Horizons Keep fit with only 3 minutes of intensive interval training per week

[Mich the Tester]

My personal guess is that the 20s thing is some whole different mechanism to 'real' exercise; a 2min intense activity leaves you totally exhausted so it's no surprise your body reacts to it. Whereas a 20s activity might be 'tricking' your body.

That's just a gut feeling (pun not intended).

I don't see what the 'trick' is; it's all about provoking your body's overcompensation mechanism. The body reacts to some training stimulus by replacing the fuel used and repairing any slight damage to the muscle, and adding a bit on top. 20 seconds is certainly enough to exhaust you IF it's 20 seconds at a very high intensity, and your body will 'want' to be able to do the same thing more easily next time around.

I think it's the same mechanism, but the mechanism isn't fully understood anyway; training adaptation is not purely a muscular or cardiovascular affair but also involves mental, emotional and neurological adaptations.

Personally I suspect the 20s bursts routine can be helpful, but would probably be more effective as part of an overall exercise strategy that involves aerobic training, strength training and simply doing a bit less arse-sitting and less using lifts, and a bit more walking and using the stairs. Or going to the newsagents on a bike instead of in the car.

I didn't see anything in the programme that would change my thinking on training for serious athletes, except a little confirmation that HIIT has some scientific justification, as if that was needed after research by Tabata, Tremblay and many others.

[suityou01]

The programme for me was a little unbalanced, as is this thread. The other half of the documentary was about NEAT, increasing NEAT by being less sedentry. In fact the closing words were "the chair is a killer", and seemed to be suggesting that sitting on your arse for an hour, say watching a documentary about sitting on your arse for an hour, was a bad thing.

They also suggested that different genes mean different exercise regimes and we might be about to move into an era of personalised exercise plans based on science rather than some nazi gym instructor / personal trainer.

So a "non responder" could still reduce their insulin resistance with HIT, and also reduce their weight with increased NEAT. In fact he managed to increase his daily calorie burn by 500 calories just by being on his feet more.

I now watch TV standing up and make sure I have a pot noodle before bed just to get the heart rate up. Every little helps.

[Mich the Tester]

One thing I missed, and that I thought was a real gaping whole in the programme, was measurements of the presenter's resting heart rate before, during and after the exercise regime. It seems to me that this 3 minute principle is a bit like strength training for the heart, which is after all a muscle.

If you were to take an untrained subject and get him to do 3* 20 secs of biceps curls with a given weight as fast as he can, 3 times a week for 6 weeks nobody would be surprised if the girth and strength of his biceps were to increase slightly during the course of the training. Actually, in the first six weeks the adaptation would be primarily neurological as coordination and recruitment of muscle fibres increases, but after 12 weeks with slightly increasing loads or speed of lifting I'd expect to see an increase in girth and power of the biceps. I see no reason why the same principle can't be applied to the heart muscle. I'd expect therefore that after some time on this training regime the resting heart rate would fall.

Shame they missed that.

[Mich the Tester]

They also suggested that different genes mean different exercise regimes and we might be about to move into an era of personalised exercise plans based on science rather than some nazi gym instructor / personal trainer.

So a "non responder" could still reduce their insulin resistance with HIT, and also reduce their weight with increased NEAT. In fact he managed to increase his daily calorie burn by 500 calories just by being on his feet more.

First is a good point; personalisation of exercise plans is the future.

Second point; I'm a bit skeptical about this 'non-responder' concept. While it seems obvious that different people have different levels of response to a given form of training (some people try like hell but remain crap at a sports while others are good with apparently very little effort), I wonder whether the researchers have really eliminated all the other variables and can conclude that some people have no training response at all on the basis of their genetic profile. Varying the amount of and quality of rest between sessions, varying the diet, varying other movement and exercise, state of health, age, living conditions, other stresses etc can all influence training response.

Plus of course, they've only measured his insuline levels and his VO2 max. How about resting heart rate, muscular strength in his legs, coordination, leg speed, anaerobic endurance etc?

[doodab]

The programme for me was a little unbalanced, as is this thread. The other half of the documentary was about NEAT, increasing NEAT by being less sedentry. In fact the closing words were "the chair is a killer", and seemed to be suggesting that sitting on your arse for an hour, say watching a documentary about sitting on your arse for an hour, was a bad thing.

The start was about how simply doing a bit of exercise isn't enough to lose weight if you keep stuffing your face with tulip at the same time.

I've lost about a stone since christmas simply by giving up high fat foods like cheese, pastry, butter etc and eating other stuff instead.

[d000hg]

I'm a bit skeptical about this 'non-responder' concept.

Maybe this is a different use of the term from what I think it is, but certain medical conditions certainly include weight gain, or difficulty losing weight, as symptoms. Is that a different subject entirely?

[doodab]

Second point; I'm a bit skeptical about this 'non-responder' concept. While it seems obvious that different people have different levels of response to a given form of training (some people try like hell but remain crap at a sports while others are good with apparently very little effort), I wonder whether the researchers have really eliminated all the other variables and can conclude that some people have no training response at all on the basis of their genetic profile. Varying the amount of and quality of rest between sessions, varying the diet, varying other movement and exercise, state of health, age, living conditions, other stresses etc can all influence training response.

I was thinking that. There was a throw away remark along the lines that non responders don't respond to any known training regime but I did wonder if they had tested the same population for response to say long endurance sessions, and whether the "non-responders" were the same in each case. I suppose they must have done to have identified a genetic link.

I know for example that although I get fitter from short, fast bike rides that if I go for a 4 hour one the next weeks short fast rides will be a lot faster. I think it might have something to do with different types of muscle fibre benefiting from different training regimes.

Something to bear in mind is that most research in the field specifically targets athletes and it seems likely these people are more likely to be "super responders", so for that reason the non responders could have gone unnoticed for quite a long while. You simply wouldn't find any at all in the typical population of a sports science study.

[Mich the Tester]

I was thinking that. There was a throw away remark along the lines that non responders don't respond to any known training regime but I did wonder if they had tested the same population for response to say long endurance sessions, and whether the "non-responders" were the same in each case. I suppose they must have done to have identified a genetic link.

I know for example that although I get fitter from short, fast bike rides that if I go for a 4 hour one the next weeks short fast rides will be a lot faster. I think it might have something to do with different types of muscle fibre benefiting from different training regimes.

Something to bear in mind is that most research in the field specifically targets athletes and it seems likely these people are more likely to be "super responders", so for that reason the non responders could have gone unnoticed for quite a long while. You simply wouldn't find any at all in the typical population of a sports science study.

Well the non-responders can only be claimed to 'non respond' on the aspects that were measured, ie VO2 max and the insuline stuff; have they tested all aspects of fitness on them?

[Mich the Tester]

Maybe this is a different use of the term from what I think it is, but certain medical conditions certainly include weight gain, or difficulty losing weight, as symptoms. Is that a different subject entirely?

It's not entirely a different subject but difficult to exclude as a variable in the research; you'd need to find people with those medical conditions who are passed fit by a doctor to do this kind of training and I think most doctors (and most competent fitness trainers) would be very reluctant to put somebody on high intensity training if they have some underlying medical condition, even if that condition isn't thought to affect their heart. I think the one thing that scares fitness trainers more than anything else is a client who starts an exercise regime and then goes home and has a heart attack, and high intensity training looks risky in that sense so you'd want to exclude the risk when it comes to medical conditions.

[Doggy Styles]

I know a few of the guys at FC Zwolle, which is a Dutch first division side, so not the absolute top level but one below; they all seem to be able to aim and kick a ball within about 20cm of a spot on a wall 20 metres further up. Quite impressive to watch. I don't think that explains the difference between the best and the rest though; perhaps the combination of kicking the ball in the right direction, at the right speed, at the right height, in the right parabola to fall at the feet or on the forehead of a team mate in the right position, and do it time and time again even when you're tired is a better indicator, but more difficult to research.

The point they were trying to make is that the brain of a footballer has to make several spacial calculations at once and then control muscles accurately. They call this genius.

I'm not sure how rare an ability has to be before it is called genius, but my point is that millions of players in the world do this, and Beckham was just one of thousands who can do it well enough to be a professional footballer.