The Secret to Longevity? 4-Minute Bursts of Intense Exercise May Help (msn.com) 82
The New York Times reports on results from a rigorous five-year study in Trondheim, Norway that raises the question: If you increase your heart rate, will your life span follow?
The study, one of the largest and longest-term experimental examinations to date of exercise and mortality, shows that older men and women who exercise in almost any fashion are relatively unlikely to die prematurely. But if some of that exercise is intense, the study also finds, the risk of early mortality declines even more, and the quality of people's lives climbs...
Their first step was to invite every septuagenarian in Trondheim to participate... More than 1,500 of the Norwegian men and women accepted... All agreed to start and continue to exercise more regularly during the upcoming five years... The first group, as a control, agreed to follow standard activity guidelines and walk or otherwise remain in motion for half an hour most days. (The scientists did not feel they could ethically ask their control group to be sedentary for five years.) Another group began exercising moderately for longer sessions of 50 minutes twice a week. And the third group started a program of twice-weekly high-intensity interval training, or HIIT, during which they cycled or jogged at a strenuous pace for four minutes, followed by four minutes of rest, with that sequence repeated four times... During that time, the scientists noted that quite a few of the participants in the control had dabbled with interval-training classes at local gyms, on their own initiative and apparently for fun...
After five years, the researchers checked death registries and found that about 4.6 per cent of all of the original volunteers had passed away during the study, a lower number than in the wider Norwegian population of 70-year-olds, indicating these active older people were, on the whole, living longer than others of their age. But they also found interesting, if slight, distinctions between the groups. The men and women in the high-intensity-intervals group were about 2 per cent less likely to have died than those in the control group, and 3 per cent less likely to die than anyone in the longer, moderate-exercise group. People in the moderate group were, in fact, more likely to have passed away than people in the control group.
The men and women in the interval group also were more fit now and reported greater gains in their quality of life than the other volunteers....
Dorthe Stensvold, a researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology who led the new study, believes the study's message can be broadly applicable to almost all of us.. "Adding life to years, not only years to life, is an important aspect of healthy ageing, and the higher fitness and health-related quality of life from high-intensity interval training in this study is an important finding."
Their first step was to invite every septuagenarian in Trondheim to participate... More than 1,500 of the Norwegian men and women accepted... All agreed to start and continue to exercise more regularly during the upcoming five years... The first group, as a control, agreed to follow standard activity guidelines and walk or otherwise remain in motion for half an hour most days. (The scientists did not feel they could ethically ask their control group to be sedentary for five years.) Another group began exercising moderately for longer sessions of 50 minutes twice a week. And the third group started a program of twice-weekly high-intensity interval training, or HIIT, during which they cycled or jogged at a strenuous pace for four minutes, followed by four minutes of rest, with that sequence repeated four times... During that time, the scientists noted that quite a few of the participants in the control had dabbled with interval-training classes at local gyms, on their own initiative and apparently for fun...
After five years, the researchers checked death registries and found that about 4.6 per cent of all of the original volunteers had passed away during the study, a lower number than in the wider Norwegian population of 70-year-olds, indicating these active older people were, on the whole, living longer than others of their age. But they also found interesting, if slight, distinctions between the groups. The men and women in the high-intensity-intervals group were about 2 per cent less likely to have died than those in the control group, and 3 per cent less likely to die than anyone in the longer, moderate-exercise group. People in the moderate group were, in fact, more likely to have passed away than people in the control group.
The men and women in the interval group also were more fit now and reported greater gains in their quality of life than the other volunteers....
Dorthe Stensvold, a researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology who led the new study, believes the study's message can be broadly applicable to almost all of us.. "Adding life to years, not only years to life, is an important aspect of healthy ageing, and the higher fitness and health-related quality of life from high-intensity interval training in this study is an important finding."
how dare you suggest people exercise? (Score:4, Funny)
send them to their doctors for an endless supply of drugs
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The secret to longevity is avoid dying.
I told my wife four minutes is enough (Score:5, Funny)
My wife is always complaining that our "intense exercise" only lasts four minutes. I've been telling her that's long enough! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the secret to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Re: how dare you suggest people exercise? (Score:1, Troll)
Actually, no exercise in the world can fix your obesity. That is actualy literally a story spread by Coca-Cola PR to shift the blame from them to you.
In reality, doing more exercise means you will simply eat even more, to compensate.
Unless you are constantly starving yourself (=eating less than you feel like).
What will fix almost all health problems we have nowadays, is not eating processed crap. It really can be reduced to how processed it is. Including plants and animals that already are bred and fed to b
Re: how dare you suggest people exercise? (Score:4, Informative)
That is actualy literally a story spread by Coca-Cola PR to shift the blame from them to you. It's more than Coke. Mother Culture, in the West, says that if you're not feeling full, you haven't eaten. Most Westerners born in the past 50 years have never experienced real hunger. Mild hunger is a totally normal experience when eating 3 meals per day. But we've replaced hunger with high sugar sodas, brunch, snacks and nibbles.
Re: how dare you suggest people exercise? (Score:2)
This isn't true if you're over eating. Exercise will cut in to the excess calories. Even if you increase your food intake, it might not equal the increase in calories burnt through exercise.
You're probably right about processed and junk food intake though.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a recent study that showed that the vast majority of people took compensation calories in while exercising until they were eating/burning about 1000 extra calories a week. After about 1000 calories their eating plateaued even if they burned more than that through exercise.
In terms of intake, it's easy to see how people could do that. It breaks down to about 150 calories extra a day, and it's easy to grab a snack and a slightly larger portion of something and be looking at an extra 150 calories. "I
Re: how dare you suggest people exercise? (Score:2)
Argh so now it's the only practical way. You might as well say dieting makes no difference because if I cut 50 Calories a day I won't loose weight so I might as well not bother.
Re: how dare you suggest people exercise? (Score:2)
I like running. Itâ(TM)s really inefficient! But, it makes me feel good. My weight gain stops at about 15km running/week. I start losing weight at 25km/week. At 35km/week I canâ(TM)t seem to eat enough to stop/control weight loss, and eventually achieve an injury if I can't keep my weight up. This is my experience from the past 20 years, bouncing back and forth between feeling awesome and injury and started again. I have a high metabolic rate, so understand that everbody's experience is dif
Re: how dare you suggest people exercise? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Actually, no exercise in the world can fix your obesity. That is actualy literally a story spread by Coca-Cola PR to shift the blame from them to you.
Because you're totally being forced to guzzle sodas and sit around on your butt, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no exercise in the world can fix your obesity. That is actualy literally a story spread by Coca-Cola PR to shift the blame from them to you.
In reality, doing more exercise means you will simply eat even more, to compensate.
Unless you are constantly starving yourself (=eating less than you feel like).
What will fix almost all health problems we have nowadays, is not eating processed crap. It really can be reduced to how processed it is. Including plants and animals that already are bred and fed to be unnatural.
I think Table 1 of this, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, makes this very clear: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
The thing he did not yet know in that paper, was that the difference between their boiled Taro and our boiled potatoes, that makes them not get sick, is the amount of branching carbs ("prebiotics") in their carbs, that favors other micro-organisms, and those don't give you Leptin resistance.
Actually, no exercise in the world can fix your obesity. That is actualy literally a story spread by Coca-Cola PR to shift the blame from them to you.
In reality, doing more exercise means you will simply eat even more, to compensate.
I spent over 50 years using the sugar rush as a replacement for sleep, a panacea for boredom, and a quick fix for small cravings. It was a core response to nicotine cravings when I successfully quit smoking. No one from Coca-Cola, or anyone else, held a gun to my head at any point.
Neither diet and/or exercise provide a long-term fix to obesity. They are the tools to get there, but, without understanding how you got here, and what habits need to change, weight loss will be temporary, if it happens at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Obesity and other disorders are often caused by mental issues. A quick burst of exercise is obviously not much of an energy burn to make a difference.
But what it does is it gives a feeling of success and accomplishment, a short rush of adrenaline and other hormones. One such hormonal experience per day will offset your mental health leading to a more active life in general. When you do it as the first thing in the morning each day then it changes your entire attitude, outlook on life and even body posture.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no exercise in the world can fix your obesity.
True.
In reality, doing more exercise means you will simply eat even more, to compensate.
Not true.
4 Minutes exercise only take about 1/6th of the sugar from your liver. That does not make hungry at all.
And usually after long exercises: I want a beer, not food.
eating, when to eat, and how much to eat, and what to eat: is just a habbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no exercise in the world can fix your obesity if you keep eating shit
ftfy.
obesity (barring exceptional cases) is both a nutritional and habits related disorder. exercise is one important half. although there is some truth in what you say, the message "no exercise in the world can fix your obesity" is really a daft one to give, unless your purpose is to speed up natural selection in which case please be my guest.
Re: (Score:2)
Significance (Score:5, Informative)
2 per cent less likely to have died than those in the control group, and 3 per cent less likely to die than anyone in the longer, moderate-exercise group. People in the moderate group were, in fact, more likely to have passed away than people in the control group.
In a study with 1500 people, differences this small are unlikely to be significant.
Re:Significance (Score:5, Insightful)
In a study with 1500 people, differences this small are unlikely to be significant.
The main problem is that the journalist is a moron.
4.6% of the people died. So does "2% less likely" mean 2.6% (very significant) or 0.98*4.6=4.5% (very insignificant).
Neither the summary nor TFA clarifies.
Re:Significance (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.bmj.com/content/37... [bmj.com] seems to be the study. Is hard to draw firm conclusions, especially because so many of the HIIT group dropped out before the study ended.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bmj.com/content/37... [bmj.com] seems to be the study. Is hard to draw firm conclusions, especially because so many of the HIIT group dropped out before the study ended.
Just to add on, people who got too sick/weak so they dropped out of the HIIT group but did not die probably affected the results. It seems like a generally poor study.
Re:Significance (Score:5, Informative)
Damn it! I hate it when promising studies turn out to be improperly reported.
The graph in your linked article shows that the effect is very uncertain (and the abstract confirms). For HIIT vs Control, the relative risk with a 95% confidence interal is between 0.33 to 1.2. That is, HIIT has anything from a huge positive effect to a significant negative effect.
I would not base any policy recommendations on such uncertain numbers and we should not exaggerate the significance of this study.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not base any policy recommendations on such uncertain numbers
What if this study is just one of many studies (it is) that show HIIT has a positive effect and not a negative one?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you wait for the meta-review :-)
In general, it makes it really hard to draw conclusions. There could be publication bias so that non-positive effect studies are not published which makes the average biased. There could also be differences in testing methodologies, lack of raw data etc that make averages meaningless or impossible to compute.
You need a bunch of pre-registered studies that are very very similar to draw conclusions from the average but that never really happens since it is harder to get f
Re: (Score:2)
There could also be strong correlation between things we know and things we're trying to prove. There are larger more statistically significant studies that link HIIT to positive health benefits. Not much of a stretch to link healthy people with mortality too. ;-)
Re:Significance (Score:5, Informative)
From the study [bmj.com], "When MICT and HIIT were analysed separately, with the control group as reference (observed mortality of 4.7%), an absolute risk reduction of 1.7 percentage points was observed after HIIT (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 1.20) and an absolute increased risk of 1.2 percentage points after MICT (1.24, 0.73 to 2.10)." So, the confidence intervals for the relative risk for any two of the three groups includes values both less than and greater than 1.0, which basically means that the results show that not much can be concluded.
Perhaps the general rule of comparative studies should be that whenever statistics are required to demonstrate a conclusion, the conclusion is weak.
Re: (Score:3)
whenever statistics are required to demonstrate a conclusion, the conclusion is weak.
Err. So we should only do science where we can demonstrate a high confidence interval but we're not allowed to use statistics to do it? Drink a little too much eggnog the last few days?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone tried too hard to make a reference to a recent xkcd [xkcd.com] and it flopped.
Re: (Score:2)
whenever statistics are required to demonstrate a conclusion, the conclusion is weak.
Err. So we should only do science where we can demonstrate a high confidence interval but we're not allowed to use statistics to do it? Drink a little too much eggnog the last few days?
No, what I wrote is just an obvious statement of what everyone already recognizes. For example, an experiment where a cohort ingests arsenic versus a control group ingesting a placebo needs no confidence intervals because the difference in the counts are so stark. It's only where the differences are not obvious that confidence intervals and other statistics are stated. Compared to the stark differences, the statistical differences are relatively weaker.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Significance (Score:4, Insightful)
In a study with 1500 people, differences this small are unlikely to be significant.
For an isolated study I'd agree with you. But this is not an isolated study. The benefits of HIIT have been studied over and over again and they all lead to the same conclusions.
Other studies with more significant results exist but they don't look at death rate, instead focusing on health outcomes, improvements in VO2Max levels, resting hearrrate, muscle mass, etc, and they all show that HIIT produces better outcomes for the same exercise duration.
I mean you can doubt all you want that healthier people live longer if that floats your boat.
Looks like I'm safe (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Looks like I'm safe (Score:2)
It'll fix itself. It's called growing up.
Re: (Score:2)
They said four minutes not four seconds.
4 minutes? get real (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you just pause your DVR for 4 minutes, then skip the ads after you're done?
The Secret to Longevity? 4-Minute Bursts (Score:2)
> The Secret to Longevity? 4-Minute Bursts of Intense Exercise May Help
Is this why teenage males feel invincible. All that "bursty" 4 minute exercising?
when the cure is worse than death (Score:1)
Re: when the cure is worse than death (Score:2)
Well I don't think eating something tastier than pure sugar and starch and dairy that's processed to death is worse than death.
Because that's actually what it takes.
Re: (Score:2)
Lugging around the equivalent of a bunch of packed suitcases everywhere you go makes you feel happy? Knee and back pains make you happy? Well, to each their own.
It MAY Or MAY NOT Help (Score:3)
Stupid premise. It MAY help to stick your head in a microwave oven. It MAY NOT. Who the fuck knows. Nobody, that's who.
Re: (Score:2)
It MAY help to stick your head in a microwave oven. It MAY NOT. Who the fuck knows.
It doesn't. You're welcome, now you know.
Re: (Score:2)
You just got whooshed. No MAY to it.
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is that I want to be a part of the control group.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll promise you that it's only a placebo microwave and not actually plugged in.
Re: It MAY Or MAY NOT Help (Score:2)
If you want certainty, make shit up.
Like a religious dogma, a philospophical paradigm or a mathematical axiom.
Because that's the only way you're ever gonna get certainty in real life. If I define 1+1=Q then obviously, I can be certain of it.
In any other case, a likeliness is all you're ever gonna get.
Re: It MAY Or MAY NOT Help (Score:2)
The religions with which I am familiar have all seemed to rely on uncertainty... the fact that their premise is impossible to disprove....or prove.
Asking... (Score:2)
By that logic... (Score:5, Funny)
0.01 seconds of very very strong excercise is even better. Maybe we just found out Workout Hompeopathy!
Rock climbing (Score:5, Insightful)
4 minutes of intense exercise you say? Would 1 minute still count as excercise? Asking for a friend.
I took up indoor rock climbing a couple of years ago (specifically bouldering). Climbing is intense work for fairly short intervals of about the right length - three or four minutes of intense climbing to get to the top/end of the run, followed by a few minutes of rest while you belay your partner.
I've always felt that traditional exercising - exercise for the purpose of exercise - to be tremendously boring. Bicycle machines, treadmills, stair stepping - I can't see how anyone can stand to do that for any length of time.
Pick an activity that makes the exercise fun and challenging, and it's an entirely different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. I just use a very small rock.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The only problem with this idea of exercise is that it can be more of a time commitment and more costly. The "boring" alternatives you listed are definitely not as exciting, but it's a sure way to get your exercise in for the day, especially if you live in a city.
If something is fun and challenging, it's more likely to "get your exercise in for the day" in the long run, despite the "time commitment and cost" "drawbacks" (ok, cost is definitely a drawback, but time commitment ceases to be one soon). I don't disagree with your statement, if all exercising options available to you are boring you, but I can relate to GP's sentiment for that very sport (climbing) - never boring, and the amount is always limited only by how much my body can take (if I take it too far, sma
Re: (Score:2)
I've always felt that traditional exercising - exercise for the purpose of exercise - to be tremendously boring. Bicycle machines, treadmills, stair stepping - I can't see how anyone can stand to do that for any length of time.
It depends on what you exercise for. You seem goal oriented. Rock climbing is good for that. I quite frequently use a bicycle machine or a treadmill, (when I can't go for a jog or a cycle like today where it's belting down rain). I combine it with something else. I never run without music, and the run turns into just a session where I get to forget the world and rock to some beats. The music comes first and I typically run to the beat of the music. I don't think I've ever used a fluid trainer without watchi
Re: (Score:3)
Trail running is another such exercise, assuming you live in places that are at least a little hilly. You get the more intense exercise on the uphills, then relax a bit on the downhills (although four minutes would be a pretty long hill where I live, in Maryland).
And I'm the age of the experiment's subjects.
It's genetics. (Score:3, Informative)
The secret to longevity is genetics and we know it's genetics. The most important factor is the efficiency of cellular repair which has been tied to specific genes. Naturally, if you give yourself heart disease (via poor diet, etc) it will decrease your lifespan but your four-minute-workout isn't going to make the difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are literally commenting about a study that shows exercise helps you live longer, somehow believing the opposite. That is not a very scientific approach.
Re: It's genetics. (Score:2)
Hahaha.. that is so true.
Poster is using one truth to obfuscate other truths.
Re: It's genetics. (Score:2)
"shows"
Please at least read the study before making such Dunning-Kruger-effect arguments.
The numbers were well within a margin of error, a big chunk of the subjects quit early, and the whole thing is way overstated im TFS and such.
Re:It's genetics. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The secret to longevity is genetics and we know it's genetics"
The secret to avoiding heart attacks is genetics.
The second most important factor is exercise.
Simply because something is not AS important a factor as something else doesn't mean that it ISN'T also important.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it's the second most important factor? You're absolutely right, but genetics doesn't mean you can sit down and shovel your face full of greasy shit while watching 12 hours of TV a day and have a remote chance of living long because of "genetics".
I would wager that exercise and general body health is the most important factor and genetics is a contributing cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it's the second most important factor?
Exercise and food are the most important factors every person can take control of, because it costs no money and only a few minutes of time. Any other factor gets its importance from being an excuse, because they all only get harder if not impossible to control.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no single "secret to longevity". Lots of things affect it, and we know what lots of them are. Genetics makes a difference. So does diet. So does exercise. So does not smoking.
A recent study found that people with five healthy habits lived an average of 14 years longer for women and 12 years longer for men [time.com]. You can't change your genetics, but things you can change still make a big difference.
dont be old and fat (Score:1)
The practical answer for male slashdotters who spend all day in front of a computer is:
Don't be fat past the age of 55.
The mortality rate is much higher for fat old men than for thin old me.
It is well established that having a high BMI is strong predictor of an early death.
You rarely see a fat man who is in his 70s, most of them have dropped dead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's self-evident. Almost all the elderly that one can see walking on the street are skinny. One simply doesn't see fat and old, grey- or white-haired people.
Sick people exercise less, die more - news at 9 (Score:2)
4 minutes?!? (Score:1)
The real secret to a long life (Score:1)
Not following every goddamn fad that comes along, particularly when it's based on shoddy science.
I did it! (Score:2)
Running out of space filler posts? (Score:2)
Surely there's something in the tech world you could have posted.
I'm always late for my train (Score:2)
...and running like a crazy person means I get to live to get a 100 years old?
Hitting the trail (Score:2)
This study illustrates why hiking is such a good form of exercise. It involves a lot of walking, punctuated by occasional steep climbs and scrambles.
Remember when it was 7 minutes? (Score:2)
7 minutes [womenshealthmag.com]
If the trend continues ... ONE MINUTE WORKOUT! But only because a ZERO minute workout would be a hard sell even in the USA. No one is _that_ dumb right?
Good to see this getting out.... (Score:2)
I don't think this is quite news. I believe the Trondheim study concluded a couple years ago and was widely reported on then, and there were other studies published around that time showing similar conclusions. The science is still not entirely conclusive, but it is quite plausible, and further research should help clarify some of the mechanisms behind why HIIT does work incredibly well for many folks (and why it doesn't for some others).
I am concerned that because this study was done on mainly older folk
This research will explode world's population (Score:1)