At what intensity should i workout

His conclusion is based on his belief that high-intensity interval training interventions will have limited reach, effectiveness, and adoption, and poor implementation and maintenance. In contrast, Batterham maintains that there is genuine potential for scalable, enjoyable high-intensity interval exercise interventions to contribute substantially to addressing areas of public health priority, including prevention and treatment of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Since the idea of engaging in relatively low-volume HIT gained traction as a potentially viable means of conferring multiple health benefits [ 2 ], some prominent researchers have voiced their opposition [ 3 ]. Such arguments propose that HIT has high efficacy but low effectiveness [ 4 ]; simply, that it does work, under optimal controlled circumstances with full compliance, but it will not work in practice.

Herein, I challenge this position. This philosophy informs my approach in this debate. I shall first debunk the main counterarguments to engaging in HIT, exposing the strategy and tactics used by opponents to discredit HIT as a valuable exercise option.

Secondly, I shall seek to convince the reader that HIT could impact public health. Even for HIT detractors its efficacy is not in question 1 ; clearly, engaging in HIT results in a broad spectrum of cardio-metabolic benefits [ 6 — 10 ].

Rather, the main critique of HIT is that not many people will be willing to engage poor reach and that in those who do participate there will be poor adherence and high attrition, such that effectiveness will be low. For example, Hardcastle et al. The authors contend that SIT is likely to be perceived as too hard, leading to avoidance of adoption of the activity, and that those who do participate will drop out due to the associated negative feelings affect.

Here, the authors commit the logical fallacy of the straw man, presenting a particular form of HIT that is easy to knock down. Hardcastle et al. This specific form of training is just one of many possible permutations in HIT programming within the definition given above [ 1 ]. The field has moved on; many research groups are striving to develop and evaluate more practical HIT protocols, with potentially greater reach to a variety of clinical and apparently healthy populations [ 7 , 12 ].

In short, no one is proposing Wingate-based SIT as a strategy to impact public health. I have focused on the Hardcastle et al. This tactic is powerful, as many people will focus on the article title and the success of a straw man argument depends on the audience being uninformed or misinformed regarding the true position. The research evidence typically advanced to justify attacks on HIT based on negative affect and lack of enjoyment is grounded in dual-mode theory [ 13 , 14 ].

However, this body of work was not conducted using contemporary HIT protocols. One cannot take the liberty of extrapolating findings from continuous exercise above the ventilatory threshold to HIT protocols which are very different physiologically and motivationally. Based on this body of work, Biddle et al.

Recent research [ 15 ] counters this prevailing wisdom, with participants reporting comparable exercise enjoyment and confidence to engage in a HIT protocol vs. Certainly, discourse is significant in the construction of ideologies and the attempted marginalisation of one group by another. A common misunderstanding among HIT detractors is the belief that the purpose of HIT interventions is to increase population physical activity levels. The key issue is that in exercise interventions like HIT the exercise behaviour is the independent variable, not the dependent variable.

Health outcomes are what matter to public health commissioners and policy makers — not physical activity levels per se [ 19 ]. The distinction is critical because, as with efforts to prevent the increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes [ 20 ], we have spectacularly and persistently failed to promote physical activity [ 21 ].

One explanation proposed for the failure of physical activity promotion is the focus to date on health benefits, rather than acute and chronic psychological well-being [ 21 ]. Drawing on evolutionary biology and psychology, there is apparently no innate drive to be substantially physically active [ 23 — 26 ].

Rather, in the period in which the current human genome was selected physical activity energy expenditure was inextricably linked to — indeed, driven by — the procurement of food [ 27 ]. In the current environment, this link is broken resulting in the low physical activity energy expenditure typically observed. Supporting this assertion is the fact that countries with a low prevalence of insufficient physical activity are generally those whose economies rely on physical labour [ 21 ].

Therefore, for the majority of us in high-income industrialised countries, engaging in regular and frequent physical activity behaviours requires a conscious cognitive effort [ 25 ]. Consequently, the argument from detractors that HIT will not be effective because it requires high levels of motivation is redundant. From a Darwinian medicine perspective any sustained physical activity or exercise behaviour requires a high level of motivation, as there is no innate drive for it.

In the final section of my pro-HIT case, I advance the hypothesis that a public health campaign based on explaining the mismatch between our genes and our environment — and its consequences for chronic disease [ 28 ] — might be more effective than health promotion based on the carrot of psychological well-being.

Although we might well require a certain high threshold of physical activity for normal physiologic gene expression and health [ 29 ] it is unlikely that as a population we will ever return to the high average physical activity levels of our Palaeolithic ancestors [ 23 , 25 ].

It follows logically that time-efficient interventions like HIT [ 30 , 31 ] — that do not necessarily require expensive specialist equipment or facilities [ 32 , 33 ] - can help us fight chronic disease.

There is great potential for HIT interventions to contribute to addressing areas of public health priority, including prevention and treatment of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. As a potent weapon in waging war on non-communicable disease, HIT should be embraced. Physical activity has become an important element of health promotion in many countries over the past few decades.

Using the behavioural epidemiological framework [ 34 ], before we can roll out successful behaviour change solutions to address the pandemic of societal physical inactivity, we need to be able to identify a.

Regarding the health benefits of physical activity, it has been known for many years that a variety of dose-response curves exist [ 35 ]. Essentially, up to a point, higher doses of physical activity, such as intensity and duration, will yield additional physical health benefits. This is not being disputed here. But in order to determine if more physically demanding forms of physical activity are viable as a public health strategy, we need to consider the correlates and barriers to such behaviours, and whether the behaviours themselves will be adopted.

It is largely pointless if some forms of physical activity are shown to produce significant health gains if few people adopt the behaviours. In recent years, physiologists have shown a great deal of interest in the effects of very high intensities of physical activity. These may last from a few seconds to several minutes, with periods of rest or low-intensity exercise.

Therefore, public health strategies, such as those aimed at tackling the pandemic of physical inactivity, need to attempt to reach the largest population possible. The greatest public health gains will be made by creating at least small changes but across large populations. This is in contrast to large gains in health but in only a small minority of people.

The latter will leave the health of the population largely unaffected. To understand how best to promote more physical activity at the population level we need to understand what factors are associated with greater or lesser levels of physical activity i. These can be numerous and will sometimes differ by population and type of physical activity. Feelings of confidence and competence are key psychological drivers of participation.

This is an oft-cited construct underpinning behavioural choice and maintenance [ 3 ]. While undertaking short bouts of exercise may give people confidence that they can undertake the behaviour, the strenuous nature of HIT might undermine confidence, particularly regarding their ability to sustain such extreme behaviour over time.

This is related to the nature of HIT being psychologically aversive, as discussed later. The Dual-Mode Model of affective responses to exercise makes a number of propositions concerning the association between exercise intensity and affective feeling states [ 36 , 37 ].

While a rebound to more positive feelings is predicted on completion of the exercise, I propose that such aversive psychological states during exercise will predict drop out or a marked reduction in exercise intensity over time during self-regulated exercise bouts. This is likely to be an explanation for results from a trial where inactive overweight adults were randomised to either an aerobic interval training group AIT , maximal volitional intensity training MVIT , or a walking group [ 32 ].

The walking group had fewer adverse events and adherence was particularly low in the two high intensity conditions. Perhaps this is why army drill sergeants and some ill-informed teachers have, for many years, used vigorous exercise as a form of punishment? One important factor often claimed to be associated with participation in physical activity is enjoyment, although the evidence is a little more complex than one might imagine [ 3 ].

On one occasion a former physiology colleague, when questioned about HIT being appropriate for all but a few people, stated that they enjoyed high intensity exercise more. When asked for supportive evidence, I was shown the paper by Bartlett et al.

However, while ratings of enjoyment, using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale PACES [ 39 ], were indeed higher for the participants in a HIT running protocol than for continuous running, the sample comprised just 8 healthy, recreationally active men who were young, lean and fit. Such a study has no public health relevance. Her training videos and workouts, located in the Precor Coaching Center, are grounded in exercise science and inspired by popular trends and proven training methods.

Mindset Lead your mind, lead your life. Julian Gets Back in Gear. Isabel Beats Incredible Odds. Allies Share Their Pride. Move your body, move your life. Jennifer Finds the Power to Persevere. Adam Finds Fitness and Friendship. Kelli Shaped A New Life. How Greg Got Back in the Game. Feed your health, feed your life. Snack Attack! Activity tracker An activity tracker can be used to count steps, determine distance traveled and monitor other fitness information.

Regular exercise can make your heart stronger and more efficient. Laskowski says the actual numbers aren't as important as the effects. Thank you for Subscribing Our Housecall e-newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest health information. Please try again. Something went wrong on our side, please try again. Show references Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed April 16, Know your target heart rates for exercise, losing weight and health.

American Heart Association. Accessed April 17, Physical activity adult. Rochester, Minn. Fletcher GF, et al. Exercise standards for testing and training: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Riebe D, et al. Philadelphia, Pa. Bushman BA, et al.

Laskowski ER expert opinion. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. April 22, See also 10, steps 5K training schedule Exercise warm-up Aerobic exercise Air pollution and exercise Ankle weights for fitness walkers Barefoot running shoes Buying athletic shoes?

Check your arch Buying new workout shoes? Get the right fit Choose the right walking shoes Cycle your way to better health Do you need to warm up before you exercise? Elliptical machines: Better than treadmills? Exercise: Are you working hard enough? Exercise for weight loss: Calories burned in 1 hour Exercise: How much do I need? Exercising: Does taking the stairs count? Take it up a notch Focus on fit when shoe shopping Walking schedule Healthy heart for life: Avoiding heart disease How much exercise do you need?

Interval Training Kids and exercise Vary your cardiovascular workouts Exercise and opioids Interval training Aquatic exercises Step it up with an activity tracker The real secret to a healthy heart Time for new walking shoes? Tired of walking alone?

Team up! Walking for fitness: Overcoming setbacks Walking for fitness: Staying motivated Walking for fitness: Warm up, cool down Walking group Walking and trackers Walking poles Walking shoes Walking for fitness Walking with ankle weights? Want a strong brain? Want to get more active? Here are six basic questions about HIIT, answered.

HIIT workouts generally combine short bursts of intense exercise with periods of rest or lower-intensity exercise. At fitness studios and online, these workouts often mix aerobic and resistance training. To be clear, most of the interval workouts researchers have studied focus solely on aerobic exercise. What differentiates HIIT or SIT from the steady-state, continuous types of exercise — jogging at an even pace or walking, for example — is the intervals, those periods of heart-pounding intensity.

If you want to try it, you can simply take a HIIT class, or run or even walk in a way that involves higher-speed and higher-incline bursts. It involves a warmup, followed by four four-minute intervals again, where your heart rate reaches past 80 percent of its maximum capacity , each interspersed with a three-minute recovery period, and finished off with a cool-down.

And you can substitute jogging with other aerobic exercises, such as biking or swimming. The whole routine should take 40 minutes. A shorter, and also heavily studied, example of an interval routine is the by-1 , which involves 10 one-minute bursts of exercise each followed by one minute of recovery. The single most well-established benefit of interval training has to do with heart health. Intervals can boost cardio-respiratory health with a smaller time investment compared to continuous forms of exercise.

Consider this SIT study , in which Gibala and his co-authors followed two groups of participants for 12 weeks: One group worked out for 10 minutes including several intervals that added up to one minute , and the other for 50 minutes at a continuous pace. The most remarkable finding in the study was that the two groups of exercisers saw the same improvement in their oxygen uptake, despite their varying time commitments.

In a study , Gibala and his fellow researchers got a group of overweight and obese sedentary adults to do three workouts per week, for a total of 30 minutes of exercise. Each workout included three second intervals of fast pedaling on an exercise bike.