After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground.
As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches.
Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat. Really look into Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe for actual good advice.
"Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general." - Mark Rippetoe
Edit: Btw, time comparison: spend years chasing the latest "scientific" fitness fad (see article) and going nowhere or get in better shape while working an office job than 99% of highschool/college guys in a few months for a time commitment of 2-3 hours per week. That's the kind of math I'm talking about when I talk about starting strength and leangains.
"This is a waste of time" is read by someone who currently does no exercise as "I may as well not bother trying".
Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness entirely.
If you actually want to inspire people who are not fit to get fit, it is going to take encouragement, not constant criticism of every possible method of getting fit.
There is literally no exercise routine that someone can propose and not face immediate criticism. A beginner doesn't need a perfect routine (which clearly doesn't exist anyway given all the argument on the issue). They need to do something. Something that is not actively harmful and will increase their fitness, even in a small way.
You may think you are showing people a better way, but you are really giving people nowhere to turn for support, because everyone always tries to show a better way no matter what the original way was. I could come here every single day posting about another fitness routine and every single day I would be told it's wrong. So if everything is wrong, what do you think I am going to do? Nothing.
After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground.
Can I disprove one anecdote, with another? Sure, why not?
I used to go to the gym 6x a week for about 60-90/session and lifted heavy things from every possible position imaginable. I even won a fitness contest at my university (a weird combination of weight to bench press, squat, deadlift, and pull ups). I was certainly in great shape and very strong.
But life intruded. For a while I did nothing and got in much worse shape. I needed to get back in shape, but I didn't have time for the gym (at least that was my opinion). So I started just doing stuff at home. Probably 10 minutes per day. Push ups, pull ups, crunches, and biking a short distance to the bus for work.
While I'm probably not quite as strong as I was in college, I'm pretty close. I've probably gotten something like 90% of the gains with 15% of the effort.
To be a competitive athlete or bodybuilder that 10% makes a huge difference. But for most people, I think this seems like the right tradeoff.
>Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat.
I think gym-nerds vastly underestimate how out of shape the median person is. I started doing a variation of this regimen every day before work two weeks ago and I feel better already. I was sore for the first two days from just a few sets of squats.
Who gives a fuck about being able to bench press all you can bench press? It sounds like macho bullshit to me. I don't care about being as strong as I can be.
I care about not being winded when I hit the top of the stairs, and I care about not having back aches from sitting in a chair all the time, and I care about dying a bit later than sooner. If a few simple bodyweight reps once a day or three times a week will get me there without the expense and the hours wasted travelling to and from gyms all so much the better.
> but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie.
Who said the point of the workout was weight loss? That's a really narrow view. How about just, you know, health?
> a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories
Wait... now you seem to be contradicting yourself. So, a 30 minute run is offset by eating a cookie too? I can't tell if you mean the run is good, or you're saying that 30 minute runs are bad... which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm sure you have a point to make, but I can't tell what it is. And as for "picking something heavy off the ground"... push-ups (step 3), for example, aren't any different than that. Clearly this is not a body-building routine, but for just getting into better shape with minimal time, it seems pretty good.
> As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise
Well that's kind of the point... this is a lot better than not getting a lot of physical exercise, isn't it?
I used to go to the gym and lift really heavy things off the ground for 2-3 hours a day 5 days a week. It was great exercise and I loved how strong I was after a few years of doing that religiously.
At some point life "got in the way", and between a kid and a full-time job my gym time started to disappear. I've tried a lot of creative approaches to keeping fit with shorter workouts, and what I have come up with isn't all that different than what is being prescribed here.
My basic approach is this:
1. Pushups - every other morning I do 5 minutes of pushups where I start at a set of 20 then bump up by a count of 5 until I'm at 35. Then I work my way back down to 20 allowing brief 20 second rests in between.
2. Pullups - same as pushups except I start at 6 and bump by 2 until I hit 10, and then work back down.
3. Squats - No weight, three sets of 50. This could be better, but I'm kinda lazy when it comes to squats
4. Mix in exercises using resistance bands. (shoulder press, lat pulls, tricep extensions, etc). I usually do these in three sets of 12-15.
Each workout takes about 15 minutes, and while I've lost some muscle mass I'm still a pretty lean/muscular 170. I'm sure there are all sorts of optimizations I could make, but honestly I don't really care at this point. I've found a quick workout I can do 3-4 times a week and it is keeping me pretty damn healthy.
I'll add that, if you've never been strong, you don't know what you're missing.
You could try it, and decide it's not for you. But a lot of self-professed nerds disdain it, assuming it's something only stupid jocks do.
It's not. Getting strong has been one of the most fulfilling things I've ever done. It's also had lasting effects in pain reduction, how other perceive me, and my self-confidence.
To add to that: As a programmer who's been half-crippled by RSI in the past, and half-crippled again more recently by a broken shoulder (motorbike accident) and massive whiplash (car crash) within a year of each other, SS is a really worthwhile read.
I rejoined the local gym six months ago with near-constant back pain and posture that was screwed to hell. I was seriously nervous about my ability to even lift an empty bar, never mind serious weights.
A month or two in, I reached a set of weights that I simply couldn't safely increase any further - not because I wasn't getting stronger, but because my appalling posture wouldn't allow me to do it properly. So I've worked since at doing the same weights each time, but doing them right
This week is the first time since that I've been able to start adding weight - just a couple kilos, but an increase nonetheless.
But bearing in mind my back was literally so weak I had to be slow & cautious about getting out of bed in the morning six months ago: courtesy of nothing but 3 gym visits a week following the advice in SS, I'm now stronger than I ever have been, and am slowly undoing the damage of years of godawful posture.
The other day I was sitting on a sofa with my lady friend sitting on my lap. I was able to put my arms under her and stand up from that position, lifting her entire bodyweight as well as my own. And no matter how weak you might think you are right now, unless you've taken genuine spine trauma recently, I gaurantee you're stronger than I was six months ago.
And the nice thing is, it's come with very little change in body size - almost all my clothes still fit.
For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground.
Not necessarily true. There are also body weight exercises/calisthenics you can do at home. Hell, even regular walking and some yard work do wonders for your health.
You do not need to go to a gym and lift weights.
This exercise regime (or "gimmick", as you refer to it) is completely valid, and it's better than doing nothing. The average person probably can't even complete the 7 minute exercises with proper form.
Do I really need to go into the gym to get something heavy to lift? I happen to have something heavy already at my house: my fat self.
Right now I do nothing other than jogging or strenuous hiking, and I recognize that I need to add strength training. More than half of these seem to be strength exercises.
I don't understand all the weird schisms and cliques that pop up on HN when fitness topics are discussed. From an idiot's perspective, it seems like I could get good strength gains with these exercise and my (already-considerable) body weight.
I tried Mark Rippletoe's program, and it didn't work for me. IMO, it worked my legs way too much. Squats 3 times a week? I went up in the beginning, but plateaued in a couple of months and then got the flu (and I rarely get sick). After a couple of weeks off, my legs were still sore. I tried to get back into it, but the constant pain and lack of progress finally made me give up.
Also, I don't understand why his routine is so lopsided as to favor the lower body.
Right now I'm doing Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty routine, which after 3 months has been fantastic. It uses HIT principles, where you are only doing the minimum work necessary to stimulate the muscle. This translates to 1 set per exercise twice a week or so.
Look at cats. Cats sleep up to 17 hours a day. They lie around seemingly doing nothing most of their waking hours. But if you watch a cat work out - wow!! it works out. It's going all out for a few minutes. Talking about a healthy country cat here, which, compared to its body weight pulls of physical feats a human can only dream of.
People often ask me if I go to the gym. Nope. I just do push ups now and then, not even every day, but when I do, I do them properly, military style push ups until I almost faint. Between 50 and 80 full on ones seems to do it for me. Takes... 2 minutes or so?! Fitness secrets!
A 7-minute workout isn't really going to accomplish much, but the original paper suggests repeating the 7 minute program multiple times per session.
This article is attempting to repackage old knowledge, but that doesn't really mean that it's a waste of time. There are world class athletes that use only bodyweight exercises to stay in shape. Going to the gym and picking heavy things off of the ground isn't a strict requirement of lasting fitness. Weightlifting is a perfectly viable method, but it isn't the only way to get in shape.
How dare someone not value your hobbies as much as you do.
This article is specifically about a time efficient workout that does not require special equipment. While this article does not report on a controlled study, I don't think it deserves quotes around "science" since it does appear to rely on real science like
5. Gibala MJ, Little JP, Essen MV, et al.. Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance. J Physiol. 2006; 575 (3): 901–11.
Your comment is overly dismissive without the supporting evidence to back it up. The authors of this piece have the same qualification (CSCS) as your preferred source.
Starting Strength and only primarily targets the ability to lift heavy objects. On its own it does nothing to improve your cardio fitness and it doesn't directly help with postural problems or injury prevention. And if your
main interest is in gaining muscle and looking better, there are much better routines. In all the gyms I've been to, I've yet to see a big guy who was doing a stripped down strength focused routine... Finally, it also has to be noted that many people do not have good experiences with the big barbell exercises, especially if they have pre-existing issues with their knees/back/shoulders, even if they use good form.
>>As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches.
Actually, the headline is targeted towards people who know very little science. Tech folks like us approach things like this with a great deal of skepticism. I bet more than half the posters in this thread have at least skimmed the study on which the article is based. You can't really expect the general populace to be so inquisitive.
If you're going to the gym to burn calories, you're going for the wrong reasons. There's no better way to burn off excess calories than by not eating them. Exercise is a ridiculously inefficient way to burn calories and get rid of fat.
It is simple, it involves linear progression, and it is a clear set of directions which explicitly tell you to NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE. This is important, because with newbies it is tempting to go to the gym and then start playing with all the other toys.
I did SS for several months, and after significant gains of muscle have moved on to the Wendler 531 program, which uses much slower progression and is more compatible with my normal caloric intake.
This is definitely not a waste of time. I do routines similar to this and I've definitely gotten stronger doing them. I also do many pull-ups as well which aren't on this chart, but all of these exercises are great exercises. You are NOT going to lose a lot of weight with this alone. However, if you are already a healthy active person then adding a routing like this only helps.
My brother spends at least 5 days a week at a gym lifting weights and eats a very strict diet. I'm more of the runner type, doing Taekwondo 2 days a week and more body weight workouts like this (and I eat fairly well for the most part). He's definitely stronger than me, but I have no doubt that I'm in just as good of shape if not better than him.
Sometimes you only have 7 minutes. What's the difference between 7 minutes of this and 7 minutes of sitting, reading HN or Reddit? Lots.
I did this one yesterday, just to try it out. Now me, personally, I'm quite active. I did it three times with 30-second stretch breaks because that's what it took to work up a good sweat.
The point of exercise like this, to my mind, is that you can do it anytime and work it into your work day. Exercise during the work day, even minimal exercise sharpens your concentration and "shakes out the dead leaves" so to speak. It makes you sharper, and sharper at 3:30 in the afternoon (empirically determined to be the least productive time of the day by several studies) is exactly what most of us need.
What are your goals when you work out? Depending on that, this is not a waste of time. If you want to lose 50lbs, this will not help you. If you want massive muscles, this will not help you. If you want to be an "active person", this will not by itself achieve that, although it may make it easier to get into exercise later, when you do something short and see nearly immediate results. It's rewarding, and that's the first thing you need when starting an exercise program of any sort.
My point is, don't let anyone -- or yourself -- shame you out of working out. Yes, you read it in the NYT. It's a fad and it's mass-media. That doesn't make it stupid by definition. If it starts you off on finding ways to hack your body and make it strong, endurant, and resilient, then by all means, go for it.
I believe there is some disagreement among elite endurance sport athletes about whether interval training is actually better for performance over the long term when compared to long distance training. High intensity interval training did become very popular in the 80s/90s because one could seemingly get very quick results from relatively few hours spent training. However, Americans were always outperformed by African runners.
That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status.
It seems counter-intuitive that low intensity running over long distances should improve high intensity short-distance times, but the proof is in the pudding.
Interval training can increase your lactate threshold, or your body's ability to remove lactic acid from your muscles while you are engaging in high intensity activities (the same acid that causes that burning sensation we all love to hate), but it doesn't do that much for your VO2max which determines how effectively your body uses oxygen.
Most pro endurance athletes mix interval training with long distance training to get the benefit of both strategies. As with anything in physical activity, there is no silver bullet.
OK, I'll say it: this is not a very good program. Which is fine, because it's a sample program in a fairly silly ACSM article[1].
"The exercises selected should ... promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body".
Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accomodation.
"... create a balance of strength throughout the body ..."
Then drop the isometrics. Isometric exercises only produce strength increases in a limited range of motion close to the joint angle of the isometric exercise. And most of those studies were done with maximal voluntary isometric contraction -- ie pushing as hard as possible against an immobile object. Wall sits do not fit those studies.
"... adapted as necessary to increase or decrease exercise intensity"
Which can't be done with most of these exercises.
"To maximize the metabolic impact of the exercise, time should be sufficient enough to allow for the proper execution of 15 to 20 repetitions (15) of an exercise."
Which further breaks the link with strength.
" Individuals who previously believed that they did not have the time for exercise can now trade total exercise time for total exercise effort and get similar or better health and fitness benefits."
Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially done with elite athletes, I'm not certain it shows that at all.
This is about as scientific as two guys spitballing over beer. It hasn't been tested as a program and the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke.
If you want to get stronger and improve cardiovascular condition, simple barbell exercises and running or swinging a kettlebell will do it better, for longer.
When I write programs for my trainees, I am apparently equivalently scientific. I too take the general principles I am taught and go through a process of exercise selection, exercise ordering, repetition and set layout, rest period selection and then sprinkle in modifications. I'll be right back, I have a scientific program for figure competitors I need to flog to the Wall Street Journal.
"Rest now, next is Wall Sit... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Begin Wall Sit for 30... [etc]"
Obviously, it could be a static recording. But some obvious enhancements would be:
• visual countdown timer
• changing images of the exercises to precede/accompany each phase
• optional chirps/clicks each second
• alternate trainer voices
• optional extra voiced 'encouragement' ("keep up intensity", "good", "almost there", "all done")
• automatic logging/reminders of when/how-often circuit is completed (either based on how many times started run through uninterrupted, or based on a prompted "did you finish and what was your self-rated 1-10 intensity?" question at the end)
There are several apps that do this. Some of them even have videos or pictures showing you how to do it. But a very basic HIIT interval timer works perfectly well, just write down each exercise on a sheet of paper and do them one at a time.
A lot of the get fit in 60-90 days fitness programs that sell on TV are based on these types of workouts. I was a fatass my whole life until 1.5 years ago I decided to lose weight and get in shape. I followed the slow carb diet and now try to recommend it every time I get the chance. I exercise daily, but without the diet aspect I dont think my body would have changed at all.
The supplement and weight loss industry has made in very difficult for people to achieve results. I lost 50 pounds fat and put on 20 pounds of muscle with zero supplements, not even a protein shake, just lots of good nutrition, patience, and little understanding that my body might change.
BBC medical guru Michael Mosley(PhD) has a very interesting show about 3 minute high intensity training, and there are indeed couch potatoes that can reap huge benefits:
...research from a number of centres has shown that three minutes of HIT a week improves insulin sensitivity by an average of 24%
...
Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20% showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders").
The best article I found on this was "Everything You Know About Fitness Is A Lie" [1]
I'd summarize the contents as:
1- Most gyms are 45% cardio, 45% stretching 10% weights. This is bad.
2- You need to lift heavy things.
3- There are no shortcuts.
Favorite excerpt:
My conversion moment came in a garage-like industrial space next to an ATV rental yard in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I was lying on a concrete floor, near puking, having just humiliated myself on the king of all strength exercises, the old-school back squat. "The best thing I can do for an athlete," coach Rob Shaul said to me as I struggled to get up, "is to make him strong. Strength is king, and you're fucking little-girl weak."
When someone tries to distinguish their X by saying it is rooted in science, all they really mean is that someone with a grad degree and a lab coat came up with it. That is a pretty limited, and IMO flawed view of what science is. Are they really trying to say that other workouts don't use the scientific method at all? That they don't do anything like formulating and nullifying hypotheses with evidence, without any semblance of control? Is your workout really better because it came out of a university research center?
Science isn't peer review. Peer review is merely a filter mechanism to discard bad from good...a filter mechanism that has both false positives and false negatives. We shouldn't conflate peer review with science.
I dont see science in this article or the science in this article is the same science behind those late night tv ads where they sell 8-minute-ab-pro (among the others).
The original paper that articles cites does not provide any concrete data to defend their claims.
Secondly the most important thing is what is the objective of this workout. Clearly it is neither to keep your weight in control or to build strength. It is merely to provide "some" exercise.
There are some fundamental truths about workouts which everyone should know.
1. Your body starts burning fat at higher rate only when you heartbeat is above average for around 20 minutes. Till then your body is mostly burning calories from the carbs. So no matter how hard you work for those 7 minutes you are not gonna lose that extra fat.
2. Even if you do these exercises regularly it is only within a week that your muscles will get strong enough to get used to your body weight. After that same number of reps wont have any effect on your body. (Yes it might be little better than being idle).
3. Actually no matter what is your goal if you keep your regimen fixed you very soon find yourself in a local minima. After that the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the benefit of exercise becomes negligible compared to the time you spend doing it.
Here is a quick checklist to see if the advertised regimen should be taken seriously
1. Is the lower limit on duration around 20 minutes ?
2. Is there any variable that can be changed with time to increase difficulty level ?
3. Does it cover all core muscle groups ? Arms, Chest, Back, Abs, Legs and shoulders?
That has 5 exercises which you should be able to do in 5 minutes. It has a complete scheme of exercises building up in intensity as you get better at them.
If you're a beginner and looking to start a bodyweight(BW) program see this[0]. Intermediate fitness enthusiasts can have a look at this[1]. If you're clueless about what the jargons are checkout this[2] 'cheat sheet' for a list of youtube videos for guidance
I have struggled with fitness my whole life, and I have realized that not everyone is genetically disposed to the same effects of specific exercises. However, I believe that most people can get in shape, it's just a function of resistance.
Diet and fitness is one of those things in life where you should just overkill the plan. Keep your diet stricter than you have to, lift more weights than you have to, do more cardio than you have to.
When you overkill the situation, you will get in and stay in excellent shape, trying to walk the line of "just enough" gets your burned and loses precious time towards proper progress.
“There’s very good evidence” that high-intensity interval training provides “many of the fitness benefits of prolonged endurance training but in much less time""
Sorry, but there's no way that I'll believe that a 7 minute "heavy intensity workout" can burn the same number of calories of an involved 45 minute run, and have the same beneficial effect on weight control.
Better than nothing, maybe very efficient in terms of results/time, but in no way "combines a long run and a visit to the weight room" as the article claims.
EDIT : It's useful to separate what the NYT says and the actual article does.
I love how you quote the part which lists the potential benefits of this, then argue that it is nonsense because it doesn't accomplish [other benefits as listed]. The quote you quoted says nothing about "weight control."
Also since when is exercise effective for losing substantial amounts of body fat/weight? You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR.
Even just knowing some numbers should tell you how bonkers losing weight through exercise as opposed to diet is (e.g. calories burnt per hour running, calories in a chocolate bar, calories per pound of weight, and BMR).
Plus, you're basically dumping on a scientific article with your nonsense anecdotes. Your belief is not required.
An alternative hypothesis is that the calories burned during exercise are not the main driver of weight loss/maintenance. But exercise does promote muscle mass gain/maintenance. This increased lean muscle mass will then increase your daily calorie consumption simply by existing, thus helping weight control.
It's well known in endurance sports circles that high-intensity interval training is a great way to increase your speed over long distances as opposed to running very long distances for your training. There's some disagreement about whether or not long-distance training is actually better though because that's what runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do and it seems to be working well for them.
This 7 minute routine is just a very very basic circuit training session.
It definitely doesn't make up for "a visit to the weight room" and while fairly 'effective' in its ROI, the 7 minute span definitely gives it a hard limit on its benefits (when I used to row, we'd do 15-station circuits for an hour or so).
Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion.
As far as burning calories goes, it doesn't burn more calories during the actual exercise: it burns more calories overall because the HIIT raises your metabolism more post-workout. There have been done studies on this so you can search for them if you want.
I'm absolutely not a believer of this. It's beyond just their bad math. (It's an 8 minute workout)
To do a proper sprint interval workout, you'd need to warm up (5 minutes at least), and go so hard in those 30 intervals that you'd need 90 seconds to recover. So 120 seconds * 12 + 5 = 29 minutes. Add in stretching and you're beyond a half hour.
The other issue is many of these exercises won't get your heartrate up to the right threshold to be good interval training.
Yes, it's better than nothing. No, it's not better than a real workout, and not scientifically valid.
While I don't think this workout is actually a great one, I have found that you definitely can do a killer workout in a short period of time, depending on your fitness.
I started Crossfit a few months back, and its entirely possible to do 2-3 simple movements (thrusters + pullups for example) in a short time period (2-10 minutes) and really push yourself to complete exhaustion.
Consider the source. Periodicals are in the business of selling you content (and advertising). Therefore, it is in their interests to create the latest "fad" and to sell it to you as tested. And then create something new and sell it to you again. And then...
Is this workout terrible? No. It beats nothing. Is it the key to your ongoing physical fitness? Of course not.
The fitness world is overrun with so-called experts. One problem is that we are all different. We have different body types, different goals, different strengths, different weaknesses, and different likes/dislikes. What works for me may not work for you.
Can a periodical take this into account for all readers? Of course not.
Consider their workout as a first step. If you are doing nothing, do the 7-minute workout. It will help you, to a point. Thereafter, you'll need to challenge your body to do harder things.
Also, consider the physics definition of mechanical work: W=f*d.
So, go apply some force of a distance. That's a workout.
[+] [-] pvnick|13 years ago|reply
After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground.
As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches.
Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat. Really look into Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe for actual good advice.
"Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general." - Mark Rippetoe
Edit: Btw, time comparison: spend years chasing the latest "scientific" fitness fad (see article) and going nowhere or get in better shape while working an office job than 99% of highschool/college guys in a few months for a time commitment of 2-3 hours per week. That's the kind of math I'm talking about when I talk about starting strength and leangains.
[+] [-] DanielStraight|13 years ago|reply
Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness entirely.
If you actually want to inspire people who are not fit to get fit, it is going to take encouragement, not constant criticism of every possible method of getting fit.
There is literally no exercise routine that someone can propose and not face immediate criticism. A beginner doesn't need a perfect routine (which clearly doesn't exist anyway given all the argument on the issue). They need to do something. Something that is not actively harmful and will increase their fitness, even in a small way.
You may think you are showing people a better way, but you are really giving people nowhere to turn for support, because everyone always tries to show a better way no matter what the original way was. I could come here every single day posting about another fitness routine and every single day I would be told it's wrong. So if everything is wrong, what do you think I am going to do? Nothing.
[+] [-] kenjackson|13 years ago|reply
Can I disprove one anecdote, with another? Sure, why not?
I used to go to the gym 6x a week for about 60-90/session and lifted heavy things from every possible position imaginable. I even won a fitness contest at my university (a weird combination of weight to bench press, squat, deadlift, and pull ups). I was certainly in great shape and very strong.
But life intruded. For a while I did nothing and got in much worse shape. I needed to get back in shape, but I didn't have time for the gym (at least that was my opinion). So I started just doing stuff at home. Probably 10 minutes per day. Push ups, pull ups, crunches, and biking a short distance to the bus for work.
While I'm probably not quite as strong as I was in college, I'm pretty close. I've probably gotten something like 90% of the gains with 15% of the effort.
To be a competitive athlete or bodybuilder that 10% makes a huge difference. But for most people, I think this seems like the right tradeoff.
[+] [-] phillmv|13 years ago|reply
I think gym-nerds vastly underestimate how out of shape the median person is. I started doing a variation of this regimen every day before work two weeks ago and I feel better already. I was sore for the first two days from just a few sets of squats.
Who gives a fuck about being able to bench press all you can bench press? It sounds like macho bullshit to me. I don't care about being as strong as I can be.
I care about not being winded when I hit the top of the stairs, and I care about not having back aches from sitting in a chair all the time, and I care about dying a bit later than sooner. If a few simple bodyweight reps once a day or three times a week will get me there without the expense and the hours wasted travelling to and from gyms all so much the better.
[+] [-] crazygringo|13 years ago|reply
Who said the point of the workout was weight loss? That's a really narrow view. How about just, you know, health?
> a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories
Wait... now you seem to be contradicting yourself. So, a 30 minute run is offset by eating a cookie too? I can't tell if you mean the run is good, or you're saying that 30 minute runs are bad... which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm sure you have a point to make, but I can't tell what it is. And as for "picking something heavy off the ground"... push-ups (step 3), for example, aren't any different than that. Clearly this is not a body-building routine, but for just getting into better shape with minimal time, it seems pretty good.
> As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise
Well that's kind of the point... this is a lot better than not getting a lot of physical exercise, isn't it?
[+] [-] augustflanagan|13 years ago|reply
At some point life "got in the way", and between a kid and a full-time job my gym time started to disappear. I've tried a lot of creative approaches to keeping fit with shorter workouts, and what I have come up with isn't all that different than what is being prescribed here.
My basic approach is this:
1. Pushups - every other morning I do 5 minutes of pushups where I start at a set of 20 then bump up by a count of 5 until I'm at 35. Then I work my way back down to 20 allowing brief 20 second rests in between.
2. Pullups - same as pushups except I start at 6 and bump by 2 until I hit 10, and then work back down.
3. Squats - No weight, three sets of 50. This could be better, but I'm kinda lazy when it comes to squats
4. Mix in exercises using resistance bands. (shoulder press, lat pulls, tricep extensions, etc). I usually do these in three sets of 12-15.
Each workout takes about 15 minutes, and while I've lost some muscle mass I'm still a pretty lean/muscular 170. I'm sure there are all sorts of optimizations I could make, but honestly I don't really care at this point. I've found a quick workout I can do 3-4 times a week and it is keeping me pretty damn healthy.
[+] [-] graeme|13 years ago|reply
You could try it, and decide it's not for you. But a lot of self-professed nerds disdain it, assuming it's something only stupid jocks do.
It's not. Getting strong has been one of the most fulfilling things I've ever done. It's also had lasting effects in pain reduction, how other perceive me, and my self-confidence.
[+] [-] oneandoneis2|13 years ago|reply
I rejoined the local gym six months ago with near-constant back pain and posture that was screwed to hell. I was seriously nervous about my ability to even lift an empty bar, never mind serious weights.
A month or two in, I reached a set of weights that I simply couldn't safely increase any further - not because I wasn't getting stronger, but because my appalling posture wouldn't allow me to do it properly. So I've worked since at doing the same weights each time, but doing them right
This week is the first time since that I've been able to start adding weight - just a couple kilos, but an increase nonetheless.
But bearing in mind my back was literally so weak I had to be slow & cautious about getting out of bed in the morning six months ago: courtesy of nothing but 3 gym visits a week following the advice in SS, I'm now stronger than I ever have been, and am slowly undoing the damage of years of godawful posture.
The other day I was sitting on a sofa with my lady friend sitting on my lap. I was able to put my arms under her and stand up from that position, lifting her entire bodyweight as well as my own. And no matter how weak you might think you are right now, unless you've taken genuine spine trauma recently, I gaurantee you're stronger than I was six months ago.
And the nice thing is, it's come with very little change in body size - almost all my clothes still fit.
[+] [-] runjake|13 years ago|reply
Not necessarily true. There are also body weight exercises/calisthenics you can do at home. Hell, even regular walking and some yard work do wonders for your health.
You do not need to go to a gym and lift weights.
This exercise regime (or "gimmick", as you refer to it) is completely valid, and it's better than doing nothing. The average person probably can't even complete the 7 minute exercises with proper form.
[+] [-] robterrell|13 years ago|reply
Right now I do nothing other than jogging or strenuous hiking, and I recognize that I need to add strength training. More than half of these seem to be strength exercises.
I don't understand all the weird schisms and cliques that pop up on HN when fitness topics are discussed. From an idiot's perspective, it seems like I could get good strength gains with these exercise and my (already-considerable) body weight.
[+] [-] conroe64|13 years ago|reply
Also, I don't understand why his routine is so lopsided as to favor the lower body.
Right now I'm doing Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty routine, which after 3 months has been fantastic. It uses HIT principles, where you are only doing the minimum work necessary to stimulate the muscle. This translates to 1 set per exercise twice a week or so.
Check out http://boiseexperiment.com/HeavyDuty/?page_id=308 for a very detailed account of the results of doing such a workout.
[+] [-] nikster|13 years ago|reply
Look at cats. Cats sleep up to 17 hours a day. They lie around seemingly doing nothing most of their waking hours. But if you watch a cat work out - wow!! it works out. It's going all out for a few minutes. Talking about a healthy country cat here, which, compared to its body weight pulls of physical feats a human can only dream of.
People often ask me if I go to the gym. Nope. I just do push ups now and then, not even every day, but when I do, I do them properly, military style push ups until I almost faint. Between 50 and 80 full on ones seems to do it for me. Takes... 2 minutes or so?! Fitness secrets!
[+] [-] phaus|13 years ago|reply
This article is attempting to repackage old knowledge, but that doesn't really mean that it's a waste of time. There are world class athletes that use only bodyweight exercises to stay in shape. Going to the gym and picking heavy things off of the ground isn't a strict requirement of lasting fitness. Weightlifting is a perfectly viable method, but it isn't the only way to get in shape.
[+] [-] kevinpet|13 years ago|reply
This article is specifically about a time efficient workout that does not require special equipment. While this article does not report on a controlled study, I don't think it deserves quotes around "science" since it does appear to rely on real science like
5. Gibala MJ, Little JP, Essen MV, et al.. Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance. J Physiol. 2006; 575 (3): 901–11.
Your comment is overly dismissive without the supporting evidence to back it up. The authors of this piece have the same qualification (CSCS) as your preferred source.
[+] [-] bromang|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enraged_camel|13 years ago|reply
Actually, the headline is targeted towards people who know very little science. Tech folks like us approach things like this with a great deal of skepticism. I bet more than half the posters in this thread have at least skimmed the study on which the article is based. You can't really expect the general populace to be so inquisitive.
[+] [-] GigabyteCoin|13 years ago|reply
That statement is not true.
Yoga is incredibly beneficial to the body with many lasting benefits after you leave the mat.
And you never have to lift anything heavy. Ever.
[+] [-] MisterBastahrd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JPKab|13 years ago|reply
It is simple, it involves linear progression, and it is a clear set of directions which explicitly tell you to NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE. This is important, because with newbies it is tempting to go to the gym and then start playing with all the other toys.
I did SS for several months, and after significant gains of muscle have moved on to the Wendler 531 program, which uses much slower progression and is more compatible with my normal caloric intake.
[+] [-] akmiller|13 years ago|reply
My brother spends at least 5 days a week at a gym lifting weights and eats a very strict diet. I'm more of the runner type, doing Taekwondo 2 days a week and more body weight workouts like this (and I eat fairly well for the most part). He's definitely stronger than me, but I have no doubt that I'm in just as good of shape if not better than him.
[+] [-] jeffheard|13 years ago|reply
Sometimes you only have 7 minutes. What's the difference between 7 minutes of this and 7 minutes of sitting, reading HN or Reddit? Lots.
I did this one yesterday, just to try it out. Now me, personally, I'm quite active. I did it three times with 30-second stretch breaks because that's what it took to work up a good sweat.
The point of exercise like this, to my mind, is that you can do it anytime and work it into your work day. Exercise during the work day, even minimal exercise sharpens your concentration and "shakes out the dead leaves" so to speak. It makes you sharper, and sharper at 3:30 in the afternoon (empirically determined to be the least productive time of the day by several studies) is exactly what most of us need.
What are your goals when you work out? Depending on that, this is not a waste of time. If you want to lose 50lbs, this will not help you. If you want massive muscles, this will not help you. If you want to be an "active person", this will not by itself achieve that, although it may make it easier to get into exercise later, when you do something short and see nearly immediate results. It's rewarding, and that's the first thing you need when starting an exercise program of any sort.
My point is, don't let anyone -- or yourself -- shame you out of working out. Yes, you read it in the NYT. It's a fad and it's mass-media. That doesn't make it stupid by definition. If it starts you off on finding ways to hack your body and make it strong, endurant, and resilient, then by all means, go for it.
[+] [-] marknutter|13 years ago|reply
That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status.
It seems counter-intuitive that low intensity running over long distances should improve high intensity short-distance times, but the proof is in the pudding.
Interval training can increase your lactate threshold, or your body's ability to remove lactic acid from your muscles while you are engaging in high intensity activities (the same acid that causes that burning sensation we all love to hate), but it doesn't do that much for your VO2max which determines how effectively your body uses oxygen.
Most pro endurance athletes mix interval training with long distance training to get the benefit of both strategies. As with anything in physical activity, there is no silver bullet.
[+] [-] jacques_chester|13 years ago|reply
"The exercises selected should ... promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body".
Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accomodation.
"... create a balance of strength throughout the body ..."
Then drop the isometrics. Isometric exercises only produce strength increases in a limited range of motion close to the joint angle of the isometric exercise. And most of those studies were done with maximal voluntary isometric contraction -- ie pushing as hard as possible against an immobile object. Wall sits do not fit those studies.
"... adapted as necessary to increase or decrease exercise intensity"
Which can't be done with most of these exercises.
"To maximize the metabolic impact of the exercise, time should be sufficient enough to allow for the proper execution of 15 to 20 repetitions (15) of an exercise."
Which further breaks the link with strength.
" Individuals who previously believed that they did not have the time for exercise can now trade total exercise time for total exercise effort and get similar or better health and fitness benefits."
Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially done with elite athletes, I'm not certain it shows that at all.
This is about as scientific as two guys spitballing over beer. It hasn't been tested as a program and the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke.
If you want to get stronger and improve cardiovascular condition, simple barbell exercises and running or swinging a kettlebell will do it better, for longer.
When I write programs for my trainees, I am apparently equivalently scientific. I too take the general principles I am taught and go through a process of exercise selection, exercise ordering, repetition and set layout, rest period selection and then sprinkle in modifications. I'll be right back, I have a scientific program for figure competitors I need to flog to the Wall Street Journal.
[1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
"Starting your 7 minute workout with Jumping Jacks in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Start Jumping Jacks for 30... [optional chirp-per-second]... 20 seconds... 10 seconds... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Rest now, next is Wall Sit... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Begin Wall Sit for 30... [etc]"
Obviously, it could be a static recording. But some obvious enhancements would be:
• visual countdown timer
• changing images of the exercises to precede/accompany each phase
• optional chirps/clicks each second
• alternate trainer voices
• optional extra voiced 'encouragement' ("keep up intensity", "good", "almost there", "all done")
• automatic logging/reminders of when/how-often circuit is completed (either based on how many times started run through uninterrupted, or based on a prompted "did you finish and what was your self-rated 1-10 intensity?" question at the end)
[+] [-] joshuahedlund|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterwwillis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsxwolf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricardobeat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalore|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickdale|13 years ago|reply
The supplement and weight loss industry has made in very difficult for people to achieve results. I lost 50 pounds fat and put on 20 pounds of muscle with zero supplements, not even a protein shake, just lots of good nutrition, patience, and little understanding that my body might change.
[+] [-] draugadrotten|13 years ago|reply
...research from a number of centres has shown that three minutes of HIT a week improves insulin sensitivity by an average of 24% ...
Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20% showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders").
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251
[+] [-] zdw|13 years ago|reply
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
It's surprisingly readable and goes into much more detail. Also, a downloadable PDF.
[+] [-] bernardom|13 years ago|reply
I'd summarize the contents as: 1- Most gyms are 45% cardio, 45% stretching 10% weights. This is bad. 2- You need to lift heavy things. 3- There are no shortcuts.
Favorite excerpt: My conversion moment came in a garage-like industrial space next to an ATV rental yard in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I was lying on a concrete floor, near puking, having just humiliated myself on the king of all strength exercises, the old-school back squat. "The best thing I can do for an athlete," coach Rob Shaul said to me as I struggled to get up, "is to make him strong. Strength is king, and you're fucking little-girl weak."
[1] http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-abou...
[+] [-] saosebastiao|13 years ago|reply
Science isn't peer review. Peer review is merely a filter mechanism to discard bad from good...a filter mechanism that has both false positives and false negatives. We shouldn't conflate peer review with science.
[+] [-] tn13|13 years ago|reply
I dont see science in this article or the science in this article is the same science behind those late night tv ads where they sell 8-minute-ab-pro (among the others).
The original paper that articles cites does not provide any concrete data to defend their claims.
Secondly the most important thing is what is the objective of this workout. Clearly it is neither to keep your weight in control or to build strength. It is merely to provide "some" exercise.
There are some fundamental truths about workouts which everyone should know.
1. Your body starts burning fat at higher rate only when you heartbeat is above average for around 20 minutes. Till then your body is mostly burning calories from the carbs. So no matter how hard you work for those 7 minutes you are not gonna lose that extra fat.
2. Even if you do these exercises regularly it is only within a week that your muscles will get strong enough to get used to your body weight. After that same number of reps wont have any effect on your body. (Yes it might be little better than being idle).
3. Actually no matter what is your goal if you keep your regimen fixed you very soon find yourself in a local minima. After that the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the benefit of exercise becomes negligible compared to the time you spend doing it.
Here is a quick checklist to see if the advertised regimen should be taken seriously
1. Is the lower limit on duration around 20 minutes ?
2. Is there any variable that can be changed with time to increase difficulty level ?
3. Does it cover all core muscle groups ? Arms, Chest, Back, Abs, Legs and shoulders?
[+] [-] H3g3m0n|13 years ago|reply
I think I'll try the bike peddling one first, repeatedly sprint for eight seconds, then pedal slowly for 12 and repeat.
http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-...
[+] [-] jvdh|13 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX
That has 5 exercises which you should be able to do in 5 minutes. It has a complete scheme of exercises building up in intensity as you get better at them.
[+] [-] krat0sprakhar|13 years ago|reply
[0] - http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png [1] - http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png [2] - http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/ex...
[+] [-] charlesju|13 years ago|reply
Diet and fitness is one of those things in life where you should just overkill the plan. Keep your diet stricter than you have to, lift more weights than you have to, do more cardio than you have to.
When you overkill the situation, you will get in and stay in excellent shape, trying to walk the line of "just enough" gets your burned and loses precious time towards proper progress.
[+] [-] Kurtz79|13 years ago|reply
Sorry, but there's no way that I'll believe that a 7 minute "heavy intensity workout" can burn the same number of calories of an involved 45 minute run, and have the same beneficial effect on weight control.
Better than nothing, maybe very efficient in terms of results/time, but in no way "combines a long run and a visit to the weight room" as the article claims.
EDIT : It's useful to separate what the NYT says and the actual article does.
[+] [-] UnoriginalGuy|13 years ago|reply
Also since when is exercise effective for losing substantial amounts of body fat/weight? You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR.
Even just knowing some numbers should tell you how bonkers losing weight through exercise as opposed to diet is (e.g. calories burnt per hour running, calories in a chocolate bar, calories per pound of weight, and BMR).
Plus, you're basically dumping on a scientific article with your nonsense anecdotes. Your belief is not required.
[+] [-] ovi256|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] H3g3m0n|13 years ago|reply
You do understand this is scientific research and not just an idea someone thought up on a whim.
[+] [-] marknutter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmurakami|13 years ago|reply
It definitely doesn't make up for "a visit to the weight room" and while fairly 'effective' in its ROI, the 7 minute span definitely gives it a hard limit on its benefits (when I used to row, we'd do 15-station circuits for an hour or so).
Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion.
[+] [-] Dewie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|13 years ago|reply
To do a proper sprint interval workout, you'd need to warm up (5 minutes at least), and go so hard in those 30 intervals that you'd need 90 seconds to recover. So 120 seconds * 12 + 5 = 29 minutes. Add in stretching and you're beyond a half hour.
The other issue is many of these exercises won't get your heartrate up to the right threshold to be good interval training.
Yes, it's better than nothing. No, it's not better than a real workout, and not scientifically valid.
[+] [-] chasb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tibbon|13 years ago|reply
I started Crossfit a few months back, and its entirely possible to do 2-3 simple movements (thrusters + pullups for example) in a short time period (2-10 minutes) and really push yourself to complete exhaustion.
[+] [-] dmourati|13 years ago|reply
Is this workout terrible? No. It beats nothing. Is it the key to your ongoing physical fitness? Of course not.
The fitness world is overrun with so-called experts. One problem is that we are all different. We have different body types, different goals, different strengths, different weaknesses, and different likes/dislikes. What works for me may not work for you.
Can a periodical take this into account for all readers? Of course not.
Consider their workout as a first step. If you are doing nothing, do the 7-minute workout. It will help you, to a point. Thereafter, you'll need to challenge your body to do harder things.
Also, consider the physics definition of mechanical work: W=f*d.
So, go apply some force of a distance. That's a workout.
Do work.