Are there studies that research health (exercise wise)

[onlyisometrics]

They are a great deal more similar than most people realize. This being high intensity aerobic work, not bootcamp type smokers. Some notable differences, but for quality of life CV health they are interchangeable.

Ideally one does both, next best thing is either/or.

do you have some good resources for reading more about this? a lot of the online discourse - peter attia, ‘zone 2’ , etc. - seems to say otherwise. Anna’s link above implies ‘vigorous’ aerobic is interchangeable with moderate at -50% time cost… so that seems to agree.

but it also seems to ignore idea of different adaptations in mitochondria? (i know very little about this)

I found a study called Generation 100 that favoured HIIT and Ronda Patrick recently interviewed someone who talked about HIIT increasing V02 max.

Generation 100 - CERG - NTNU

Generation 100-exercise training study for all seniors aged 70-75 in Trondheim.

www.ntnu.edu

Im asking not because i disagree with you but because reading about it all has been a bit overwhelming / confusing. And i like hill runs

 

[DocMike]

I don't generally like or trust mass media but Time Magazine just put out a magazine titled the science of exercise. It is really good and goes over the science of exercise, how much, what to do. And how it affects us physiologically. Very good read

 

[North Coast Miller]

do you have some good resources for reading more about this? a lot of the online discourse - peter attia, ‘zone 2’ , etc. - seems to say otherwise. Anna’s link above implies ‘vigorous’ aerobic is interchangeable with moderate at -50% time cost… so that seems to agree.

but it also seems to ignore idea of different adaptations in mitochondria? (i know very little about this)

I found a study called Generation 100 that favoured HIIT and Ronda Patrick recently interviewed someone who talked about HIIT increasing V02 max.

Im asking not because i disagree with you but because reading about it all has been a bit overwhelming / confusing. And i like hill runs

Whew....

Start at University of New Mexico Len Kravitz. He has a lot of information re HIIT and LISS. After that you need to start looking into Pubmed and NCBI for research outcomes. I do not have a bunch of links saved, but I should.

They are not 100% interchangeable, but a good analogy would be comparing Kettlebell to Barbell in terms of strength and size. If you're serious about it, you get a barbell. If you just need to be plenty fit for life the kettlebell works fine. Most people will never challenge themselves enough to tell the difference, and each actually has aspects that are superior to the other no matter how they are used.

I'm one of those people who tend to have elevated HR and blood pressure at the Drs office. Historically it ran low 80s to high 70s, for decades, in or out of the office. Last visit and within 40 minutes of a large cup of coffee it was 54. Many people will tell you HIIT cannot trigger that type of adaptation. I've measured it as low as 52, meaning I've knocked 25 bpm off my resting HR without LISS. That's a lot of stroke volume.

LISS triggers more capillary density...a lot more, mostly near type 1 fibers. HIIT increases mitochondrial output qualitatively...a lot more - the same amount of mitochondria produce more energy. It increases capillary density about 1/2 as much as LISS, but most of it is right on top of type 2 fibers.

Both increase left ventricle hypertrophy, stroke volume, stroke pressure, mitochondrial density (HIIT increases it closer to type2 fibers). So LISS improves longer endurance performance, HIIT improves higher intensity throughput. Both improve heart health, mitogenesis, etc etc etc. The issue as Kenny hit it perfectly, many people do not really understand what HIIT is, how it works, and confuse it with other forms of conditioning.

Both increase the body's ability to rephosphorylate Creatine (this can be done with lipids OR pyruvate), is driven by a surplus of ATP in the mitochondria.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Duplicate

 

[offwidth]

The Max VO2 Myth

Max VO2 is the foremost of endurance qualities, right? Looking at its importance in the fitness landscape, you’d think so. Scott Johnston debunks the myth.

uphillathlete.com

 

[onlyisometrics]

Whew....

Start at University of New Mexico Len Kravitz. He has a lot of information re HIIT and LISS. After that you need to start looking into Pubmed and NCBI for research outcomes. I do not have a bunch of links saved, but I should.

They are not 100% interchangeable, but a good analogy would be comparing Kettlebell to Barbell in terms of strength and size. If you're serious about it, you get a barbell. If you just need to be plenty fit for life the kettlebell works fine. Most people will never challenge themselves enough to tell the difference, and each actually has aspects that are superior to the other no matter how they are used.

I'm one of those people who tend to have elevated HR and blood pressure at the Drs office. Historically it ran low 80s to high 70s, for decades, in or out of the office. Last visit and within 40 minutes of a large cup of coffee it was 54. Many people will tell you HIIT cannot trigger that type of adaptation. I've measured it as low as 52, meaning I've knocked 25 bpm off my resting HR without LISS. That's a lot of stroke volume.

LISS triggers more capillary density...a lot more, mostly near type 1 fibers. HIIT increases mitochondrial output qualitatively...a lot more - the same amount of mitochondria produce more energy. It increases capillary density about 1/2 as much as LISS, but most of it is right on top of type 2 fibers.

Both increase left ventricle hypertrophy, stroke volume, stroke pressure, mitochondrial density (HIIT increases it closer to type2 fibers). So LISS improves longer endurance performance, HIIT improves higher intensity throughput. Both improve heart health, mitogenesis, etc etc etc. The issue as Kenny hit it perfectly, many people do not really understand what HIIT is, how it works, and confuse it with other forms of conditioning.

Both increase the body's ability to rephosphorylate Creatine (this can be done with lipids OR pyruvate), is driven by a surplus of ATP in the mitochondria.

that was a great overview thank you - and i’ll have a look at Len Kravitz.

i like your kettlebell / barbell analogy, i think that’s an intuitive way to look at it

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

Bodybuilding is more effective with longer rest between sets, seeking to minimise fatigue.

Strength Increased

Schoenfeld's research demonstrated Hypertrophy Training with longer rest period between Sets enable liffter to have more gains in Strength.

Shoter Rest Periods elicited "The Pump" more effectively.

"The Pump" eliciting downstream increase in the anabolic reponse.

 

[puddleduck]

Short rest periods are associated with greater post workout muscle damage and less hypertrophy than longer rests. Likely due to more calcium ion fatigue

 

[North Coast Miller]

Short rest periods are associated with greater post workout muscle damage and less hypertrophy than longer rests. Likely due to more calcium ion fatigue

I don't think the science is quite settled on this one, anecdotally or scientifically.

Plenty of references back to other contemporary research included. From a '22 study:

"Taken together with our findings, the evidence suggests that rest intervals of 1 or 3 minutes produce similar hypertrophic increases provided VL is equated between conditions."

Volume Load Rather Than Resting Interval Influences Muscle... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

: 1554–1559, 2022—Interset rest interval has been proposed as an important variable for inducing muscle mass and strength increases during resistance training. However, its influence remains unclear, especially when protocols with differing intervals have equalized volume. We aimed to compare...

journals.lww.com

My own experience is to continue the next set "when you feel recovered". Aside from textbook Tabata I really don't like using a timer for anything but baking.

 

[puddleduck]

I don't think the science is quite settled on this one, anecdotally or scientifically.

Plenty of references back to other contemporary research included. From a '22 study:

"Taken together with our findings, the evidence suggests that rest intervals of 1 or 3 minutes produce similar hypertrophic increases provided VL is equated between conditions."

Volume Load Rather Than Resting Interval Influences Muscle... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

: 1554–1559, 2022—Interset rest interval has been proposed as an important variable for inducing muscle mass and strength increases during resistance training. However, its influence remains unclear, especially when protocols with differing intervals have equalized volume. We aimed to compare...

journals.lww.com

My own experience is to continue the next set "when you feel recovered". Aside from textbook Tabata I really don't like using a timer for anything but baking.

Really strong recommendation for the work of Chris Beardsley. His podcast is an immense resource and his patreon site is a couple of quid well spent.

I think the evidence towards the efficacy of longer sets is stronger and stronger. If hypertrophy is your main interest then his work is time well spent. It’s not always entertaining or accessible though

 

[puddleduck]

My other question about that study; how do you equate volume and load with different rest intervals, unless you are training with a different level of effort?

I’ve just quickly read it and it’s unclear to me. Practically, if I did 3 x 4-6 with 1 rir @ 3 min rest intervals, it seems unlikely that I could replicate that with 1 min rests unless I was underestimating the proximity to failure?

 

[North Coast Miller]

My other question about that study; how do you equate volume and load with different rest intervals, unless you are training with a different level of effort?

I’ve just quickly read it and it’s unclear to me. Practically, if I did 3 x 4-6 with 1 rir @ 3 min rest intervals, it seems unlikely that I could replicate that with 1 min rests unless I was underestimating the proximity to failure?

I think you simply push harder to start your next set. 1 RIR can give a good bit of padding, more than you might think, that's part of the variable.

Re Beardsley, he has some very interesting insights but his wholesale discount of metabolic stress doesn't jibe with my personal experience...at all.

 

[puddleduck]

Fair enough if that’s your view. I tend to agree with his take and his review of the evidence

 

[North Coast Miller]

Really a conversation for a different thread, but his assertion that fatigue is mechanically necessary for optimal muscle tension, but the resulting (and inextricably linked) metabolic stress is somehow not a factor, is quite the leap.

Not to mention that tension levels and total motor unit recruitment are always highest in an unfatigued state.

I myself have reliably seen an increase in hypertrophy with increasing levels of tension AND stress. Notably, just adding intervals to an isometric regimen increased the hypertrophic response, with no change in tension volume or magnitude.

 

[JamesH11]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31825-7/fulltext

Milers would typically do; 70-80% easy miles and 20% very hard running (alactic sprints and glycolytic intervals), some probably do quite a lot of strength work (low rep squats/deadlifts) etc others likely do less intensive strenth work i.e. some push ups/core work etc.

 

[puddleduck]

Really a conversation for a different thread, but his assertion that fatigue is mechanically necessary for optimal muscle tension, but the resulting (and inextricably linked) metabolic stress is somehow not a factor, is quite the leap.

Not to mention that tension levels and total motor unit recruitment are always highest in an unfatigued state.

I myself have reliably seen an increase in hypertrophy with increasing levels of tension AND stress. Notably, just adding intervals to an isometric regimen increased the hypertrophic response, with no change in tension volume or magnitude.

I don’t think by-products of one output necessarily contribute to the desired outcome. But yeah, going off piste for this thread

 

[North Coast Miller]

Are there studies that show which exercises are best for long term benefits to your health?

I assume a mix of steady state, some high intensity and strength training, but are there specifics to how much?

Follow up to my earlier suggestion, stumbled across this resource years ago and still refer back as one of my first stops if I have a specific training question. Not the end-all-be-all clearinghouse, but very useful place to start:

Article page

One layer up is the full home page for U of NM exercise science dept.

 

[puddleduck]

Follow up to my earlier suggestion, stumbled across this resource years ago and still refer back as one of my first stops if I have a specific training question. Not the end-all-be-all clearinghouse, but very useful place to start:

Article page

One layer up is the full home page for U of NM exercise science dept.

That’s a brilliant resource. This is my evening sorted

The hiit controversies summaries give a great angle on the earlier discussion. Really good stuff.