1 Minute of All-Out Exercise May Have Benefits of 45 Minutes of Moderate Exertion

2

Replies

  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    Imagine the benefits of 45 minutes of arduous exercise.

    At the intensity that you would be using for HIIT, it's not possible to do 45 minutes at that pace. The whole idea is it's deep into anaerobic territory; no matter how good your anaerobic capacity, you can't sustain 90%+ effort for 45 minutes.
  • peggymenard
    peggymenard Posts: 246 Member
    Interesting read and discussion. I am into metabolic exercising which consists of 2 sets of 10 of planks, lunges, squats and 10 # weight lifting for 10 mins., 3 x a week. I hope to increase this gradually so I can start and two sets of 30 and work down to the 10 within the 10 min sessions. I will be 80 in Dec. Will let you know how I progress if this is a perm discussion.
  • brb_2013
    brb_2013 Posts: 1,197 Member

    The point of research is to challenge previously believed truths. The food pyramid used to look different, perhaps with more research we will see the activity recommendations change as well. This is new data, it could prove to be significant. Or not. But it's interesting to discuss possibilities.
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,535 Member
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    I'm personally of the opinion that taking untrained people and making them do maximum effort with movements they are unskilled with is a recipe for disaster.

    I'd build a beginner up with a strength, cardio and skill base and then, later, layer on more power/explosive/hard interval type work.

    Getting someone who moves badly to start with to move badly, but much quicker is an approach I'm not a fan of. Leave highly ballistic stuff for more intermediate trainees...

    No worries.

    I'm sure they signed a waiver.

    Sure.

    But it's the out of shape person who throws themselves into Insanity. Or doing tabata. Or sprinting.

    And they have no base. No strength. No c-v capacity. No movement skills. Ouch.

    It's the whole this vs that nonsense that you see here and on the internet generally. What's best is what's going to produce the desired training effect and keep the trainee injury-free so they can keep training regularly and for longer. More productive sessions a week is better than one all-out effort and then 3-4 days of doing nothing because everything hurts, the old ankle is flaring up, etc.

    Common sense isn't sexy though. People want results. And they want them now dammit!
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    rankinsect wrote: »
    Imagine the benefits of 45 minutes of arduous exercise.

    At the intensity that you would be using for HIIT, it's not possible to do 45 minutes at that pace. The whole idea is it's deep into anaerobic territory; no matter how good your anaerobic capacity, you can't sustain 90%+ effort for 45 minutes.

    Looks like they were averaging about 500 watts for the 20 second sprints - when they said it was an all out effort they weren't kidding. That is 100% / red line territory. I doubt an untrained person could hold that effort level for anywhere near a minute, let alone 45.

    While the results of the study are useful I do wonder if most people who may try to implement something similar into their own training will work with the degree of intensity required without the need for experienced guidance.

  • nicolemarie999
    nicolemarie999 Posts: 91 Member
    jimmmer wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    I'm personally of the opinion that taking untrained people and making them do maximum effort with movements they are unskilled with is a recipe for disaster.

    I'd build a beginner up with a strength, cardio and skill base and then, later, layer on more power/explosive/hard interval type work.

    Getting someone who moves badly to start with to move badly, but much quicker is an approach I'm not a fan of. Leave highly ballistic stuff for more intermediate trainees...

    No worries.

    I'm sure they signed a waiver.

    Sure.

    But it's the out of shape person who throws themselves into Insanity. Or doing tabata. Or sprinting.

    And they have no base. No strength. No c-v capacity. No movement skills. Ouch.

    It's the whole this vs that nonsense that you see here and on the internet generally. What's best is what's going to produce the desired training effect and keep the trainee injury-free so they can keep training regularly and for longer. More productive sessions a week is better than one all-out effort and then 3-4 days of doing nothing because everything hurts, the old ankle is flaring up, etc.

    Common sense isn't sexy though. People want results. And they want them now dammit!

    Very true that someone going from sedentary to Insanity is probably not a good idea. However these researchers are not saying to do that. They are saying that 20 seconds all out on a cycle ergonmeter ( fancy stationary bike ) followed by a couple minutes of relaxed cycling for 3 repeats is producing the same aerobic benefits and insulin sensitivity benefits as moderate effort cycling for 45 min. Cycling is not a high impact activity like the plyometrics involved in an Insanity or TABATA type workout are, and 20 seconds on followed by 2 minutes active rest is very different than the type of interval workouts you see with Insanity or marketed at TABATA, etc. If you look at the study no one dropped out due to injury ( and these men were previously sednetary).

    As a side note, incidentaly I have done sprint/ HIIT workouts for a long time, it's actually specifically how I get back into shape quickly after a period of inactivity ( pregnancy) and have never injured myself. My husband does exclusivley HIIT and lifting and has never injured himself from HIIT. I have however injured myself from doing lots of slow long runs....
  • nicolemarie999
    nicolemarie999 Posts: 91 Member
    jimmmer wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    I'm personally of the opinion that taking untrained people and making them do maximum effort with movements they are unskilled with is a recipe for disaster.

    I'd build a beginner up with a strength, cardio and skill base and then, later, layer on more power/explosive/hard interval type work.

    Getting someone who moves badly to start with to move badly, but much quicker is an approach I'm not a fan of. Leave highly ballistic stuff for more intermediate trainees...

    No worries.

    I'm sure they signed a waiver.

    Sure.

    But it's the out of shape person who throws themselves into Insanity. Or doing tabata. Or sprinting.

    And they have no base. No strength. No c-v capacity. No movement skills. Ouch.

    It's the whole this vs that nonsense that you see here and on the internet generally. What's best is what's going to produce the desired training effect and keep the trainee injury-free so they can keep training regularly and for longer. More productive sessions a week is better than one all-out effort and then 3-4 days of doing nothing because everything hurts, the old ankle is flaring up, etc.

    Common sense isn't sexy though. People want results. And they want them now dammit!

    But that's just the point, these researchers are tyring to determine if you may BE able to have the results in 30 mins a week instead of 135 mins a week. For me, a full time working mom of young children, I no longer have an hour or two a day to workout, I may only have 20-30 mins on a good day. If I can get the same fitness and health benefits in WAAAY less time working out wouldn't that be a great thing? It's certainly something that a lot of time strapped people could benefit from knowing.

    If someone had said to me in school, hey I have a method you could follow that would allow you to study 75% less and end up with basically the same grade, wouldn't that be a great thing??

    FYI - I'm not saying you don't need endurance work in a well rounded program or for athletic performance or that more research isn't needed

    FYI - Sorry for typos, on my phone, while walking the baby.......
  • nicolemarie999
    nicolemarie999 Posts: 91 Member
    _Waffle_ wrote: »
    Athletes rely on intervals to improve their speed and power, but generally as part of a broader, weekly training program that also includes prolonged, less-intense workouts, such as long runs.

    Let's not overlook that "less-intense" long runs for athletes could mean that they're running 16 miles at an 8:00 pace. While it's less intense for them it's by no means a non-taxing exercise. Apples and oranges comparison to selecting out of shape people to exercise at a "less-intense" effort.

    At any rate they're saying that out of shape people working out till they're about to drop dead for 10 minutes is as effective as out of shape people working out casually for 45 minutes. I'm okay with that.

    I agree. Also think too often people think "long easy runs" have some super low HR. Even on my "easy" runs my HR is typically 80-85% of my max. I'd rather go on a 40 minute "easy" run than kill myself sprinting/walking/sprinting/walking for 10 minutes. But I agree, sprinting/walking for 10 minutes is probably about as equally effective as my 45 min - 1 hour ambling walks. Sometimes I'd just rather take that walk though. And the researchers didn't look into mental health benefits of longer activity...

    Sprnting is not for everyone for sure, I found the longer I did it the better it felt and now it's almost addicting.
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,535 Member
    jimmmer wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    I'm personally of the opinion that taking untrained people and making them do maximum effort with movements they are unskilled with is a recipe for disaster.

    I'd build a beginner up with a strength, cardio and skill base and then, later, layer on more power/explosive/hard interval type work.

    Getting someone who moves badly to start with to move badly, but much quicker is an approach I'm not a fan of. Leave highly ballistic stuff for more intermediate trainees...

    No worries.

    I'm sure they signed a waiver.

    Sure.

    But it's the out of shape person who throws themselves into Insanity. Or doing tabata. Or sprinting.

    And they have no base. No strength. No c-v capacity. No movement skills. Ouch.

    It's the whole this vs that nonsense that you see here and on the internet generally. What's best is what's going to produce the desired training effect and keep the trainee injury-free so they can keep training regularly and for longer. More productive sessions a week is better than one all-out effort and then 3-4 days of doing nothing because everything hurts, the old ankle is flaring up, etc.

    Common sense isn't sexy though. People want results. And they want them now dammit!

    But that's just the point, these researchers are tyring to determine if you may BE able to have the results in 30 mins a week instead of 135 mins a week. For me, a full time working mom of young children, I no longer have an hour or two a day to workout, I may only have 20-30 mins on a good day. If I can get the same fitness and health benefits in WAAAY less time working out wouldn't that be a great thing? It's certainly something that a lot of time strapped people could benefit from knowing.

    If someone had said to me in school, hey I have a method you could follow that would allow you to study 75% less and end up with basically the same grade, wouldn't that be a great thing??

    FYI - I'm not saying you don't need endurance work in a well rounded program or for athletic performance or that more research isn't needed

    FYI - Sorry for typos, on my phone, while walking the baby.......

    Sure.

    There's lots of ways to skin the cat.

    And yes, they did cycle. How many beginners will read beyond that headline and implement a non impact version, too?

    Let's not all forget that tabata did his intervals on bikes. How has that been transmuted/butchered by mainstream fitness?

    Basically people would do better exercising according to their fitness level, is all I'm saying. Then you use the tools and time you have available to you within that bound and start to make progress by slowly expanding that boundary.

    Best way to lose fat is to get a handle on your diet anyway, so it's basically a null point....
  • ilex70
    ilex70 Posts: 727 Member
    msf74 wrote: »
    rankinsect wrote: »
    Imagine the benefits of 45 minutes of arduous exercise.

    At the intensity that you would be using for HIIT, it's not possible to do 45 minutes at that pace. The whole idea is it's deep into anaerobic territory; no matter how good your anaerobic capacity, you can't sustain 90%+ effort for 45 minutes.

    Looks like they were averaging about 500 watts for the 20 second sprints - when they said it was an all out effort they weren't kidding. That is 100% / red line territory. I doubt an untrained person could hold that effort level for anywhere near a minute, let alone 45.

    While the results of the study are useful I do wonder if most people who may try to implement something similar into their own training will work with the degree of intensity required without the need for experienced guidance.

    So now I'm curious where I'm at when sprinting. I've been completely ignoring the little computer on the spin bike (don't even turn it on) because it is dark and difficult to see anyway. :D

  • nicolemarie999
    nicolemarie999 Posts: 91 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    They didn't evaluate specific changes in cardiovascular fitness, either. Stroke volume, heart size, heart rate, including rate of decrease would have been interesting. Proliferation of capillaries, increases in blood volume, etc.

    I think it's possible they did look at some of these things and it may be published in another paper. We shall see.

    There are other studies showing an increase in stroke volume after HIIT and some have shown only peripheral changes ( increased efficiency in the muscle)
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,331 Member
    Sure, might have the same benefits, but I would burn less calories, be hungrier and would need at least two days of recovery after a good HIIT session. An easy run? Burns more calories, doesn't affect hunger, minimal recovery, and puts me in a better mental state. There is a reason runners only utilize sprints sparingly throughout the week. It would take a toll physically and mentally if done often.
  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 648 Member
    brb_2013 wrote: »

    The point of research is to challenge previously believed truths. The food pyramid used to look different, perhaps with more research we will see the activity recommendations change as well. This is new data, it could prove to be significant. Or not. But it's interesting to discuss possibilities.

    the point was this research isn't anything new, they both say basically the same thing.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    jimmmer wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    I'm personally of the opinion that taking untrained people and making them do maximum effort with movements they are unskilled with is a recipe for disaster.

    I'd build a beginner up with a strength, cardio and skill base and then, later, layer on more power/explosive/hard interval type work.

    Getting someone who moves badly to start with to move badly, but much quicker is an approach I'm not a fan of. Leave highly ballistic stuff for more intermediate trainees...

    No worries.

    I'm sure they signed a waiver.

    Sure.

    But it's the out of shape person who throws themselves into Insanity. Or doing tabata. Or sprinting.

    And they have no base. No strength. No c-v capacity. No movement skills. Ouch.

    It's the whole this vs that nonsense that you see here and on the internet generally. What's best is what's going to produce the desired training effect and keep the trainee injury-free so they can keep training regularly and for longer. More productive sessions a week is better than one all-out effort and then 3-4 days of doing nothing because everything hurts, the old ankle is flaring up, etc.

    Common sense isn't sexy though. People want results. And they want them now dammit!

    But that's just the point, these researchers are tyring to determine if you may BE able to have the results in 30 mins a week instead of 135 mins a week. For me, a full time working mom of young children, I no longer have an hour or two a day to workout, I may only have 20-30 mins on a good day. If I can get the same fitness and health benefits in WAAAY less time working out wouldn't that be a great thing? It's certainly something that a lot of time strapped people could benefit from knowing.

    If someone had said to me in school, hey I have a method you could follow that would allow you to study 75% less and end up with basically the same grade, wouldn't that be a great thing??

    FYI - I'm not saying you don't need endurance work in a well rounded program or for athletic performance or that more research isn't needed

    FYI - Sorry for typos, on my phone, while walking the baby.......

    Sure.

    There's lots of ways to skin the cat.

    And yes, they did cycle. How many beginners will read beyond that headline and implement a non impact version, too?

    Let's not all forget that tabata did his intervals on bikes. How has that been transmuted/butchered by mainstream fitness?

    Basically people would do better exercising according to their fitness level, is all I'm saying. Then you use the tools and time you have available to you within that bound and start to make progress by slowly expanding that boundary.

    Best way to lose fat is to get a handle on your diet anyway, so it's basically a null point....

    We tend to forget on this site, but there are people who exercise solely for the health benefits and not to lose weight. Some are already well within healthy weight parameters when they begin.

    And before you say it, yes, I'm sure they're a minority.

    And I do absolutely agree with your point that beginners will look at the headline and do something completely different and possibly dangerous thinking they're doing the right thing.
  • brb_2013
    brb_2013 Posts: 1,197 Member
    I am wondering how this would feel on my M5 from bowflex. It's a super low impact exercise and I don't think I would fall. Might try it tonight, but of course my "max" effort probably won't be as high as they pushed the men in this study.
  • Noelv1976
    Noelv1976 Posts: 18,948 Member
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    How many of the subjects were athletes? Or even just moderately fit people?

    Dude, did you read the whole thing or just skimmed to the bottom?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    msf74 wrote: »
    rankinsect wrote: »
    Imagine the benefits of 45 minutes of arduous exercise.

    At the intensity that you would be using for HIIT, it's not possible to do 45 minutes at that pace. The whole idea is it's deep into anaerobic territory; no matter how good your anaerobic capacity, you can't sustain 90%+ effort for 45 minutes.

    Looks like they were averaging about 500 watts for the 20 second sprints - when they said it was an all out effort they weren't kidding. That is 100% / red line territory. I doubt an untrained person could hold that effort level for anywhere near a minute, let alone 45.

    While the results of the study are useful I do wonder if most people who may try to implement something similar into their own training will work with the degree of intensity required without the need for experienced guidance.

    I've read that that's the usual problem -- people think they are doing HIIT when they really aren't.
  • Noelv1976
    Noelv1976 Posts: 18,948 Member
    It's just a study folks. But, nothing wrong with adding this to your workout schedule. That's the beauty of fitness, can mix and match anyway you like it. It's only 20 sec/2min slow pace, 20sec/2 min, 20 sec/3 min recovery. Sounds pretty easy to me. Will definitely add this to my routine.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,417 Member
    Noelv1976 wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    How many of the subjects were athletes? Or even just moderately fit people?

    Dude, did you read the whole thing or just skimmed to the bottom?

    Did you read this whole thread before making this post?

    Don't answer. I already know. No you didn't. Because if you had, you would have read that my question was rhetorical.

    And yes, I read the whole thing.
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,535 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jimmmer wrote: »
    I'm personally of the opinion that taking untrained people and making them do maximum effort with movements they are unskilled with is a recipe for disaster.

    I'd build a beginner up with a strength, cardio and skill base and then, later, layer on more power/explosive/hard interval type work.

    Getting someone who moves badly to start with to move badly, but much quicker is an approach I'm not a fan of. Leave highly ballistic stuff for more intermediate trainees...

    No worries.

    I'm sure they signed a waiver.

    Sure.

    But it's the out of shape person who throws themselves into Insanity. Or doing tabata. Or sprinting.

    And they have no base. No strength. No c-v capacity. No movement skills. Ouch.

    It's the whole this vs that nonsense that you see here and on the internet generally. What's best is what's going to produce the desired training effect and keep the trainee injury-free so they can keep training regularly and for longer. More productive sessions a week is better than one all-out effort and then 3-4 days of doing nothing because everything hurts, the old ankle is flaring up, etc.

    Common sense isn't sexy though. People want results. And they want them now dammit!

    But that's just the point, these researchers are tyring to determine if you may BE able to have the results in 30 mins a week instead of 135 mins a week. For me, a full time working mom of young children, I no longer have an hour or two a day to workout, I may only have 20-30 mins on a good day. If I can get the same fitness and health benefits in WAAAY less time working out wouldn't that be a great thing? It's certainly something that a lot of time strapped people could benefit from knowing.

    If someone had said to me in school, hey I have a method you could follow that would allow you to study 75% less and end up with basically the same grade, wouldn't that be a great thing??

    FYI - I'm not saying you don't need endurance work in a well rounded program or for athletic performance or that more research isn't needed

    FYI - Sorry for typos, on my phone, while walking the baby.......

    Sure.

    There's lots of ways to skin the cat.

    And yes, they did cycle. How many beginners will read beyond that headline and implement a non impact version, too?

    Let's not all forget that tabata did his intervals on bikes. How has that been transmuted/butchered by mainstream fitness?

    Basically people would do better exercising according to their fitness level, is all I'm saying. Then you use the tools and time you have available to you within that bound and start to make progress by slowly expanding that boundary.

    Best way to lose fat is to get a handle on your diet anyway, so it's basically a null point....

    We tend to forget on this site, but there are people who exercise solely for the health benefits and not to lose weight. Some are already well within healthy weight parameters when they begin.

    And before you say it, yes, I'm sure they're a minority.

    And I do absolutely agree with your point that beginners will look at the headline and do something completely different and possibly dangerous thinking they're doing the right thing.

    Yep. I'm one of them....