from Hacker News

1min high-intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 3x aerobics (2016)

by gasull on 1/25/23, 7:26 AM with 494 comments

by petesergeant on 1/25/23, 8:36 AM
It's 8 minutes, not one minute
The people in the study were out of shape to start with
The improved measures were insulin sensitivity index, peak oxygen uptake, and "skeletal muscle mitochondrial content"
No change in body mass
In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over 12 weeks
by twawaaay on 1/25/23, 10:51 AM
Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world.
The issues are, and especially when you are out of shape:
* adherence -- it is difficult to keep people do hard, high intensity exercises regularly. Part of being a runner is learning to deal with pain but people who are out of shape are almost by definition new to this and are not yet accustomed to pain.
* injuries -- especially when you are out of shape, the goal should be consistency over quality. Any injuries will immediately put you out of your high intensity training. And high intensity training with out of shape people is a recipe for lots of injuries.
* volume -- while you can do a lot more per minute on high intensity exercise, you can do a lot more low intensity volume. You can quickly and safely build up to be able to do half an hour of slow jog a day even if you are overweight and out of shape.
* recovery -- high intensity exercises have high recovery requirements. Do out of shape subjects know how to massage their muscles? How to stretch? How long to recover? Recovery will further cut the volume of training. An out of shape person may need 3-4 days of recovery after a short but hard, intense interval session. Normally, this is filled with low intensity running and intense sessions are limited to once a week to give time to recover.
Even elite runners recognise how dangerous it is to do large volume of high intensity exercises and there is very popular, successful movement now to almost exclusively low intensity exercises and reserving high intensity mostly for the last stretch before the event. The main goal of this is to ensure injury-free training.
So if I was taking care for out of shape patients and prescribing training regimen I would still tell them to do, for starters, easy, comfortable jogging rather than any high intensity exercise.
by arthurofbabylon on 1/25/23, 9:26 AM
In personal experience as a dedicated rock climber (traveling full time for half of the last 15 years), I can easily conclude that bursts of intense exercise accomplish a lot more for health and fitness than prolonged, more gentle workouts. Intensity readily builds muscle mass and coordinates muscle fibers, while fostering feelings of clarity and joy. It’s just the easier pathway to “being fit.”
Climbers train for intensity. One can easily convert high-intensity fitness to low-intensity but prolonged fitness. The other direction does not happen. High-intensity and short-burst fitness is more malleable, capable of becoming any type of fitness. Ie, a climber with bouldering fitness transitioning to sport climbing will take just 2-3 weeks to attain good results, while a sport climber transitioning to bouldering will take at least two months. Boulderers and sport climbers can instantly perform on multi-pitch routes, without a transitional period. The intensity gradient from intense/short to gentle/prolonged is bouldering -> sport climbing -> multi-pitch.
However, I have never been at peak climbing fitness without daily walks. The assumption I have always held is that walking resolves problems (much like what sleep accomplishes for tissues, immune responses, emotions, memory, and cognition). You’re walking, blood is flowing, the whole body is coordinated, you’re breathing through your nose, you can think… it’s integrative. Humans are designed to walk.
by chkgk on 1/25/23, 8:39 AM
The study apparently only involved male participants. The control group consists of 6, the two treatment groups of 10 and 9 participants. The total N of the study is 25 participants. They conduct a one-way ANOVA on the interaction of time and treatment group indicators. I conclude that the study is woefully underpowered. I do not trust the apparent significance of their results.
by jonplackett on 1/25/23, 8:46 AM
All these many studies about 1 minute exercise don’t seem to take into account how long that fitness will last, and how likely you are to get injured.
I started running about a year ago and the first thing you have to learn is there’s a bunch of body systems you need to improve - heart, ability to use oxygen, removal of lactic acid, strengthening your body so you don’t get injured and can therefore train continuously. Probably others.
And they all are best adapted by training at different speeds and intensities. So you do some fast stuff and some _really_ slow stuff and some in the middle stuff.
High intensity is definitely great exercise. It definitely does something that slow stuff doesn’t. But it doesn’t mean you should _only_ do high intensity.
by pocketarc on 1/25/23, 8:26 AM
The fact that 1 minute of high intensity exercise (in 10 minutes of lower-intensity stuff) is as good as 50 minutes of moderate-intensity training does really put things into perspective.
What I wonder now is - what if you combine both? What if you do 50 minutes of moderate exercise but intersperse that with that same 1 minute of all-out sprints?
Is there a bigger benefit, or is it inconsequential?
And another question, one that I couldn't tell from looking at the page: What about a control group doing 10-minute moderate exercise? It'd be great to compare the 10-minute moderate vs the 10-minute with the high-intensity exercise. Since these were sedentary men, it stands to reason the there's a big amount of low-hanging fruit that might well be captured by the simple 10 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise. I'm sure it won't fare as well as the 50 minute group, but if it's close enough to be statistically insignificant, the conclusion would change to "any exercise is better than no exercise, even 10 minutes of moderate whatever".
by Manfred on 1/25/23, 8:24 AM
From the abstract:
> We investigated whether sprint interval training (SIT) was a time-efficient exercise strategy to improve insulin sensitivity and other indices of cardiometabolic health to the same extent as traditional moderate-intensity continuous training […]
Researchers are not claiming improved overall fitness as the Hacker News title seems to suggest.
by xarope on 1/25/23, 8:42 AM
As others below have pointed out, the study specifically targets certain markers, and these markers do not encompass "fitness" as we would expect.
I learnt the lesson a long time ago that you need to train long and low as well as short and hard, so I'd like to repost this article from Mark Twight (if anybody has a better - or more original, link, please feel free to post it): https://equipesolitaire.com/blogs/discourse/85824260-no-free...
by thejackgoode on 1/25/23, 8:18 AM
The title is not really honest, it’s a 10 min “commitment”. If you frame it correctly, the result isn’t that surprising
by airbreather on 1/25/23, 12:27 PM
There is various science around from multiple sources that suggest that HIIT High Intensity Interval Training or SHIT Super High Intensity Training puts the body in a different mode for some time afterwards.
When the heart is stimulated to between 80 and 95% capacity (depending on source of information) this then prompts physiological changes that last long past the exercise event.
CSIRO in Australia has been researching this for many years and is the premium (though still slightly woeful) scientific body in Australia.
Not many real hills where I live, but there is one nearby and you often see people sprinting up it (sometimes backwards) and walking down, multiple times.
One good plain language summary (not from CSIRO) is:
"The “LifeSprints” study by Boucher in 2011 suggests that in the lower intensity steady state cardio trials, not enough levels of epinephrine (adrenaline) were present to stimulate fat breakdown in the muscle cells. During and after higher intensity exercise epinephrine and norepinephrine floats around in the system which stimulates “hormone sensitive lipase” to start breaking down fat in the fat cells. Therefore, the presence of epinephrine could be considered a major lipoliptic factor in fat breakdown (Trapp, Chisholm & Boutcher, 2007). During higher intensity exercise reaching maximal levels, not only does the body switch to carbohydrate as a main source of energy, a by-product of the anaerobic system (as seen in maximal intensities) is lactic acid. Lactic acid is said to be a blocker of epinephrine."
by stefan_ on 1/25/23, 8:36 AM
Oh good, another of the weekly studies that finds having sedentary people do a light exercise regimen of any kind sees their fitness improve just as others doing light exercise.
Can't wait for the meta study of "it doesn't really matter what you do".
by Aldipower on 1/25/23, 8:52 AM
Ok, guys go ahead and do it this way. I stick with my marathon training plan, "which just works"™. Of course, there are also high-intensity workouts included, but the foundation is based on "easy runs" and sightseeing with the bike. There are just no short-cuts. I call the title of the post BS.
by jononomo on 1/25/23, 2:42 PM
Back in 2011, I went through a phase in which I ran on the treadmill for 21 minutes several times a week. I would jog at 8-9 MPH for 2:15, then sprint all-out for 45 seconds at 10.5 or 11 MPH. The only other exercises I did were some light-weight squats and a handful of oddball machine exercises. I was also on a paleo diet.
After I had been doing this for a few months (not more than 4 months) a friend of mine invited me to take part in a half-marathon. Prior to the half marathon, I only went on two long runs with my friend (over ten miles).
When the big day came I finished the race in 99 minutes -- which is a 7:30/mile pace for the entire race. I was 35 years old at the time.
I was astounded at how well I performed given my training regimen -- I ended up near the top of my age class!
by curiousllama on 1/25/23, 3:14 PM
Having dabbled in a couple different exercise disciplines, I’d encourage very small updates to your priors from this study.
Every bodybuilder knows that you have to push to failure and rest a lot between sets. The term for low-intensity or unrested lifting is “junk volume.”
Every runner knows that 80% of your volume should be easy. It’s called “80/20 training.”
Every CrossFit bro knows you need both intensity and volume - and maximizing that over time is what’s important.
They all work, but in different ways + for different reasons.
There’s lots of studies that try to break the mold. Usually, they’re limited by the impracticality of a large N, or perfect adherence, or exogenous factors, or avoiding hype. It’s a limitation of the field. It just means things will go slower. Don’t worry too much about any one study.
by urthor on 1/25/23, 8:27 AM
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=1112604061083212...
Citations of said paper.
by mathieuh on 1/25/23, 8:32 AM
How do they define fitness? It seems their definition is quite narrow.
I cycle, and basically in the winter I do shorter rides more often to hit the same overall distance as I would in the summer. It's just not enjoyable for me dealing with awful road conditions and freezing hands and feet.
E.g. in winter I'll do four or five 40 km rides per week, but in summer I do two or three 40 km rides and one 100+ km ride per week.
It always takes me six weeks or a couple of months at the start of summer to build back up to doing 100+ km rides, even though I'm doing the same distance and spending similar amounts of time.
by kilgnad on 1/25/23, 6:21 PM
I've done this for a decade. It's real. I exercise a couple minutes doing all out sprints 3-4x a week and it increased my VO2 max faster then running 5 miles everyday. I've tried both. The increase in performance is dramatic. Like you can bring yourself to way above average VO2 max performance doing HIIT on the daily.
I want to emphasize though that one thing I noticed is that this is exclusively for VO2 max. I'm not sure if this type of exercise is good for the long term. It's good for increasing your performance.
by wantsanagent on 1/25/23, 4:10 PM
Has anyone got an optimized home setup for this strategy? What equipment and/or monitors do you have and what specific exercises do you do? How to you incentivize your consistent adherence?
by Tade0 on 1/25/23, 9:02 AM
I've been doing something like this lately, only accidentally.
The distance between my apartment and daycare is 1300m and there are three road/street crossings on my way, so especially on one 240m stretch of wide pavement I can go as fast as possible without endangering my toddler. I average no less than 6km/h on this route.
I'm as sedentary as they get and indeed I'm seeing some improvements. That being said this wasn't the only recent lifestyle change, so it might well not be a significant component.
by alz on 1/25/23, 1:46 PM
It looks like they made people do things that require more short term oxygen uptake and as a result they adapted to be able to uptake more oxygen in the short term. I wouldn't so readily dismiss the myriad of other physical adaptations that result from long term, high volume, low intensity exercise, such as improved bone density, better fat metabolism, stronger heart muscles, better endurance and resilience, better mental health and cognition etc.
by glomgril on 1/25/23, 7:14 PM
If you are out of shape, do one set of pushups once a day (however many feels comfortable even if you have to cheat a bit). Start small, even just a couple, and gradually increase the reps over time. You will be blown away by the results after even 2-3 months.
Probably works best if you are scrawny to start with but I imagine any out of shape person would benefit.
Given it takes less than 1min per day, everyone has time for something like this.
by andy_ppp on 1/25/23, 8:31 AM
As I understand it the body has different energy systems- one that is aerobic and takes hours over months and years to train and anaerobic that all out short efforts can train. Everything in between these two is arguably time wasted. I think the title here is misleading and looking at another comment it’s not what the paper says, “it improved insulin sensitivity and other indices of cardio-metabolic health”.
by KVFinn on 1/25/23, 8:34 AM
The opposite extreme, slow zone-2 cardio, is important too. It takes forever, but the upside is you can burn through your Netflix queue while doing it.
by MezzoDelCammin on 1/25/23, 9:51 AM
personally, I'd be cautious of using this article to build up an exercise routine.
Yes, intervals / HIIT are really effective and they consume relatively little time. Being an egineer it's tempting to use this as a base for some sort of 80-20 heuristics and simply say "this is good enough" and cut the aerobics.
But is it? It's definitely better than doing nothing. But if the goal is some sort of performance improvement (specially in endurance sports - cycling, running, etc.), 9 times out of 10 I'd go with what's today called "polarized training".
The basic idea of polarized training is "yes, intervals are definitely useful to push the body further, but only after a buttload of cardio". The routine then looks something like for every one very low intensity, very long duration session a week, there's one or two shorter all-out interval sessions.
The intervals alone would lead to a plateau pretty quickly...
Happy to provide references in follow-ups, if anyone is interested.
by notyourday on 1/25/23, 9:10 AM
That's just another out of context study jumped on by people who absolutely positively want to find a way to justify sitting on their ass, eating excessive amount of ultra processed carbohydrates and moving as little as possible
Huberman currently is doing a series on fitness with Galpin. I highly recommend listening/watching it to get the context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEYE-vcVKy8
TL;DR: there are different kinds of fitness and to be in a reasonable health over the long term one needs to have all of them.
by deterministic on 1/26/23, 1:49 AM
I highly recommend reading “Body by Science”. It shows how you can improve your overall muscle strength spending just 15 min in the gym once a week. Perfect for people like me who hate going to the gym. It’s simple. It works. I am 50+ and way stronger now than I was before.
by mkl95 on 1/25/23, 12:14 PM
I went from virtually no exercise to moderate exercise for 15min, 4 to 6 times a week. Mostly 2 to 3 minute rounds on a heavy punching bag. I wouldn't call it life changing from a physical point of view, at least not yet. But the mental benefits were there from the first month.
by happypants23 on 1/25/23, 9:15 AM
People actually benefit from both low-intensity and high-intensity exercise. One is not a substitute for the other. Endurance athletes know this.
Low-intensity exercise conditions aerobic energy pathways (mitochondrial respiration) in ways that high-intensity exercise cannot.
by marmada on 1/25/23, 2:49 PM
Can someone confirm what intensity is high intensity?
E.g, I have a rowing machine that leaves mildly out of breath and makes my heart beat quickly, is that HIIT? Or is HIIT more like stair climbers, which cause me to almost collapse after doing them for 12+ minutes.
by jvm___ on 1/25/23, 12:30 PM
My best running times were in 2017 when I did a 7 minute workout for 90 days in a row. I was doing the routine twice by the end of the 90 days.
The 7 minute workout was a fad in 2012? that promised the same results as this study. Minimal time effort, maximum results.
by bschwarz on 1/25/23, 8:23 AM
...in sedentary men
by robochat42 on 1/25/23, 10:00 AM
Doesn't high intensity exercise have a greater risk of injury ? For instance, they did sprint intervals here, I think that I might need a 15 minute run just to warm up my knees enough to do the sprints (getting older sucks).
by psychphysic on 1/25/23, 9:04 AM
Research is important for research sake.
But can anyone explain why these studies are like cat nip to the public and tabloids?
"Any and All exercise is worthwhile (up to a limit)" and "unhealthy food bad for you"
Over and over and over again...
by chewbacha on 1/25/23, 10:56 AM
Only 25 men were used? How can we possibly extrapolate that to others??
by adave on 1/25/23, 10:27 AM
There are low intensity but high impact moves as level called compound moves that work as well. Focus on 10+mins in VO2 max on your tracker and go from there.
by throwaway4good on 1/25/23, 8:44 AM
Is it not a bit of a scientific straw man? Most exercise classes, aerobics, CrossFit, whatever, contains bursts of high intensity exercise?
by ck2 on 1/25/23, 2:42 PM
Sure okay on paper.
Now show me the average 5K race time for each group.
The 3x 45minute group would destroy the 8 minute sprint group.
It's all in how you define "fitness"
by mateusfreira on 1/25/23, 10:16 AM
Devs next week: 0. git commit 1. git push 2. open an MR 3. powerlifting while the CI is running ....
Business idea: powerlifting bars to homeoffices
by nottorp on 1/25/23, 1:06 PM
The real question is how do you get people to exercise something, anything, daily. Not what exactly they should do.
by mouzogu on 1/25/23, 10:14 AM
1 second of super high intensity exercise 3x a week improves fitness as much as 59x aerobics
by mftb on 1/25/23, 8:30 AM
It's also a great way to get injured. Then you can't exercise at all.
by amelius on 1/25/23, 10:33 AM
I have one question: why did it take humans so long to figure this out?
by rax0m on 1/25/23, 9:05 AM
What about bone strength though?
by roxgib on 1/25/23, 11:19 AM
n=10. n=6 for the control group. I stopped reading at that point.
by jrochkind1 on 1/25/23, 3:09 PM
It says "Free PMC article", but I'm having trouble finding anywhere to click to see the whole article instead of just abstract and citations.
Can anyone help me get it, whether that's me missing a place to click, or getting around paywall?
by bcd3169 on 1/25/23, 9:25 AM
N = 27