PDA

View Full Version : 30 Minutes of Exercise as Good as 60 Minutes



Scarlet Ibis
09-09-2012, 04:46 PM
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/food/RTR31NX2main.jpg

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/study-for-body-fat-30-minutes-of-exercise-as-good-as-60/261559/
See full study here: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/early/2012/07/30/ajpregu.00141.2012


PROBLEM: Creating a negative energy balance -- burning off more than you take in -- is the not-so-secret key to successful weight loss. Dieters, however, often find that eating less triggers compensatory mechanisms, such as increased appetite and a slowed metabolism, that make this balance difficult to maintain. Looking at the other side of this equation, is there an infinitely positive relationship between amount of exercise and pounds shed? Or is there a certain point where the compensatory mechanisms kick in, so that extra time on the treadmill ceases to affect weight loss?

METHODOLOGY: Sixty moderately overweight Danish men were randomly assigned to either a moderate or high-dose aerobic routine of running, biking, or rowing. The moderate exercisers burned 300 calories per day, which took about 30 minutes, while the high-dose group burned 600 calories, which, predictably, took about twice as long. The subjects' body composition was monitored throughout the 13-week experiment, as were their compensatory behaviors (food intake and non-exercise physical activity). Their accumulated energy balance was calculated from their changes in body composition.

RESULTS: The group that practiced moderate exercise lost an average of 7.9 lbs in body weight, while the group that worked harder only lost an average of 6.0 lbs. Both saw similar losses in fat mass (about 8.8 lbs in the moderate group, and 8.3 pounds in the high-dose group). Researchers measured no significant difference in caloric intake or non-exercise energy expenditure.

CONCLUSION: Comparing men who exercised for half an hour each day to men who worked out for twice as long, less exercise was actually associated with greater weight loss, and no significant difference in fat loss. So the moderate exercisers got a lot more for their effort.

IMPLICATIONS: "Lose more weight in half the time" sounds like the kind of pitch that can get you into trouble. And the researchers aren't sure exactly why they got the results that they did. They suggest that less exercise may be associated with a greater willingness to engage in other forms of physical activity throughout the day that they did not measure, or that the more intense workouts may have lead to more compensatory food intake (though, within the limits of this study, they measured no difference). This calls to light the interplay of all the variables that go into weight loss and gain, and how, when factored in the bigger picture of life and physiology and behavioral psychology and taco rewards, more exercise isn't always better.


I always take single studies with a grain of salt, but I'm not really sure if I consider this particular one to be a bit of good news or bad news. I've been trying to exercise vigorously for an average of 45 minutes, so perhaps I've been wasting time and energy.

Azvarohi
09-09-2012, 07:35 PM
Energy output per time. If you run for 30 minutes then walk 30 minutes following the run you will use up more energy than if you run for 30 minutes and spend the other 30 minutes watching tv. But you'll probably burn as much if you run for 30 minutes compared to if you walk for 60 minutes...provided you run as fast on both occasions.

basque
09-09-2012, 08:33 PM
Energy output per time. If you run for 30 minutes then walk 30 minutes following the run you will use up more energy than if you run for 30 minutes and spend the other 30 minutes watching tv. But you'll probably burn as much if you run for 30 minutes compared to if you walk for 60 minutes...provided you run as fast on both occasions.

I agree, a good run burns lots of energy, weight training also uses up lots of energy preferably free weights.

Muscle mass burns calories and gives you a nice shape.

If you cant run walk up steep hills.

basque:)

AJL
03-06-2013, 05:10 PM
My understanding, given my basic biochem knowledge, is that there are other factors apart from the intensity of exercise.

While cardio benefits of exercise are from the get-go, weight-loss benefits of exercise typically only kick in after 20-30 minutes, because one is burning glycogen and glucose until then, not fats. The duration exercised over that threshold should determine the amount of fat converted to glucose then burned, though of course more intense exercise will burn more calories of fat.

There may however be a phenomenon of overtraining, where cortisol levels rise in response to the stress of excessive exercise, and break proteins down into glucose. That might be what happened in this experiement.

MikeWhalen
03-07-2013, 01:48 AM
well, I'm not a super math expert, but it seems to me if one can arrive at a formula in which 30 min. of exercise is as good as 60 min. of exercise, which 1 to 2 ratio, then with some superior math skills, one ought to be able to eventually render that formula down to 15 is as good as 30, then 7.5 is as good as 15 min and so forth, until the energy it takes to go to the fridge and get another beer, is as good as running for an hour...

this is probably why I was so good in math in high school

remind me to tell you the 'head on paper' story from my grade 11 math class some day
:)

Mike

AJL
03-07-2013, 03:13 AM
well, I'm not a super math expert, but it seems to me if one can arrive at a formula in which 30 min. of exercise is as good as 60 min. of exercise, which 1 to 2 ratio, then with some superior math skills, one ought to be able to eventually render that formula down to 15 is as good as 30, then 7.5 is as good as 15 min and so forth, until the energy it takes to go to the fridge and get another beer, is as good as running for an hour...

this is probably why I was so good in math in high school

remind me to tell you the 'head on paper' story from my grade 11 math class some day
:)

Mike

:beerchug: You just have to make sure the beer is so heavy that you burn calories lifting it!

authun
08-09-2013, 05:50 PM
Exercise is one of those wonderfully vague words as one is usually concerned with exercise for a specific purpose, burning off some calories, building up certain muscles or speeding up metabolism for example. A brisk walk, preferably as one poster suggested, involving a hill, has a couple of rarely discussed benefits. A single bout of exercise substantially decreases both de novo lipogenesis, ie converting dietary carbohydrate into fat and plasma VLDL (very low density lipoprotein cholesterol). It prevents a substantial portion of the food being laid down as fat. We would in the past have talked about 'walking off a meal'.

Production of the necessary enzymes starts immediately and reaches a peak at about 12 hours. Levels start to drop after 24 hours but the effect it cumulative so, a 'daily constitutional' does have some merit.

This is completely different from body sculpting, improving cardio vascular fitness or anything like that, it alters, and improves, the way you digest your food. The differences can be clearly seen in a centrifuged blood sample.

The converse is also true. Going to sleep after a heavy meal will add the pounds. It will get laid down as fat.

authun
08-09-2013, 05:54 PM
:beerchug: You just have to make sure the beer is so heavy that you burn calories lifting it!


I guess these girls (http://www.netzeitung.de/articleimages//38/38695019281415614690.jpg) are remarkably fit:

MikeWhalen
08-09-2013, 09:37 PM
authun...there were no pics of remarkably fit girls in your post :(

try again please, I am sure this is a valuable point your making and must be experianced!
:)

Mike
ps-was it anything like this?

597

Ian B
08-10-2013, 02:46 AM
Mike: Not quite, more of a "beer frau", or is it "bier frau"?

MikeWhalen
08-11-2013, 12:41 AM
ahh, you mean this kind...

602603604


Mike


Mike: Not quite, more of a "beer frau", or is it "bier frau"?

Ian B
08-11-2013, 03:48 AM
No, this kind :beerchug: http://www.netzeitung.de/articleimages//38/38695019281415614690.jpg

authun
08-11-2013, 06:47 PM
Now, this gal is carrying 14 1 litre krugs, 6 in each hand with 1 balanced on top.

Oktoberfest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YEJs5EzLX4)

MikeWhalen
08-12-2013, 11:21 AM
well ya, but, mine were WAY cuter

I Win

:)

M

authun
08-12-2013, 02:42 PM
well ya, but, mine were WAY cuter

Well, if you want cute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlIXoXWJOkU&feature=related) waitresses ....

MikeWhalen
08-16-2013, 03:25 AM
umm. was that vid taken in Japan? I mean, the girls were cute and all, but not sure the enthusiasm was all that authentic

Ian B
08-17-2013, 02:59 PM
Probably taken in Seskatchewan, but they didn't complete their 20 mins of exercise. Having had heart by-pass surgery, I think that execise is not good for you, otherwise why would the Lord have given us motor cars and bicycles etc?

Clinton P
02-03-2015, 02:45 PM
"Scientists studied more than 1,000 healthy joggers and non-joggers over a 12-year period."

"Those who ran more than four hours a week or did no exercise had the highest death rates."

Click here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31095384) to read more about this story.

Clinton P

ADW_1981
02-03-2015, 04:52 PM
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/food/RTR31NX2main.jpg

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/study-for-body-fat-30-minutes-of-exercise-as-good-as-60/261559/
See full study here: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/early/2012/07/30/ajpregu.00141.2012




I always take single studies with a grain of salt, but I'm not really sure if I consider this particular one to be a bit of good news or bad news. I've been trying to exercise vigorously for an average of 45 minutes, so perhaps I've been wasting time and energy.

It's all about intensity and getting the heart pumping. I would not recommend running for 60 minutes or 30 minutes if you are older. This is hard on the joints and you want some lower impact exercise such as an elliptical. Of course, I would not recommend "high intensity" to someone who is morbidly obese either as this could give them a heart attack...

I've heard many good things about Cross-Fit and these exercises are typically free weight and you can do them at home, quickly but high intensity. Diet is also the other 1/2 of the battle. You can't be eating fried garbage every day, even if you "work out" at a gym hardly ever breaking a sweat.

DMXX
02-04-2015, 06:47 PM
It's all about intensity and getting the heart pumping. I would not recommend running for 60 minutes or 30 minutes if you are older. This is hard on the joints and you want some lower impact exercise such as an elliptical. Of course, I would not recommend "high intensity" to someone who is morbidly obese either as this could give them a heart attack...


Quite a bit of data shows that low intensity steady state (LISS) cardio is more advantageous than high intensity interval training (HIIT) for the purposes of health. The former does burn less calories per minute than the latter, but is far easier on the joints, has a lower injury risk, can be done more often without affecting performance (if athlete) or interfering with other physical endeavours, and has repeatedly been shown to improve inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein's the main one reported in literature).

LISS cardio isn't particularly popular because it's perceived as both "boring" and "wimpy" by many fitness enthusiasts (the flipsides of these is precisely what the fitness industry's been using to sell HIIT as the "sexy superior" choice).

Also, the "afterburner" effect does exist, but it's so minuscule it's insignificant. This is the commonly cited "broscience" justification for HIIT. In reality, an individual burns only 20-30 calories extra at most throughout the entire day after an HIIT workout. LISS has an "afterburner" effect as well, but it's less (something like 10-15 calories extra the whole day). Put into context, 30 calories is around a sixth of a single large vegetarian thin-base pizza slice!

If readers may pardon my French, but there's a lot of bullshit misinformation that's regularly conveyed throughout the fitness world and fitness magazines are partially to blame for this.



I've heard many good things about Cross-Fit and these exercises are typically free weight and you can do them at home, quickly but high intensity. Diet is also the other 1/2 of the battle. You can't be eating fried garbage every day, even if you "work out" at a gym hardly ever breaking a sweat.

When the elite CrossFitters (e.g. Rich Froning) don't even "do" CrossFit as part of their conventional training, something's up. CrossFit's essentially the Scientology of the weight training world in terms of cultish illogical following. I'd be happy to discuss this further if there's any interest.

It's of course important to frame this entire discussion around both personal choice, ability and goals. These should still be oriented around the most objective data possible through a coherent sustainable training strategy. F.ex., both an elderly person with bilateral knee osteoarthritis and a young powerlifting athlete training 6x/week will both probably incur detrimental effects from incorporating CrossFit-style training or HIIT given the specific limitations both have.

codyedwardwilliams
02-12-2015, 10:45 AM
30 minutes of exercise everyday is a good start already! :D

Scarlet Ibis
02-13-2015, 11:23 PM
I'm closing this thread. Its purpose has long since been exhausted, and it's been flypaper for idiotic human spammers, like the one in the post above ^, who want to feign participation, but who don't know how to do so on the actual substantive topics on this forum.