The Truth About Exercise

Azza said:
Expensive... :confused: I think Aber charge £20 for a VO2 max test and if you asked they'd probably test you're anaerobic power and capacity, time to exhaustion / fatigue for little more as well.

You could probably get in touch with a decent physio and they'd be able to do everything as well.
Click to expand...

Oh... Alrighty then! I stand corrected and shall eat humble pie.
 
ethan said:
perhaps the program should have been "not the complete truth about exercise" as it creates the wrong picture:

Even if you are a non responder you are likely to gain more muscle tone, flexability and overall cardiovascular fitness/stamina- not to mention a better chance of calorie reduction through the 1 hour on the treadmill, the zumba class and 20 lengths of the pool than a 3 minute HIT on an exercise bike? There is also the effect of long term and legthy periods of exercise that cleans the gunk from out of your cells to consider along with the feel-good factor. PFT, 3 minute HIT more like 3 minute ***** for people that require something for nothing. It's a fair guess to assume “non-responders” seen in the research literature is probably due to the wrong stimulus. Of course people have a highly individual response to training but the goal should be to figure out what kind of training each individual responds best to before jumping to conclusions about such things.
Click to expand...

Plus the benefit of reduced chance of getting diabetes. The program really did paint the wrong picture. If if you are a non-responder, there are still many benefits. I suspect this will just be used as an excuse by fatties as to why they don't do any exercise.
 
That's exactly my issue with the program, it seemed to be trying to appeal to those who say 'exercise doesn't work for me' or 'going to the gym too often is a waste of time' and as a result they end up doing no exercise at all. HIT has a place but as part of an exercise routine not as the entire thing. Seriously do people think 3 minutes of hard work a week is comparable to 3-4 hours of moderate exercise?

A shame really as there were some interesting ideas raised, but I felt the take away message was 'don't waste your time doing a lot of exercise', even the presenter said he was planning to just do the HIT part each week so it's not exactly a great message for an already lazy nation.
 
Random Guy said:
Interesting comment - and fair enough if you are talking about CV training. However, its idiots who don't know when to stop when strength training i.e. because they think they are pushing themselves to the "max", who normally end up with serious injuries.
Click to expand...

Add me to that list of idiots - managed to push a bit too far yesterday = right shoulder muscle pulled :(
 
ricky1981 said:
That's exactly my issue with the program, it seemed to be trying to appeal to those who say 'exercise doesn't work for me' or 'going to the gym too often is a waste of time' and as a result they end up doing no exercise at all. HIT has a place but as part of an exercise routine not as the entire thing. Seriously do people think 3 minutes of hard work a week is comparable to 3-4 hours of moderate exercise?
Click to expand...
No, but 10-15 minutes of HIIT can be more effective than almost an hour of moderate exercise.

With a suitable diet, most people can achieve their aims with ~40 minutes of moderate exercise a day. I mix in the HIIT because it keeps things interesting, but I fear injury too much to do it unless I'm feeling 100%.
 
I don't think you can beat rowing for HIIT. Maybe the cross trainer comes a close second. They will both tear you a new A hole if you push yourself to the limit.
 
it dont matter on the equipment its the level of intensity of the exercise
i will say however that the more muscle groups in use to perform an exercise you generally will make it more intense per say at a set cadence

if you exercise using muscle groups that rotate thru upper lower front and back of body(agonistic rotation technique) to perform you also get something called periferal heart action which make the cardio respiratory system work diferently and then also by combining this with fartlek, interval or similar type training will keep intensity high while enabling diferent muscle groups to perform at diferent levels thru out the period of exercise

at the end of the day more intensity 80% for 30 mins will do more good than 1 hr of less intensity 40% for cardiorespirator response and general cardiorepiratory fitness and will also burn more calories however it is so variable from person to person there is no absolute right way for all.
 
alx said:
Proper sprints are probably the worst. Rower is the hardest (in my view) if just talking about gym equipment.
Click to expand...


There is no difference between what you do it all depends what you're targeting. You can't say sprinting is the worst when it will be far from in given the muscles groups and sizes that are involved when sprinting.

The reason why you probably find it hardest will be because you're not training as intense on other things.
 
No, but 10-15 minutes of HIIT can be more effective than almost an hour of moderate exercise.
Click to expand...
is this really a new found understanding of excersize like the program suggests?
weight lifters have been doing the same thing to build muscle for decades.
using wegiths heavy enough that 8 is about the most reps you can do
1x8 reps
1-3mins break
1x 8 reps
1-3mins break
1x8 reps

the muscle is fatigued out and done for a few days with minimal time spent.

onto the next muscle
 
Last edited:
Athletes have been doing HIIT for well god knows. I was first told about HIIT when I was 12!

It's not new at all, just doesn't get a lot of exposure probably because it involves a lot of hard work.
 
arknor said:
is this really a new found understanding of excersize like the program suggests?
weight lifters have been doing the same thing to build muscle for decades.
using wegiths heavy enough that 8 is about the most reps you can do
1x8 reps
1-3mins break
1x 8 reps
1-3mins break
1x8 reps

the muscle is fatigued out and done for a few days with minimal time spent.

onto the next muscle
Click to expand...

So very true. Give me a non-responder and a set ofkettlebells any day :D
 
its been known for a long time tbh that fartlek in its various forms (1930S ish) is the most effeicient form for improving cardiovascular response .. its nothing new . just another slant HIT or super high intensity training or **** is just another take on a theme .... lolz ok i had to adit so **** did that work?
 
Last edited:
craarc said:
its been known for a long time tbh that fartlek in its various forms (1930S ish) is the most effeicient form for improving cardiovascular response .. its nothing new . just another slant HIT or super high intensity training or **** is just another take on a theme .... lolz ok i had to adit so **** did that work?
Click to expand...

Absolutely but the overall point of the programme was to show (that for some people) 12 minutes a month is enough to trick your body into releasing certain advantageous chemicals.
Nowhere in the programme did it say it will make you lose weight or make you run a marathon BUT I'm certain that's how a lot of people viewed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom