Could this be true?

[tallulahangie]

From the NZ Herald (Sideswipe):-

Six minutes of intense exercise a week does as much good as six hours, claims a new study. People could cut their workouts from two hours a day, three times a week, to just two minutes a day and achieve the same results. The two-minute workout requires cycling furiously on an exercise bike in four 30-second bursts. The study, published in this month's Journal of Applied Physiology, involved 23 men and women aged between 25 and 35 who were tested to see how long it took them to cycle 18.6 miles (29.9km). One group cycled for two hours a day at a moderate pace. The second biked harder for 10 minutes a day in 60-second bursts. The last group cycled at an intense sprint for two minutes in 30-second bursts, with four minutes of rest between each sprint. At the end of the two weeks each of the three groups was asked to repeat the 18.6 mile cycling test. Every subject was found to have improved to the same degree. (Source: Ananova)

[Pseudonym]

Interesting... it wouldn't surprise me. I guess that's really the theory behind HIIT, and all those other training philosophies, too.

[Spitterkat]

this is to do with the energy system trained, this test isnt fair because its done over time (of course the aerobic group will go slower, because the aerobic energy pathway has been trained), whereas when you go down the line getting faster, the lactid acid and ATP-PC are trained (i.e faster energy systems), when they stop, their heart rate etc is still elevated, so they still get the conditioning of the 10 minute group, you have to put these in context, to say its better doesnt mean jack.

[ExpensiveUrine]

Too vague to analyze.

[Spitterkat]

its fine, you just need some background knowledge to be able to understand it

[ExpensiveUrine]

its fine, you just need some background knowledge to be able to understand it

I was talking about the article in Herald.

They seem to ignore the principle of Specificity (and probably others). I would have to see the study done.

[Flex]

This study looks a bit like gobshite - I'd imagine that the lab rats were already pretty fit - there aren't many people out on the streets that could hop onto a bike and sprint hard out for 30secs and then repeat it 3 more times without collapsing with a heart attack. And the control team only cycled at just on 15km/h which ain't really all that fast - hell, I run that fast when I go for a jog.

To say that people could cut training down to 2mins a day when the study was only 2 weeks long is a complete joke. I could have a 2 week break from training and come back to the gym with the same strenghth levels if not stronger due to the rest - would that indicate that 2 weeks of not training is the same as if I was training? I don't think so. The journal of applied physiology should be shot for releasing a study like that.

And I think the Herald reporter may have taken liberties with this study as the workout doesn't take 2 minutes - it takes 18mins i.e. 30 secs+4 mins / 30 secs+4 mins / 30 secs+4 mins / 30 secs+4 mins. The rest is actually an integral part of the workout.

Plus if anyone has ever done interval training they would know that you'd need to warmup so that adds another 4 or 5 minutes otherwise you're just going to do yourself an injury.