alt Hacker NewsTabata et al.[1] found in the mid-1990s that just 2-4 minutes of "high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly." This was popularized as "Tabata training" 20+ years ago. I generally believe that brief bouts of exercise can be very beneficial, especially because they're easier to do consistently over the long-term vs. more time-consuming routines. For a decade now, I've just been running through my neighborhood most days for 20-30 minutes (with some sprints mixed in) and doing one or two maximal sets of pushups or pullups or barbell exercises at home on a weekly basis. I know a lot of people who got really into longer (e.g. 60-90 minute) gym routines but couldn't sustain it for more than a few months, and then stopped doing anything.
[1] https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/1996/10000/Effec...
Replies
Nitpick: In Tabata's research, "high intensity" meant 170% of VO2max - definitely not easier to do consistently, even if you can voluntarily sustain 170% VO2max. Popular "HIIT" methodology is only loosely inspired by it, and the mechanisms for their merits would be largely unrelated to that of the original Tabata protocol's benefits (which was about demonstrating a way for elite athletes to push anaerobic capacity at the same time as aerobic, not shaving 50 minutes off their cardio routine).
The growing research into how even a small amount of activity can confer significant benefits to the sedentary may be yet another mechanism entirely.
I agree shorter workouts are much easier to stick to though, especially since I'm easily bored.
Tabata makes you want to vomit if you don't have at least a moderate level of fitness. Even if it's great conditioning. So here's the problem.
We go on about what's optimal from a raw time perspective, but time slows subjectively when you suffer. So people who don't conceptualize themselves as athletic, they may have insecurities if not outright skepticism, aren't going to last.
You can make a culty cultural glue to get habits to stick (because fitness is all about habits). You can do CrossFit, the social and positive aspects. That encouragement can bring habit and a change of self perception.
But if you're just a self-driven type, and you're dipping your toes in the water, my observations are that whatever is fun (an individual experience) is what you'll be creating a habit with, and time foes quickly. So explore a brunch of things until you encounter fun. Tennis, running club, weightlifting club. Etc.
So my point is that fitness is a problem around how people experience exercise and training, instead of what's optimal in a paper or in terms what's efficient in terms of time.
Was this prematurely dismissive? Maybe, I'm going by the comments.
According to the link you shared, the Tabata research involved a TINY number of athletic, male, Japanese undergrads. I remember being stunned when I first looked it up years ago.
It's not at all obvious that their findings - which became part of Crossfit "religion" - generalize to both sexes, all fitness levels, and all ages.
HIIT is and feels awesome, but no way a sedentary person can start straight with that.
Add travelling and dress/undress time and you got an extra 15-30 minutes tacked on
60-90 minutes is far too long at the gym. If you space your sets correctly, you can have a very effective workout in 25 minutes. Change your muscle groups every day.
Do people want to spend 60 minutes as some kind of gym time standard? Where does this number come from?
I remember reading something about Tabata/HIIT being something you don't want to do every day, due to the high intensity and strain on your CNS. Is this not the thinking anymore?
wow, never knew what Tabata meant back in my crossfit days :)
Now i do -- its a persons name
tabata is the worst, i've tried and i was not feeling well for hours
I think for the average person, looking too carefully at individual studies is failing to see the forest for the trees.
Basically any time we do a study which asks "Is doing a bit more exercise better for you?" the answer is yes. Like doing a single walk around the block every week is better than doing none. Even five minutes of exercise is better than zero. But obviously these have much less positive impact than several hours of moderate to intense exercise weekly. There are diminishing returns but they don't really kick in until you're already pretty fit, they are only really a concern that athletes need to think about.
So in terms of individual decision making things are really simple. Are you not fit? Do you feel bad? Are your basic markers for this looking bad (blood pressure, weight etc.)? Do more exercise. Do what you enjoy, do it safely, and do as much of it as you can as intensely as is reasonable, and the numbers will go in the right direction. This will put you way ahead of the average American in terms of fitness, it's not until a higher level that things really start to get technical.