What good does short (but regular and strenuous) exertion do, health-wise?

[Toxylon]

Steady-state cardio, as outlined above by Marxxx, has been basically debunked ages ago. Almost no-one does five hours of cardio at 65 - 85% max heart rate any more. Bodybuilders shed fat down to single digits with Tabata intervals all right. And it’s not just Bbuilders and dieters who use them. They’re the way to go for both aerobic conditioning and fat loss for people with life outside the track and gym.

http://cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM

Strength Training, Bodybuilding & Online Supplement Store

Plus a thousand other articles online.

Also, the OP didn’t specify changes in metabolism, but asked for any health benefits. It’s simply not true that climbing stairs five days a week isn’t beneficial for an out-of-shape, sedentary person.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Markxxx

Calorie burning doesn’t accumulate. This is because your body will compensate for any additional calorie burning.

Unless you do sustained exercise over long periods your metabolism won’t change. This means at least one hour of exercise (where your heartbeat is 65% to 85% of your theoretical maximum) per day for five days per week.

Otherwise if you climb stairs and burn off say an additional 200 calories at night when you rest, your body will simply lower the metabolism to make up for it, the net result is no weight loss.

This is why the programs that advocate, walk more lose weight never work. You don’t gain any benefit from slightly altering your exercise.

I was involved in a sports med study and it was really surprising how much your body doesn’t want to lose weight. You have to force it.

If you just take the stairs instead of an elevator, the risk of falling and hurting yourself is greater than any benefit you’d gain. The same goes for walking short distances instead of a taxi or bus. You’re more apt to fall and hurt yourself than gain any caloric or heart benefit.

You HAVE to work out. Sixty minutes seems to be the threashhold. In the famous John Hopkins study they found those doing 50 minutes of cardio had NO benefit for their heart. It was if they sat around and did nothing. Those who did 60 minutes or more, gained A LOT more.

Unless you raise your heart rate over a sustained period of time, which is defined as 60 CONTINUOUS minutes, five times a week, you won’t be doing much if anything at all.

This is why these 20 or 30 minute exercise programs fail.

Um, I’m not an expert or anything, but this seems to fly in the face of pretty much anything I’ve ever learned about fitness.

According to the Mayo Clinic

Guidelines recommend that you get at least 30 to 60 minutes of moderately intense physical activity most days of the week. However, even shorter amounts of exercise offer heart benefits, so if you can’t meet those guidelines, don’t give up. You can even break up your workout time into 10-minute sessions and still get the same benefits

The idea that you can’t lose weight with a small caloric deficit every day makes no sense either. I’ve been exercising daily for an average of 30-45 minutes per day and in the last two months I’ve lost 8 pounds. That is leaving aside the 50 pounds I’ve lost and kept off without even coming close to exercising 60 minutes a day. I am currently dependent on exercise to provide a small daily caloric deficit of 250 calories or so to lose weight, and it’s working just fine. It works for me and thousands of other people on this fitness and nutrition website, so I’m struggling to understand how this could possibly be true.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, really, I just want to know the truth.

[Telemark]

@olivesmarch4th

I am not trying to give you a hard time, really, I just want to know the truth.

I agree, I think Markxxx was a bit off the mark (sorry) with his reply. More exercise is better, but any exercise is good. And while keeping active for extended periods of time is also better, adding up shorter exercise periods isn’t bad either.

[barbitu8]

@Telemark

I agree, I think Markxxx was a bit off the mark (sorry) with his reply. More exercise is better, but any exercise is good. And while keeping active for extended periods of time is also better, adding up shorter exercise periods isn’t bad either.

Ditto. Every source that I have read have stated that even as little as ten minutes a day will provide benefits. Years ago I read that 30 minutes of running provides optimal benefits. You will get more benefit if you run longer, but the benefits will not be proportionate to the time spent, unless you are training for endurance events.

[Swallowed_My_Cellphone]

Getting your muscles used to activity is also generally helpful. When it comes time to add more to your activity level, your muscles won’t be super-weanie. You’ll be able to increase your exercise that much more easily.

[Zsofia]

That 60 minute thing is clearly bullshit, as I saw a very marked improvement in my cardio health (I could run without my heart pounding its way out of my chest) on Couch to 5K, where you never get anywhere near 60 minutes.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Got my start in marathon training ascending a 14k mountain. Marathon runner told me intensity of training doesn’t matter much next to number of minutes spent with an elevated heart rate. Applied advice, it seemed true.

You will benefit from exercise you find challenging. With practice you’ll grow stronger. At some point you can practice the 60 minute workout and decide for yourself how important it is.

[pulykamell]

@Markxxx

In the famous John Hopkins study they found those doing 50 minutes of cardio had NO benefit for their heart. It was if they sat around and did nothing.

I simply do not believe this. I’d be curious to see the study, and by what exactly you mean with “no benefit for the heart.” I generally run about 5 miles a day (<40 minutes). My resting pulse has gone from the mid-60s to 45. My pulse after exercise drops 40+ bpm in the first minute, where before I started running again, I was panting like a dog after a brisk walk up and down the stairs a couple times and it took me 10+ minutes to get back under 100. If this is not the signs of a healthier cardiovascular system, I don’t know what is. 60+ minutes is a “long run” day for most runners, and generally done once a week.

In fact, the most recent studies I’ve read seem to indicate that shorter (about 20 minutes), but more intense, cardio workouts are perhaps better for overall fitness than long, steady state running. I prefer longer steady state, with intervals in once a week to vary the pace (because intervals are killer), but, frankly, I cannot see how it’s possible that 50 minutes of cardio is of no benefit to the heart.