RCT Study on Exercise: High intensity cardio vs extended moderate cardio vs control

(Joey) #1

I just came across a study (from 2016) that might be of interest…

Researchers compared very brief high intensity interval training with more traditional extended-time cardio sessions (and also a control group).

Bottom line: Same health benefits for markedly less time spent. Note: subjects were young and, prior to the study, sedentary - many of us are neither. :wink: But still of interest as a possible way to cut back sharply on time devoted to cardio while enjoying key health benefits.

FYI, in this study, protocols were: a mere 10 minutes that include brief bursts vs 50 minutes steady moderate - wherein both of these total times included 2 min warm-up & 3 min cool-down periods. In effect, that “10 min” of high intensity interval training reflected subjects going “full out” only 3 times for 20 second bursts each, i.e., a total of only 60 seconds of significant effort. And this was 3x weekly at most. Doesn’t sound too terrible? :man_shrugging:

I’ve attached the full study pdf with my highlights where I felt it was most relevant.

Thoughts?

HIITvsTradExercise.PDF (826.9 KB)

#2

An increase in EPOC, excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. Trainers, coaches, and exercise physiologists have known this for a while.

Depending on age and ability, these sprints won’t be for everybody. 20 seconds will be anywhere from 100 meters to 150 meters for somebody that can do this. Many exercise physiologists/trainers will utilize LSD, long slow distance, training for people not able to do this. That and they don’t want to hurt an inexperienced person.

You can build a base and start with just one or two and add one or two sprints each week, depending on how you feel. This is very similar to strength and conditioning programs for athletes.

(Joey) #3

@anon24390425 Thanks for this additional info.

I appreciate that HIIT exercise is not new to many athletes/trainers. I was impressed by the comprehensive scientific evaluation performed on the three test groups - and how the study demonstrated how comparable the biomarker outcomes were for the two exercise regimens after 12 weeks.

Absent such evidence, it’d be easy to argue about which is good/better/best without hard facts in hand.

(Kirk Wolak) #4

Yes, HIIT / Tabata are great approaches for optimizing and minimizing time spent.

And you get to start where you are.

I also like Slow-Slow routines at the gym. ONE exercise set until failure between 60 and 90 seconds. I use an app to count it down for me, so I can focus. Every muscle I workout this way is SHAKY when done. It takes me ~20 minutes at the gym. I do a sauna/cool dip cycle (or two). And get home.

You only have to do Slow-Slow twice a week and you can build muscle/strength. Once a week will maintain you very well… We all have “that much” time!

Thanks for sharing!

(Eric - The patient needs to be patient!) #5

I do failure resistance but need to research actual form and approach better. I have a book. Just have to read it.

(Eric - The patient needs to be patient!) #6

I do failure resistance but need to research actual form and approach better. I have a book. Just have to read it.

(Joey) #7

Thanks for this comment. Having never heard of Tabata before, I learned something new about this particular HIIT format.

To be honest, the “intense-to-recover” ratio of Tabata (at least what I found on the web) sounds brutal, at least it does to this aging body :wink:

Having carefully read the study I’d cited (OP above), yesterday I gave a 10 minute elliptical routine a try in which I sandwiched three (3) x 20 second bursts - at top effort - into a total 10 min workout, which also included a 2 min warmup and 3 min cool-down. In effect, 60 seconds of total “sprint” incorporated into 10 minutes of total cardio time.

Frankly, 10 min is well less cardio time than I typically devote each day, so it seemed like a nice time-saver. And although the 20 second “full out” bursts were not difficult at all, I admit that the recovery times (1’ 40" each, to evenly space 3 sprints within 10 min with the 2 and 3 minute warm up/down bookends) were clearly needed!

Even though my cardio condition is quite good (at least for a 60+ yr old who’s been doing daily cardio workouts for 25+ yrs), I imagine that trimming those recovery times further would feel harsh, at best. Put differently, I felt that I NEEDED those regular speed interspersed periods to catch my breath again.

Since, after 12 weeks, the research study noted nearly identical metabolic marker outcomes for applying this 10 min HIIT approach (as compared with a 50 minute steady-Eddie routine), I’ll stick with this HIIT protocol for a while as it was enjoyable and quite do’able.

Meanwhile, I’ll consider what I might do with 40 extra minutes of time saved each morning :thinking:

#8

Extra 40 minutes in the morning? Time for Alton Brown’s coffee recipe to perk you up.