<p>Something tells me that most of the people who want to exercise only 15 minutes a day and get “benefit” are wanting to take a slow stroll or get on the elliptical while they answer email! </p>
<p>On the flip side, I find fault with the quote from the NY Times referring to “a leisurely pace of 10 minutes a mile…” There is nothing that says this is a “leisurely” pace for many people (including me right now)- it all depends on YOUR effort and heart rate. I’m sure iDad doesn’t think his incredible climbs at 20 plus minute mile pace feel “leisurely”. </p>
<p>The Jacobs Ladder IS brutal. The first time I did it I didn’t think I’d make it to 3 minutes. I’m up to 8 now. However, I don’t climb with my hands – those stay on the outside stationary rails. I’m not coordinated enough.</p>
<p>On the flattest terrain in the White Mountains with hiking boots and a backpack, the best I can do is 30 minutes per mile. Uphill, the best I can average is 60 minute miles. The other day, it took me 1 hour 59 minutes for the 1.3 miles (1100 feet of elevation gain) from the hut to the summit of Lafayette. </p>
<p>On the very steep downhill sections, I can’t do much better an 60 minute miles. For the crazy steep first 4/10ths mile down Falling Waters trail the other day, it took me 38 minutes – a whopping 95 minute mile pace! 560 feet of descent in 4/10th mile. That’s an average 28% grade, with every step from one jagged rock to the next. I picked it up after that and brought the average down to 54 minute miles for the entire 3.9 mile descent. That reflected my new strategy of forcing myself to stop and rest the legs so I could walk when I got home.</p>
<p>I know what I would have to do to increase the pace uphill, but I honestly don’t know how to hike faster downhill (without putting myself at risk of sprained ankles and/or faceplant falls). I’m not winded at all going downhill. It’s terrain limited.</p>
<p>Jacobs Ladder is intense. I’ve also used the Stairway. Another killer. Then there’s also the VersaClimber. It’s funny, I was coincidentally discussing the Jacob’s Ladder and VersaClimber with my kids tonight at dinner.</p>
<p>Not sure if this was posted earlier but just came across it on a friend’s Facebook. It does seem that the value of short-but-intense exercise is getting more attention:</p>
<p>I do wish they had been more specific about what “A 30-minute workout of 10 minute intervals of intense exercise and recovery” means – do they mean a 10-minute interval of intense exercise? I might have to try to track down the study,</p>
<p>There are a load of studies suggesting that more extreme endurance events (26 mile marathons, 100 mile "century bike rides, ultra-marathons, double century bike rides, etc) offer no greater health benefits than more moderate exercise and there are studies suggesting that a steady diet of these types of events can be deleterious to your health. I haven’t read the American College of Cardiology report posted above but the third paragraph posted above about the Journal of Applied Physiology is entirely consistent with what the American Council on Exercise has been advocating for several years. In the cardiovascular component of what they call its “integrated Fitness Training” model, ACE advocates that those interested in general cardio fitness and health need never go beyond Phase 2 training (Aerobic Efficiency) (and there are 4 phases) which generally consists of sessions of about 30 minutes duration with more intense intervals thrown in at above steady state (above VT1) but below anaerobic threshold (VT2). Anything more than that is really for those who have specific performance or competition goals but is not necessary for health and fitness.</p>
<p>And none of these “new studies” are really new. As early as the mid-70’s, Dr. Kenneth Cooper, the founder of the Cooper Institute, was advocating that maximum health benefits would be derived from 20 minute x 4 or 30 minute x3 cardio workouts per week with each session based on a hr mix of 60% hr max (moderate intensity) to 80% hr max intensity (vigorous intensity). All of the studies, models and theories, from 35+years ago to the “new studies” of today are circling the same neighborhood of what is needed to maximize health and general fitness benefits!</p>
<p>And MathildaMae, when you talk about 30/10, you could start off at a1:3 ratio of intense interval to recovery with 1 minute of intense, work your way down to 1:1 with 1 minute work intervals, then increase the work intervals to 90 seconds and revert to 1:3, work your way down to 1:1 and continue to progress until you are at a 1:2 ratio of work to recovery with a 10 minute duration of the work interval.</p>
<p>Highly unscientific, but empiracly speaking short stints can certainly improve fat loss results and increase strength…FWIW, I did manage to lose 20% of my body weight walking uphill 20 min a day an average of 4x per week IMHO, it helps when there’s snow for extra resistance, and when using ski poles to increase heart rate. Anyone with a limited amount of time or who really needs to habituate a wee bit of movement into their lives despite disease or conditions that contraindicate a more robust approach can make it mean something by short but intense sessions, I suspect (eg uphill, or airdyne intervals or even just using ski poles.)</p>
<p>By comparison, my H, who by attrition was eating pretty much only what I served but was not engaged in any activity at all lost 10% of his body weight over the same time period.</p>
<p>In terms of tone, the above hill walking/lower-ish carb combo was later enhanced by a mere addition of about 3, 12 min. sessions of planks and kettlebells.</p>
<p>Now, in maintenance mode and often eating/drinking like an idiot, I average closer to 40 min. 3x a week, usually due to to scheduling mess-ups…but half of that is aquajogging and not nearly as intense as the uphill portion of the walking. When the pool closes, which will be soon, I aim to replace the aquajogging with a few survival minutes on the airdyne.</p>
<p>The payoff beyond supporting the weightloss is just general strength and a significant reduction in complication of my facet joint syndrome – with the stronger core to support my spine I can do a lot more and feel good doing it. I’ve noticed these things over the last year or so…endurance installing 1,000 feet of vinyl floating flooring…unloading trucks full of furniture…weed whacking a half-acre section of lot…being able to paint on a ladder for 6-8 hours…being able to cut down five small trees on the hill or cut up a large one and haul the wood. </p>
<p>Those are things I really couldn’t do 12 years ago when I was walking with a cane and in pain daily :)</p>
<p>So how much is enough? Truly, anything – and a sustained anything – is better than nothing ;)</p>
<p>Kmcmom13, sounds like you’re doing a lot of functional movement training! and yes, a sustained anything is better than nothing. Our bodies are made to move. A whole host of problems, cardiovascular, postural, muscle imbalances and dysfunctional compensations, all stem from the sedentary lifestyles that occupational shifts (i.e. desk jobs) and concepts of recreation (anything with a video screen) have created.</p>
<p>The type of cardio training a person does should obviously be tailored to that person’s goals. I would never, ever recommend as appropriate to a client who is seeking general fitness and health or even weight loss/maintenance that the client do the kinds of cycling training I do. It’s too time consuming, often too intense to be any “fun” and wholly unnecessary for those goals. You don’t need to be riding 10-12 hrs a week, with heart rates at 84-90% max for hour and a half or more during the course of the ride just to be healthy and fit. And when you talk about “sustained”, ya gotta think not just in the short term of the particular activity, but in terms of an enduring lifestyle. Any program that undermines long term adherence because it doesn’t well match a person’s goals and other lifestyle needs is worthless, regardless of what theory of exercise happens to be in vogue at the moment.</p>
<p>Holy moly, I ran really fast today. A 5K in under 28 minutes. This was a local race to benefit a local nonprofit – I could walk to it – and there were only about 100 runners (which I’m sure the organizers were not happy about). I was feeling pretty good about my chances in my age group until the horn blew, and then about 3/4 of the runners whizzed by me. They were fast! I did my first mile in 8.18, which I am in total shock about – but it does explain how I was feeling during the race. </p>
<p>After the race I was chatting with another runner, who told me that the first place finishers in each age group get $50, which explains the fast pace. I hadn’t known! Didn’t place in the top three, which I don’t care about since I ran a personal best. </p>
<p>The one piece of fitness advice I got from a trainer, which has kept me on a fitness program for 5+!years, was to find some type of exercise that clicked with me–I didn’t have to love it–just tolerate it. That’s what I’ve tried to do. I have found a few things I really enjoy–spinning, weight training (mostly free weights/kettle bells) and most recently Vinaysa yoga. I’m easily bored so I like to mix things up–plus I work at home so going to a gym/yoga studio is a good break for me. Early on–15-20 minutes wouldn’t have worked for me–it takes me that long to start to feel OK–even when I do a warmup. </p>
<p>Still nursing a nasty cold. Trail walking (2 miles) was all I could manage.</p>
<p>Fireandrain - great run and a wonderful PR. I love small races. I would have gladly contributed my entry fee towards the cause if I had been in the area!</p>
<p>Watched the cyclocross race this morning. Think I’m going to convert a ratty old hybrid bike with new handle bars and a couple cables and give it a shot before I buy another bike . Still hope MNKat !</p>
<p>Had another 1 1/2 hour l27 HR session after the browns game. Think I’m improving. We’ll see if my mile pace improves tomorrow. Probably should run early as I can’t eat solids tomorrow in preparation for the lovely colonoscopy on Tuesday.</p>
<p>Spent a nice weekend with my wife at ohio state visiting the kids and watching the buckeyes dismantle kent state. We’ve been renting rooms with airbnb lately and like it much better than the hotel route.</p>
<p>Ohiopublic, if you had any good luck with a room in Columbus I’d be curious - I have a daughter who lives down there and we make lots of trips down there.</p>
<p>High temperatures mean continued lower energy workouts outside here in Florida. H and I did a lot of walking this weekend, including 7.5 miles in a state park yesterday: Temperature, about 90; Heartrate, definitely elevated; Sweat, running! Our average pace was slightly over 2 mph but it still felt like a workout. How DOES extreme heat and humidity in exercise work into cardiovascular benefits? Only another month before we’ll have easier 80’s days. With that, I’m headed to the gym with AC!</p>
<p>Extreme heat and humidity do not provide any cardiovascular benefits during training. To the contrary, those conditions present significant risk factors for heat exhaustion or, worse, heat stroke. The combination of those conditions disrupts your body’s thermal regulation systems. There are good charts online that show you the risks at various temp and humidity combinations. Under extreme conditions, working out indoors is advisable. Under less extreme but still above norms of heat and humidity, if exercising outside, cut back significantly on intensity and keep hydrated.</p>
IMHO, it helps when there’s snow for extra resistance, and when using ski poles to increase heart rate. Anyone with a limited amount of time or who really needs to habituate a wee bit of movement into their lives despite disease or conditions that contraindicate a more robust approach can make it mean something by short but intense sessions, I suspect (eg uphill, or airdyne intervals or even just using ski poles.)</p>