PainTrain

New study

timmhaan

that is very interesting.

Guest

Oh, that study has been circulated all over the place for years now. My problems are: 1) it's a short term study, 2) they don't explain what "moderate exerciser is", 3) they give a false hope that non-exercisers can achieve the same results, and 4) they give no background into the people's exercise or cardiovascular activities.

6 hours of cardiovascular activity per week I would call pretty moderate activity to begin with. I don't really understand what they mean to do by having people lump all their workouts into a 2 hour, 3 day a week, as opposed to their normal routine.

What are the effects on obesity? Effects on people who have no physical activity that do this type of exercise they seem to advocate? The effects of cholesterol levels? What about people who are avid exercisers? How does it affect that group of people? How long do these effects last?

Oh, just too many questions for me to take this study seriously. But I guess when you get a grant, you'd better show something.

Koffee

Santaria

Agree with Koffee.

The other interesting thing is that the new standards don't say 30 minutes of exercise a day to stay health - they say a min. of 60 minutes. So if you take that as a baseline, the minimum time of activity in a week would be 7 hours. Basically, the 6 hours of cardiovascular activity falls short of the new standard by 1 hour.

Beyond that, as I'm training for my first sprint tri, and attempting to lose the last 16 lbs. I need to, I find that I'm getting in approx. 15-20 hours of cardio a week and consider that 'moderate' atm. I would hate to see someone training for a half IM or a full IM and what they consider moderate activity (and the amount of time invested weekly).

I'd wager this would be a good addition maybe to a stable cardio routine, sorta like a HIT routine 3 times a week in addition to normal LT/HR training?

timmhaan

i don't think it's entirely bogus. if you follow the link in the article (it does to another article on the same topic) it says:

"The study was conducted on 16 subjects: eight who performed a two-week sprint interval training program and eight who did no exercise training. The training program consisted of between four and seven 30-second bursts of "all out" cycling followed by four minutes of recovery three times a week for two weeks. Researchers found that endurance capacity in the sprint group increased on average from 26 minutes to 51 minutes, whereas the control group showed no change. The muscles of the trained group also showed a significant increase in citrate synthase, an enzyme that is indicative of the tissue's ability to utilize oxygen."

of course i haven't read the real report (costs money to access) but i think the results are pretty interesting.

Guest

I DID read the link to the summary of the article. It actually sheds absolutely no light into the questions I have.

Koffee

Doctor Morbius

Just six minutes of intense exercise a week does as much to improve a person's fitness as a training regime based on six hours, research has found.

The two-minute workout, to be undertaken three times a week, requires cycling furiously in four 30-second bursts and guarantees the same overall fitness level as moderate training regime, with three two-hourly sessions.


Well, I'm sold. Yeah, right. And I'm a Chinese jet pilot!

Guest

What's your bet they'll be coming out with some paid program where you're GUARANTEED to get maxium results in minimum time?

It's gonna happen...

Koffee

Doctor Morbius

Yeah, and Tony Little can be their infomercial spokesmodel.

fuzzthebee

If you read the article carefully, the 30 second work intervals are followed by 4 minute recovery intervals, so the whole workout ends up taking more than 30 minutes if you factor in warming up and cooling down. They're plugging it as more of a time saver than it really is.

webist

$19.95 + $6.95 shipping and handling. It'll be a set of 14 2-minute tapes not available in stores.

I'll not buy until it is offered with 2 free buckets of oxyclean.

Guest

Yeah, and you can save hundreds by switching to Geico!



Koffee

LapDog

Yea, but you've got to remember that for most people, exercise means walking to your car, or to the kitchen to get more food! If most people would actually exercise 6 min a week the results would be........maybe they would increase to 10?

Guest

Not necessarily. The report isn't based on sedentary folks, it's based on what they define as folks who "moderately exercise". I would expect for a scientific study, they would be able to tell us what they mean by "moderate exercise". I don't think what you're talking about is what they would use as their definition.

Koffee

PainTrain

I'd want some time to warm up a bit before I'd want to hammer that hard for even 30 seconds. So it would still take me a while to get the workout in.

When I played high school basketball, they taught us that a mix of sprint and jog was best, because the activities stressed different muscle groups, something like that.

operator

I'll define it for you: a person that gets up off the couch after the end of a show to go get some more junk food.

markevans999

very similar to the findings of dr. lawrence morehouse. he stated that 10 minutes of intense exercise at 90% of maximum heart rate was better than several hours of "moderate exercise". do this 10 minute exercise regime 3 times per week for excellent cardiovascular health. morehouse trained several olympic atheletes using these techniques training less than 1 hour per day.

Guest

Which olympic athletes would they be? Which sport disciplines?

Koffee

markevans999

i'll see if i can find the info, but i'm pretty sure they were track and field athletes, runners if i remember correctly. this is pretty old info, dr. morehouse developed the training programs for the first astronauts to combat muscle atrophy while in longterm space travel. in reading the article i think the key term was "moderate exercise". dr. morehouse believed moderate exercise, while better than doing nothing, gradually deconditions the athlete over time.

Boogs

Whether or not the findings of the study are consistent with other observations, I can't imagine why they would bother with a study of 16 people. It's a pitifully small number, and the fact that more specific definitions of terms and methodology are absent in the article makes it worthless to me.

Guest

Ditto.

A small sampling of people over a short period of time.... shoot, I just can't take this study seriously at all.

Koffee