. I don't use the bike resistance I prefer to increase frequency on my own to up the effort, 1min, then slow down 1min, steady and easy 1min, loop. This was based on a music training where modulating rhythm was a very very good way to feel which part of your limbs should put the effort to minimize the whole. I think it's also a great way to engage your brain into actively mapping an understanding of varying efforts.
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but all of the recent articles on HIIT seem so odd to me. I feel like a lot of these articles are geared for people to read and go 'Finally! I can get my entire workout done in one minute' and that's kind of missing the point. There's not really a way to cheat your body or find an easy way out of a workout. It's supposed to hurt and be hard, that's the idea. I don't think a lot of people truly understand what 'max effort' is and how hard HIIT actually is. I ran in college and we would do workouts like this once or twice in a season because of how hard they are on you. Nothing about this type of workout is supposed to be a way to get a quick workout in. It is, however, a great way to feel like your lungs are going to explode and an even better way to forget how to walk normally. If that's your thing, great! I try and do a workout like this every week. I just think it's a little dangerous to be preaching this type of workout to people who can't find the motivation to do a 20 minute jog. I have a hard time believing they're going to suddenly find the motivation to do the hardest workout they've ever done in their life. Nothing wrong with having some inexperience with exercise, HIIT is just not the right way to help a beginner 'get into shape'.
I have mixed feelings. For some, the problem really is time. For these people, HIIT may be the right way to go. But you're right that people don't realize just hard a real HIIT workout is.
I have difficulty maintaining what is supposedly the proper level of intensity (according to my previous trainer) without throwing up afterwards. It's not exactly a fun and easy way to get in shape.
I completely agree with you there. HIIT is a great way to get a quick workout in. It is just not fun or easy (like you've said).
My problem is more with the tone of a lot of these articles. They come across like a bad advertisement for some new medication. 'Try HIIT and get in shape with only one minute of actual exercise'.
*With warmup and cool down real time is actually closer to 10 minutes. Side effects may include vomiting, crying, and a bad case of Edgar from Men in Black walk.
I remember another piece in the New York Times about two years ago that described the correct HIIT workout as "so intense you moan." That seems about right, in my experience. :)
I completely agree. I was going to post the same thing until I saw your comment. The inexperience with exercise causes people to not know how hard they can push their body and still be fine. When I bring a friend to the gym or something, they stop lifting for the set when they feel slightly tired. I can't imagine their pushing themselves to where there's phlegm in their lungs and still going.
I've had something similar happen with my girlfriend and it can be a tough balance. She has just recently taken an interest in working out more and teaching her how to push herself more has been just as important as actually teaching her how to do specific lifts.
I'm in the exact same boat. My feeling is that as they workout more they will realize how much more they can do as well as just getting used to the fatigue.
I am often hit by "sickness" when pushing very hard while lifting weights in the next 2-3 days after exercise, e.g. I do 30,000lbs dumbbell press volume and in 2 days I fall sick. So it might be wise not to overdo things, maybe some poeple's immunity gets compromised if they push too much and it takes very long until their immunity improves? And I did all kinds of immunity-boosting things like daily 5-minute cold showers etc.
You should know what your limit is to not get sick if that is a recurring problem. What I was referring to is some people stopping a set right when they feel slightly fatigued or feel the burn. I was referring to people who smile and talk as they are lifting or working out.
>Finally! I can get my entire workout done in one minute' and that's kind of missing the point.
I can't agree with you more. However, I think this shows the importance of going hard. When I am at the gym and I see these people leisure peddling a bike while reading a book or a magazine, I just don't get it, why bother at all? Peddling slowly for 40 minuets isn't going to do jack. If you go to the gym go all out, push yourself as hard as you can until you body fails. Then rest and push until it fails again. Work through the failure. If you aren't wobbling out of the gym then you failed.
Perhaps (and saying this with a big caveat) that's exactly why we need better research and more subtle research into the subject. Plus didn't the research say that the HIIT group had the same increases as the 45 minute 'leisurely' group? So it did work equally well, just slower.
If you aren't wobbling when you leave the gym.... why? Masochism and absolutism around exercise is one of the strangest things to me. What if you need to walk properly the next day because looking like a weirdo at work will get you demoted. Maybe your work demands that you be physically coordinated and not broken, like factory work. Maybe you have kids and need to relax, not destroy yourself. Maybe you're 50 and want to get exercise in but don't want a heart attack. Maybe your knee joints are screwed. Maybe exercise should be fun, or skills based rather than 'exercise until you fall over is the only way'.
I agree that many people don't understand what a 100% workout is, but "There's not really a way to cheat your body or find an easy way out of a workout" is unjustified by the evidence. It's suspiciously close to appealing to justice, e.g., "You won't get fit without hard work because you won't deserve it."
People have swore by all sorts of unpleasant fitness regimes in the past which are later shown to be unproductive. Now, we have good reason to believe that you can't be an elite athlete without putting in lots of time, simply because elite athletes can be easily identified; we'd see more elite athlete with short training regimes if it was possible. But, like the incredibly muddied literature on nutrition, it's not at all clear how to optimize moderate (non-elite) exercise for long-term health benefits. We really don't know where the low-hanging fruit is, and its entirely possible that most people are wasting their time.
I think you're being a little nitpicky with my language here. And I in no way implied, "You won't get fit without hard work because you won't deserve it." Going for a short walk is still exercise and isn't all that hard. I suppose I'm a little unclear as to what exercises exist that you can put little effort in and get a lot out of.
With regards to HIIT, it's been pitched as 'get fit quick', but without proper training in how to actually push yourself, it's kind of a moot point. My only real argument against any of this is that almost every article focuses on the time of the workout instead of the intensity of it and I think it misleads people who are looking for a more efficient way to get a workout in. The time of the workout is really irrelevant, the intensity involved is what makes it so effective. When people see these quick workouts and attempt to implement them, but don't see these amazing results that are promised, I'm sure it's incredibly frustrating. That could all be avoided by stating 'Hey, these workouts are really, really, really hard and they will be uncomfortable and you will be gasping for air'.
It always surprises me how easy people take it at the gym, on bikes or the elliptical or the treadmill. Many read the newspaper or a book, hardly break a sweat, and seem to go for around an hour. I push myself pretty hard on the treadmill (I find it enjoyable with the right playlist) for at most 20 minutes, and I've never felt healthier.
and there were significant increases in the number and function of certain microscopic structures in the men’s muscles that are related to energy production and oxygen consumption.
AKA mitochondria - I thought that was an unnecessarily cryptic reference.
I've been doing HIIT (freeletics.com) for over a year now and I can confirm that the effects on my body of only a few minutes a day of exercise are far beyond what I expected.
I started as a weak person and in 8 weeks I could do pullups easily. Now I do 50 in less than 3 minutes.
It is the most extenuating exercise that I can imagine in just about 8-10 minutes a day, 4 times per week.
For the people posting "sample size was only 25" and related comments, the below is from the PLOS abstract. p values <0.05 indicate that the results are not due to just chance. The p values of their results are quite low for the test group, but large for the control group. This indicates the results are statistically significant.
"Results
Peak oxygen uptake increased after training by 19% in both groups (SIT: 32±7 to 38±8; MICT: 34±6 to 40±8ml/kg/min; p<0.001 for both). Insulin sensitivity index (CSI), determined by intravenous glucose tolerance tests performed before and 72 hours after training, increased similarly after SIT (4.9±2.5 to 7.5±4.7, p = 0.002) and MICT (5.0±3.3 to 6.7±5.0 x 10−4 min-1 [μU/mL]-1, p = 0.013) (p<0.05). Skeletal muscle mitochondrial content also increased similarly after SIT and MICT, as primarily reflected by the maximal activity of citrate synthase (CS; P<0.001). The corresponding changes in the control group were small for VO2peak (p = 0.99), CSI (p = 0.63) and CS (p = 0.97)."
> p values <0.05 indicate that the results are not due to just chance
This is not how p values are used. See Gelman:
> The p-value does not tell you if the result was due to chance. It tells you whether the results are consistent with being due to chance. That is not the same thing at all.
This is a very weak result indeed. The authors have made no attempt at accounting for multiple testing [1]. Any such correction, such as the Bonferroni, would likely result in a negative (and less headline-worthy) result.
This is interesting but some studies has shown that longer cardio exercises as running for 20-30 min increase the production of neurons and gives you a clearer mind, of course this 1 min exercise is really attractive for the "I have only 5 min" people but I prefer the benefits from a long run.
Study ("Twelve Weeks of Sprint Interval Training Improves Indices of Cardiometabolic Health Similar to Traditional Endurance Training despite a Five-Fold Lower Exercise Volume and Time Commitment"):
My favorite is to use an elliptical machine, warm up a little then crank it to maximum resistance and just go as hard as I can until I'm done. I can induce a "runner's high" within a few minutes that feels amazing, and I prefer it to treadmill/cycle for the whole-body workout (you can really utilize arms/shoulders/back/core on the elliptical)
I'm usually done within 10 minutes, and if I've been out of practice I can certainly feel it the next day.
Ugh, this kind of "research" keeps coming up. Yes, if you take totally untrained people and subject them to your favorite exercising regime.. they will improve massively.
This is pretty much true regardless of exercise regime. It tells you nothing about the effectiveness of your regime after that initial exponential bit of learning curve.
Isn't this the idea behind Crossfit? I was always surprised the workouts were actually quite short maybe 10-15 minutes total of movement. Yet strangely I was losing weight and toning up fast. From one week to the next.
Even in a real gym -- if we subtract out all the time we spend changing our clothes, looking at our phones, talking to our friends, resting between sets, drinking water -- it only adds up to about 5-10 minutes of real exercise.
I workout at home (so no waiting on equipment) and am doing 2 minute rest period between sets. Since I track each start and end of each set with an App I can see my time under load.
My average is 26% of the time is workout time and 74% is rest and reconfigure equipment.
147 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] threadStill, sign me up!
The problem I have seen with intervals training is that few people really go all out.
Just because the duration of high-intensity interval exercise is short (maybe 10-20 minutes vs 45-60 minutes), it doesn't mean it's easy. In my experience, this is the most difficult type of exercise to do because of the amount of mental conditioning it requires to push yourself that hard, especially beyond the first couple of intense intervals.
Like the commenter above stated, many people do not go all out enough to get the maximum desired benefit.
What's new here in this study is how little or how few intense intervals may be required to get a large benefit, which may make it more attainable.
The key is good form and gradually warm up to work weight. I was doing okay DL singles in the #405 range the other day, and it only takes a few sets to get to work weight. If someone can DL #405, they are not adding #10 each set to warmup.
So typically my GPP workouts - pull-ups, curls, direct triceps work etc would take 45 min tops.
PL workouts (5/3/1 or Cube style) would typically take about the same time or longer with less work sets - warm up, rest between the sets etc. The only PL workouts that were shorter than that for me were the PR style workouts where I'd warm up, try for the PR, go home.
Serious lifters (the likes of Elitefts crew) take forever to warm up but then again they are moving some insane weights. We're literally talking going up in quarters from 125 up to 600+ for the bench with 2-3 minute rest intervals once they get above 405 and sometimes would start going up in dimes from there.
This is the problem with exercise in general. You can get in shape doing practically anything if you put in maximum effort. The key is to work hard.
That makes me wonder if I can program my somewhat fancy elliptical. Why don't we have a machine that you can program from your phone yet? It has like 20 built in things, none of which are optimal for what I want to do, why can't I create a new program with an app and upload it to the machine?!
Time to do some research!
I have used the treadmill and just ran. Or the stationary bike. Or when I want to really get at it I'll use the treadmill at a jog for my 'rest' and do my full on with heavy DB snatches or something.
It is really not that complicated, and only requires that someone put in some effort.
The difference is a fit person who is adapted to exercise will need to do more of it to see a benefit.
HIIT "works". Even with fit people. Probably especially with fit people. Think how sprinters train for instance.
It's a bit hyped now of course. I've seen a lot on the web that puts together a standard circuit training type exercise and calls it as "HIIT". Wrong. Nothing wrong with circuits at all, they are great, but you're not going to get to 90% heart rate with planks. :)
"Works" too depends on your goals. "Just HIIT" is better than nothing, I'm sure. But HIIT is (typically) cardio; for best benefit, you would also strength train and do some mobility / flexibility training as well. Diet is an important part of fitness as well.
I'll be honest, I personally think HIIT is a better solution for the modestly fit versus the completely untrained. HIIT is much more physically demanding than a standard circuit or jog. Consequently, I think there is a greater possibility of "overtraining" or over-exerting yourself, perhaps to the point of injury. It really shouldn't be "1 minute per day" for instance because 24 hours is probably not enough time for most people to recover from a legitimate HIIT session.
There's a whole host of literature wrt track and field athletes on this topic.
"[they] warmed up for two minutes on stationary bicycles, then pedaled as hard as possible for 20 seconds; rode at a very slow pace for two minutes, sprinted all-out again for 20 seconds; recovered with slow riding for another two minutes; pedaled all-out for a final 20 seconds; then cooled down for three minutes."
Sure, the exertions total to one minute, but the recovery periods and cooldown are a very important aspect of the workout. Muscles are still burning glucose and oxygen, clearing lactic acid, and generally doing all the things that exercise is good for during this time.
Wish there was a third group that simply did 10 minutes exercise at the same exertion as the endurance group.
“But if you are someone, like me, who just wants to boost health and fitness and you don’t have 45 minutes or an hour to work out, our data show that you can get big benefits from even a single minute of intense exercise.”
The days after I did those, were the clearest, most relaxed days of all.
I ended up with a resting heart rate in the 30s.
It's not the literal maximum (the maximum you can achieve), it's the average based on age. So you find the maximum for your age in the chart (or calculate it) and set target zones when exercising.
http://www.runnersworld.com/ask-the-sports-doc/what-is-my-ma... - another discussion about it.
The comparison group which achieved the same results did 45 min exercises.
Active recovery just means staying in some sort of minimal motion to keep your blood circulating and let your heart rate come down a little more gently. It's usually nowhere near the intensity of regular base cardio, so I think the headline is reasonably accurate.
They also did not check to see if people 'capped out' sooner.
Specifically, the author delves into 10-20-30 training, which I've personally started in the past few weeks. It definitely kicks my ass, but I feel great afterwards and it requires significantly less time than moderate exercise.
[0]: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2015/07/29/a-way-to-get...
I would say the warm-up is as well, because if you start a full sprint out of nowhere you are likely going to tear a muscle one day or the other.
I've also never did more than a few incremental warm up sets before lifting (relatively heavy) and have never had a pull or a tear.
Warming up is one of those seemingly agreed upon myths in which the scientific evidence is minimal and typically shows the contrary.
edit: for example: http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/08/why-stretching-may-not...
And to add to this, it doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Having a physiology that requires warming up muscles before needing to escape a threat would be weeded out pretty quickly. A predator attacking a camp of humans, for instance, would allow those that can run fast without their "muscles pulling or tearing" to escape leaving those without such an advantage laying about groaning in pain while the predator gets their fill.
Is this true? I mean we have different nutrition now. Ancient humans could have had problems putting on muscle mass and fat. Maybe they exercised more, maybe not. When I watch documentaries with hunter/gatherers they sit around quite a bit.
Warming up has the benefit of lubing up your joints. I think we've all had the instance where our body are relatively stiff and if we do, say, a push up, our joints pop or make cracking sounds. I remember squatting once when I didn't fully warm up. My knee wanted to pop during the squat and it felt extremely uncomfortable trying to exert force on that leg. When there isn't any extra weight, merely extending your leg with a pop wouldn't bother anybody, but exerting a lot of force and doing so slowly sure wasn't a pleasant experience. What are the chances of serious injury? I don't know, but it hurt enough for me to not want to find out.
Another thing warming up helps with is to acclimate you to your working set weight. I know the first set of my bench press usually ends in a grinder and is the roughest out of all my sets. I'm not sure if it's just my mind acclimating to the weight or a physiological thing like more blood getting pumped to my muscles. Either way, I'm fairly certain (but do not have any sources) injury rates would be increased if you tried to deadlift your max without properly warming up.
The running thing seems less likely to be true though. I wouldn't put my bed in a field, sleep 8 hours, hop out and go full out on a sprint, but I'm not going to do 20 minutes of stretching or ride a bike before doing a few sets of sprints.
Long distance warm ups seem even less likely to be needed than Sprints.
And, for what it's worth, I've done "max effort" deadlifts without warming up once or twice. Mostly to show off, but I had lifted those weights before (that day in one case, a couple days back in the other), and didn't have any issues. I could have been hurt, I guess, so my 'anecdata' is no evidence, but even so, not warming up isn't a guarantee of injury either.
I never said you will for sure get injured, merely the chances increase. And I agree that some people have warm ups that are too intense.
That's not to say I don't believe but that I wonder if there is something more nuanced which explains the differences in our experiences.
If you don't mind me asking, what kinds of sprinting do you do and how fast/fit/flexible are you?
Your evolutionary point makes sense but for example, my cats do stretch whenever they wake up. I imagine it's not necessary for them to stretch before moving but by stretching every time they remain very flexible. Kids for example don't really need to warm up and seem to have no trouble running right away, but they also are way more flexible than adults typically are so I wonder if that has something to do with it..
You aren't thinking it through. Humans evolved to be long distance runners, not sprinters. Early hunters were all about patiently chasing prey at a very moderate speed over miles and miles until the prey literally collapsed out of exhaustion.
In stark contrast, you have felines such as lions, which are all about short bursts of incredible speed and agility. Their entire bodies are designed for quick acceleration to very high speeds, but if they couldn't catch their prey during that short interval they would be screwed.
Edit: your scenario of "a predator attacking a camp of humans" is not realistic. Most predators are afraid of fire, and even fewer would attack groups of other predators (which humans are).
Sample size of one: I just started to "get fit" after 10 years of sitting on my ass. I'm running every morning when I wake up (I always wake up about 5am, but usually I just go back to sleep until the 7am alarm). So I open eyes, put on clothes, and hit the road within 5 minutes of waking up. I have to start at a slow jog, and I'm not able to go much faster than a speedy walk for about 10 minutes before I can actually jog. So for 10 minutes I'm pacing for a 15 minute mile. I can literally feel the moment at which I can comfortably jog, and then I'm able to do 10 minute miles for the duration of the run.
When I started this at the beginning of April, I could only do 30 minutes at a time and was hitting about 2.25 miles. This week I ran 5.5 miles in 60 minutes, still have to take my slow start.
As a contrast, I've been fit all my life (two sport college athlete, resting heart rate in the 30s) and I absolutely cannot imagine sprinting without a warmup.
GP, how fast are you? 100m time? I have never, ever seen a coach or trainer recommend anything other than a long slow warmup. As someone who has a chronic hamstring injury, warmup is crucial to any exercise that I do.
Why on earth didn't they have a control group that did 10 minutes of slow cycling instead of a bunch of couch potatoes that did nothing? For all we know, the people who actually turned up for the study regularly to do the actual rides walked far further to get to and from the study than the people who did nothing. And for all we know, 10 minutes of slow cycling has the same measurable effect as 45 minutes of cycling.
What on earth is wrong with medical science/science journalism, that this is the end result of however many dollars of public money? Are they worried that if they actually do a really large, robust study that all future funding will have dried up?
Surely there is a massive public interest in such research. Why doesn't someone just do the sodding research and find out once and for all?
It's the journalism that failed you. If you go to a quality site like mensfitness rather than NYT, you'll find:
"To prove it, the researchers put 27 sedentary men to the test. For 12 weeks, nine of the men were asked to perform three weekly sessions of intense sprint interval training on stationary bikes, 10 were assigned to moderate-intensity continuous training (also on bikes), and six served as the control group, completing no exercise. ...
"After three months, all the athletes exhibited similar results and health benefits—even though the moderate-intensity continuous training involved five times as much exercise and a five-fold greater time commitment."
http://www.mensfitness.com/training/workout-routines/10-minu...
Sounds very similar to the Tabata interval protocol, with the difference being the extended rest period between the "sprint" sections. I have done a variation of this in my own training in the past. It works really well on an elliptical trainer. My subjective feeling is that training this way works pretty well for building endurance and burning fat.
They found that both groups (long and slow & short and intense) were basically equivalent, especially compared to the control; but they didn't address potential safety concerns or risk of injuries. Surely the group doing the short, intense workouts is at a substantially higher risk of injury.
My biggest question would be, what is the added risk, and given that is it still a good "value proposition" overall?
The sample size (total N = 25) is also kind of low. Interesting nonetheless...
1 - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
I'm a runner and a basketball player. In basketball, especially at the higher levels, fast twitch muscles and explosive bursts are favored ... which results in quite a bit of weight+sprint training and plyometrics. The common injuries you see are generally torque related: sprains, strains, ligament tears/detachments.
In distance running, it's the opposite: slow twitch muscles and cardiovascular endurance are favored, resulting in some bits of high impact work but mostly just "putting in the miles". In this sport, the common injuries are related to overuse, poor physiodynamics (bad form), and congenital/degenerative problems (mostly joint-related).
The short of it is probably something along these lines: not everyone is cut out to do well at both, so there will probably be a fairly obvious option for part of the population. For the majority who are "average", it probably pays to try both, but I'd insert a caveat that easing into a new training routine is CRITICAL and also that endurance sports carry risks that may not surface immediately but which can have long lasting impacts, so be careful, talk to experts, and pay attention to your body.
I'm not so sure about this. Anecdotally the most common injuries in running and biking are caused by repetition not excessive intensity.
* 2 minute warmup
* 20 seconds all out sprint
* 120 seconds of slow pace to catch your breath
* repeat 2 more times
So in total, the "hard work" was 1 minute, but you're actually active and in the gym for about 10-11 minutes.
The benefit here is the metabolic boost from strenuous work lasts much longer than steady-state cardio, and this has been observed in previous studies.
The problem is that humans are incredibly adaptable - so 1 minute of hard exercise cannot be applied indefinitely. You will need to increase that time in order to see continuous benefits, as well as vary the amount of strenuous exercise that is continuously performed. Anyone who has never trained before is going to see benefit from some physical activity, but as soon as they are adapted, the benefits disappear without progressive loading.
So practically speaking for HIIT, if the premise here was you went "all out", you can't possible go more intense than "all out" because you gave a max effort. So the only other variable to fix is to do more of it.
If I'm out of shape, a 30 second sprint might not be as fast as when I'm in shape.
I'm talking from experience.
[edit]
But also, speaking from many years of experience with Crossfit and military high intensity circuit training... your explanation leaves out a little bit:
High intensity can be achieved in different ways depending on how your workout is structured.
If a given workout specifies the movements, how much weight to use, and how many reps / sets to do, then your independent variable becomes the time it takes to complete. To increase the intensity, complete the workout faster. Thus you see in many interval workouts, one's "score" is their time. Getting better over a period of time means decreasing the time for a given workout of this structure.
Second, a given workout can specify movement(s), weight, and workout time, say 20 mins. And the independent variable becomes reps and/or sets. Your score, and axis to increase intensity then is doing more reps/sets.
Third, workout specifies movement, time, rep/sets. Variable / score / axis for improvement is then what weight did you use. Or, if it is some kind of increasing weight ladder within the workout (work up to X rep max)... what weight did you work up to.
Lastly, one can view selection of movement(s) themselves that , put together make up a given workout, holding weight, time, and reps generally constant, as a another axis along which one can move along to avoid a plateau / adaptation to a workout one would see from repeating the same workout structure over and over.
Increases in overall work capacity are achieved by improving performance along all of these different axes, for multiple different exercises / movements, as well as collections of movements that together make up specific "workouts / circuits".
While not necessarily randomizing, but at least varying workout structure along these axes deliver optimal efficiency (most bang for your buck... time and effort spent in the gym) and results when results are measured in terms of GPP[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_physical_preparedness
These are the general principles that Crossfit and other circuit style workouts follow. The key insight these programs use is not falling into one repeated structure of workout done over and over without variation, that most people naively employ when working out in the gym, that is never modified and thus quickly becomes adapted to.
(Go to gym and do X reps for Y sets at Z weight. Take your time, no sense of urgency or goal of completing in as little time as possible. Time thus becomes fixed, as well as the general rep/set structure. Plateau is reached and intensity of workout is low).
Sure you can - the stronger you are, the more energy you burn during an 'all out' sprint. My 'all out' peak wattage and cadence on a bike today is far from what it was when I was at my cycling best, so the load/intensity does vary.
If you don't increase, do you lose any benefits you gained? A few years ago I made a modest workout plan because I wanted to be a bit stronger, a bit more flexible, and have more stamina. I achieved my goals and flipped into a maintenance mode where I basically do just enough exercise to stay where I am. By not pushing for new bests, am I no better off than if I had done nothing?
And the goal is typically to maintain the same intensity throughout, not to get the highest total number. So if you're doing calories on a stationary bike, 10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10 is much better than 15-13-12-10-8-6-5-5 (usually).
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392
Also, from personal experience, try stationary bike for 30 minutes, maintain >60rpm all the time and do 1-3 minutes of "easy" (meaning 1/3 difficulty setting on your bike) and then 1 minute "hard" (100% difficulty setting, still >60rpm), and repeat. I always start sweating like being in a rain after 20 minutes, and this exercise is doing wonders to my anaerobic capacity.
For reference, this is the seminal work about high intensity interval training [2]
[1] It appears as a reference though (ref 28.)
[2] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/1996/10000/Effect...
We did a data analysis on several thousand Apple Watch users, looking at whether step count or exercise intensity really drives one key outcome (a lower resting heart rate):
http://blog.cardiogr.am/2016/02/12/do-you-really-need-10000-...
Like this study, our conclusion was that intensity matters most: you need to get your heart rate above 150 to get the best benefit. In our data set, 45 minutes of exercise per week was the "knee" of the curve.
I'd actually love to run a scaled-up version of the NYT study. I think with wearables generating so much data, we really can start to answer questions like: "What is the best workout?" Or perhaps more importantly, "What is the best workout for you?"
I'm so tired of this comment being made about every single study that finds itself on HN. It's a complete misunderstanding about how statistics work. The whole point is to use a small sample to say that something about the larger population.
If it's the first thing that comes to the mind of random HN commenters who haven't even read the actual article, it's probably also going to occur to the experts writing and reviewing the article.
Peer reviewed articles aren't perfect, but it's pretty arrogant to think that the authors and reviewers are so bad at research that you can find problems with them without even reading them.
When you think about it, a good portion of the time spent working out is getting ready; gathering your stuff up, getting to the gym, getting your clothes on, warming up, cooling down, taking your clothes off, maybe showering, leaving the gym to go back to wherever you need to be. This all adds up and turns what should be a quick 10-15 minute workout into an hour or more ordeal.
So my new thing is to just work out immediately, in my clothes I'm wearing, in a space that's immediately accessible. I have a rack and weights in my basement and also a free workout space at work, so when I feel like I need a break from work or whatever, I just walk right over and knock out a few sets of the Stronglifts 5x5 routine in whatever I'm wearing at the time. It's very hard to use the excuse that I don't have time for it any more and I'm positive I'm getting just as much benefit.
In the paper the article references, it seems that the sample size is small . n<=9 in all the three groups (Sprint interval training, Moderate intensity , Control) in the test. This should make it really hard to generalize this result across the population , no?
The way I've been doing it (I'm no expert), is after pedaling normally for a minute or two, I turn up the resistance and pedal all out for 30 seconds or so, then turn the resistance back down and pedal normally for a few minutes until my heart settles back down, then repeat a few times or so. I go more by distance than time. I try to pedal at least a mile, with high intensity bursts of at least a tenth of a mile or more. It will make you sweat and heart race if you are really going all out.
I currently do 20-30 min of on-off jogging, followed by some light weight exercises for my upper body.
Meanwhile, you can just spin at 150W on a cycle trainer and burn >2 MJ (that's quite a few slices of toast) for every hour you put in.
General Advice:
---) Most importantly, pay attention to how you feel. Always consider that before anything I say. If your body isn't feeling up to it, don't do it: if you get injured you'll be out for a while.
1) You're going to have good and bad days. Just make sure you don't push yourself so hard that you quit. This is for you: go at your pace. Push yourself, but don't make yourself frustrated.
2) You should and can jog or run when you're under the weather, due to a small cold, or hungover, or whatever. Run in the rain. But see ---.
3) If while you're jogging you get a bad cramp, or something feels a bad kind of sore, evaluate. Often you can run through it: you'll loosen up and it'll be okay. But sometimes you're going to hurt yourself. Don't feel bad about stopping. Start off slow. One day cut short is better than a few months because you have a bad sprain.
4) Take breaks. Don't feel bad about taking a day off, as long as YOU KNOW you will be back out there. Listen to your body, and let it heal.
5) Get a lot of sleep, and drink a LOT of water.
The Routine: Alternate days between the below.
Sustained jog: near-constant pace, no walking.
I do a good 3-5 miles (I'm not very in shape: anyone can work up to this easily). On these days I do not push myself, I try a sustained jog. Sometimes I can do a 5k in ~30 minutes fairly easily, other days it takes me over an hour to do 4-5 miles. Point is to reach my goal without stopping. If I get tired, I slow down, but keep jogging.
Running: My goal here is to do 1-2 miles as quickly as I can. I try to set my personal best using an app like Strava. Try to shave off even 5 seconds from that one mile. If I feel good after one mile I do two.
The Mix: I do a run where I'm trying to get a good time on a 5k. This means: sprinting when I can, as much as I can. When I get tired, I jog, but I do not stop running.
Most days are the Sustained Jog. I try to run 5+ times a week. So probably 3-4 of the days are a sustained, 40-70 minute job. I try to do the quick sprint once a week to see how I do, then I try to do the mix once a week as well. Usually I do the mix at the beginning of the week, after a break day (or two). You'll have the most energy then: use it.
Using this, I've seen very sustained and continued improvement with both endurance and speed. I don't know what else I could ask for. The mentality of jogging for me has also helped with motivation: I know I want to get out there, but I'm doing it to be healthy, not for anyone else. So, I do it at my pace. Getting out there is enough.
It's very important to: 1) Make sure you jog as often as your own body will allow 2) Push yourself, but be safe 3) Take breaks, don't get burned out!
I've heard that if you have symptoms from the neck up (sore throat, headache) it's usually okay to run if you're up for it.
But symptoms below the neck (eg coughing or breathing difficulties) then you shouldn't run.
I have difficulty maintaining what is supposedly the proper level of intensity (according to my previous trainer) without throwing up afterwards. It's not exactly a fun and easy way to get in shape.
My problem is more with the tone of a lot of these articles. They come across like a bad advertisement for some new medication. 'Try HIIT and get in shape with only one minute of actual exercise'.
*With warmup and cool down real time is actually closer to 10 minutes. Side effects may include vomiting, crying, and a bad case of Edgar from Men in Black walk.
I can't agree with you more. However, I think this shows the importance of going hard. When I am at the gym and I see these people leisure peddling a bike while reading a book or a magazine, I just don't get it, why bother at all? Peddling slowly for 40 minuets isn't going to do jack. If you go to the gym go all out, push yourself as hard as you can until you body fails. Then rest and push until it fails again. Work through the failure. If you aren't wobbling out of the gym then you failed.
If you aren't wobbling when you leave the gym.... why? Masochism and absolutism around exercise is one of the strangest things to me. What if you need to walk properly the next day because looking like a weirdo at work will get you demoted. Maybe your work demands that you be physically coordinated and not broken, like factory work. Maybe you have kids and need to relax, not destroy yourself. Maybe you're 50 and want to get exercise in but don't want a heart attack. Maybe your knee joints are screwed. Maybe exercise should be fun, or skills based rather than 'exercise until you fall over is the only way'.
People have swore by all sorts of unpleasant fitness regimes in the past which are later shown to be unproductive. Now, we have good reason to believe that you can't be an elite athlete without putting in lots of time, simply because elite athletes can be easily identified; we'd see more elite athlete with short training regimes if it was possible. But, like the incredibly muddied literature on nutrition, it's not at all clear how to optimize moderate (non-elite) exercise for long-term health benefits. We really don't know where the low-hanging fruit is, and its entirely possible that most people are wasting their time.
With regards to HIIT, it's been pitched as 'get fit quick', but without proper training in how to actually push yourself, it's kind of a moot point. My only real argument against any of this is that almost every article focuses on the time of the workout instead of the intensity of it and I think it misleads people who are looking for a more efficient way to get a workout in. The time of the workout is really irrelevant, the intensity involved is what makes it so effective. When people see these quick workouts and attempt to implement them, but don't see these amazing results that are promised, I'm sure it's incredibly frustrating. That could all be avoided by stating 'Hey, these workouts are really, really, really hard and they will be uncomfortable and you will be gasping for air'.
AKA mitochondria - I thought that was an unnecessarily cryptic reference.
"Results
Peak oxygen uptake increased after training by 19% in both groups (SIT: 32±7 to 38±8; MICT: 34±6 to 40±8ml/kg/min; p<0.001 for both). Insulin sensitivity index (CSI), determined by intravenous glucose tolerance tests performed before and 72 hours after training, increased similarly after SIT (4.9±2.5 to 7.5±4.7, p = 0.002) and MICT (5.0±3.3 to 6.7±5.0 x 10−4 min-1 [μU/mL]-1, p = 0.013) (p<0.05). Skeletal muscle mitochondrial content also increased similarly after SIT and MICT, as primarily reflected by the maximal activity of citrate synthase (CS; P<0.001). The corresponding changes in the control group were small for VO2peak (p = 0.99), CSI (p = 0.63) and CS (p = 0.97)."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
This is not how p values are used. See Gelman:
> The p-value does not tell you if the result was due to chance. It tells you whether the results are consistent with being due to chance. That is not the same thing at all.
http://andrewgelman.com/2013/03/12/misunderstanding-the-p-va...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11583063
McMaster press release ("No time to get fit? Think again"):
http://dailynews.mcmaster.ca/article/no-time-to-get-fit-thin...
Study ("Twelve Weeks of Sprint Interval Training Improves Indices of Cardiometabolic Health Similar to Traditional Endurance Training despite a Five-Fold Lower Exercise Volume and Time Commitment"):
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
Also, consider watching Michael Mosley's documentary "The Truth About Exercise":
https://vimeo.com/51836895
I'm usually done within 10 minutes, and if I've been out of practice I can certainly feel it the next day.
This is pretty much true regardless of exercise regime. It tells you nothing about the effectiveness of your regime after that initial exponential bit of learning curve.
Even in a real gym -- if we subtract out all the time we spend changing our clothes, looking at our phones, talking to our friends, resting between sets, drinking water -- it only adds up to about 5-10 minutes of real exercise.
My average is 26% of the time is workout time and 74% is rest and reconfigure equipment.