3 minutes a day

Wrath Rob

Apparently we're all doing it wrong and most of us can get the benefits of commuting from 3 minutes of exercise a day http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251

But where's the fun in that?

daviesee

It could be a lot of fun.



If you can last for 3 minutes

king_jeffers

Well all the blokes are okay

meanredspider

3 minutes A WEEK

bails87

3 minutes of intense exercise?

I suppose if my commute was really, really intense I could do the 15 miles in 3 minutes...

meanredspider

bails87 wrote:

3 minutes of intense exercise?

I suppose if my commute was really, really intense I could do the 15 miles in 3 minutes...

I think (IIRC) it's even less than that. It's 3x 20sec balls-out exertions. Thing is it only works for some people. Equally, if I've read the article properly, for some people exercise of any sort/duration won't improve their fitness.

Interesting (for me at least - being in the "industry") that insulin response is improved by this very mild exercise regime which is important for people at risk from Type 2 diabetes (a lot of us these days)

bails87

meanredspider wrote:

bails87 wrote:

3 minutes of intense exercise?

I suppose if my commute was really, really intense I could do the 15 miles in 3 minutes...

I think (IIRC) it's even less than that. It's 3x 20sec balls-out exertions. Thing is it only works for some people. Equally, if I've read the article properly, for some people exercise of any sort/duration won't improve their fitness.

Interesting (for me at least - being in the "industry") that insulin response is improved by this very mild exercise regime which is important for people at risk from Type 2 diabetes (a lot of us these days)

Yeah, it is less than that. didn't he say he'd only done 4 minutes of intense exercise at the end of the 4 weeks? :?

meanredspider

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, it is less than that. didn't he say he'd only done 4 minutes of intense exercise at the end of the 4 weeks? :?

Actually he said 12minutes of high-intensity and 36 of low - so I'm slightly confused. Whatever, it didn't improve his fitness.

jonny_trousers

I'm looking forward to watching Horizon on the subject tonight.

iPete

Great show so far, set to record for my housemates who don't believe in diets!

fossyant

Watching the other side. Fatties working hard as you should.

suzyb

See all those people who say they are thin on the inside may not be lying

rjsterry

Just watching The Truth About Exercise programme now: some fascinating bits of information, most notably that a one-size-fits-all message about how much exercise we should be doing is next to useless given the wide variation in responses to exercise.

The bit about 3 minutes is the idea that high intensity exercise - riding an exercise bike flat out for 3 minutes - is that the intensity breaks down glycogen stored in the muscles much more effectively than steady aerobic exercise. his then triggers other improvements in insulin resistance and other measures of health.

Another angle was looking at NEAT - Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis - basically not sitting down for any length of time. The presenter managed to add an extra 500 calories worth of activity to his day without any exercise.

Very thought provoking.

rick_chasey

Anyone else feel pretty smug after that ?

And, well, jealous that we can't find out where we sit on the various charts...?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else feel pretty smug after that ?

And, well, jealous that we can't find out where we sit on the various charts...?

I think it's fairly clear that most of us who commute regularly are reasonably high responders to exercise, some of us very high responders. Having said that, there are a fair few names on the SC Weight Loss thread, and some people obviously find it difficult to shed weight even though their fitness might be pretty high, and they get a fair few miles into a week, so maybe there is more of use than might first be apparent.

meanredspider

Some interesting stuff.

I did some tests on myself today as part of a bit of training I'm doing at work. I did my 15-mile commute and then tested my blood glucose levels. The bit that surprised me a bit was how high my blood glucose level was on getting to work - it's exactly as the program suggests - the body mobilises glycogen so my blood glucose levels on arriving at work was the highest I've measured. Within 1.5 hours it was back to my normal level.

It's certainly not expensive to measure your blood glucose levels - just pick up a meter at your local chemist.

rick_chasey

One thing I wished they'd done was compare the HIT regieme to a more conventional one - doing say, an hour exercise a day. What if you're doing serious interval sessions like the hour of power pretty regularly - are you going to find more benefit or does it plateau?

But then I got the impression it was very much aimed at people who do no exercise regularly - which, apparently, is anywhere between 2/3s and 4/5ths depending on which expert they asked.

iPete

Yes, it was very much aimed at improving general health as opposed to being SCR competitive. I did chuckle when he pulled a muscle in the warm up!

suzyb

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else feel pretty smug after that ?

And, well, jealous that we can't find out where we sit on the various charts...?

Yep. Even though I don't do very much exercise I still do a lot more than half the rest of the population

cyclingprop

So was this purely about insulin response rather than general health?

meanredspider

cyclingprop wrote:

So was this purely about insulin response rather than general health?

No - but it was one of the benefits they were looking at measuring. And, since the presenter's own insulin response improved by 25% just through this short, sharp exercise, HIT could have benefits in avoiding Type 2 diabetes.

What we don't know from the program ( because the presenter was a non-responder) is how well HIT works for aerobic fitness or how it compares to conventional fitness methods (like commuting by bike).

Worth a watch though as it improved my understanding of the body's response to exercise

itboffin

Sounds to me like the old 15 min turbo-session-of-hell is just the ticket then, there are very few times when i'm commuting that i put the same effort in as i do on a turbo, i can't imagine riding to the station flat out then spending 1.15+ hrs on a packet commuter train.

meanredspider

I think that they were suggesting that conventional exercise was fine but wasn't for everyone. The idea behind HIT is that it achieves similar gains in aerobic fitness and insulin response as conventional exercise but in a fraction of the time required (about 5 minutes 3x a week).

pst88

Well I guess I must be a nonresponder. I've been commuting by bike for years and I'm probably fatter now than when I started. Seems like no amount of exercise will help me, it's all down to genetics.

rjsterry

itboffin wrote:

Sounds to me like the old 15 min turbo-session-of-hell is just the ticket then, there are very few times when i'm commuting that i put the same effort in as i do on a turbo, i can't imagine riding to the station flat out then spending 1.15+ hrs on a packet commuter train.

You'd get more space Did you just try this?

mudcow007

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else feel pretty smug after that ?

And, well, jealous that we can't find out where we sit on the various charts...?

I think it's fairly clear that most of us who commute regularly are reasonably high responders to exercise, some of us very high responders. Having said that, there are a fair few names on the SC Weight Loss thread, and some people obviously find it difficult to shed weight even though their fitness might be pretty high, and they get a fair few miles into a week, so maybe there is more of use than might first be apparent.

like me!

funnily enough i was having a conversation with someone about it last night. i think literally anyone could get on a bike an pedal at 6mph all day long - does that mean that person has a certain level of fitness?

equally i can plod along at 16mph an not get out if breathe/ ache but if i push my self to ride at a constant 19+ i feel achey an get out of breathe after a while

i ride upwards of 20 miles per day now an still haven't lost any weight at all....granted i think its the fuel you put in is important - more so than the exercise

iPete

pst88 wrote:

Well I guess I must be a nonresponder. I've been commuting by bike for years and I'm probably fatter now than when I started. Seems like no amount of exercise will help me, it's all down to genetics.

The best bit was the home truth at the start when they pointed out how much exercise you need to burn a coffee, a banana and a muffin. I need to show my house mate who moans about weight, goes for a 30minute run then overcompensates on food and moans about nothing changing. Not saying you do mind

Was certainly interesting or scary even about how much fat ends up in your blood if you don't exercise, I do love a fry up :shock:

dhope

iPete wrote:

pst88 wrote:

Well I guess I must be a nonresponder. I've been commuting by bike for years and I'm probably fatter now than when I started. Seems like no amount of exercise will help me, it's all down to genetics.

The best bit was the home truth at the start when they pointed out how much exercise you need to burn a coffee, a banana and a muffin. I need to show my house mate who moans about weight, goes for a 30minute run then overcompensates on food and moans about nothing changing. Not saying you do mind

Was certainly interesting or scary even about how much fat ends up in your blood if you don't exercise, I do love a fry up :shock:

One day my metabolism is going to stop pampering me and then I'm in for a shock. Commuting + gym is all well and good, but the amount I eat... :shock:

team47b

meanredspider wrote:

Some interesting stuff.

I did some tests on myself today as part of a bit of training I'm doing at work. I did my 15-mile commute and then tested my blood glucose levels. The bit that surprised me a bit was how high my blood glucose level was on getting to work - it's exactly as the program suggests - the body mobilises glycogen so my blood glucose levels on arriving at work was the highest I've measured. Within 1.5 hours it was back to my normal level.

It's certainly not expensive to measure your blood glucose levels - just pick up a meter at your local chemist.

It would depend on whether you tested before breakfast and twice (about 15 minutes apart after breakfast) before you set off on your commute to know whether your blood glucose was going up or down. If the level is high it is possible to drive it higher through exercise. If it was below 100mg/dl you can drive it down to below 70mg/dl (hypo/bonk) thereby triggering a glycogen response from your liver flooding your system and raising BG significantly. I have gone from 160mg/dl to 65mg/dl (hypo level 70mg/dl) in 20 minutes of hard-ish cycling.

The key factor is intensity of exercise. Moderate cycling uses blood glucose already in the blood from the carbs you have just eaten, hard-ish cycling (technical term) uses blood glucose and glycogen, and intense cycling uses muscle glycogen almost exclusively. It is not strictly about insulin resistance/sensitivity. There will be less insulin in your system with exercise. As one of insulin's jobs is to store fat, this is will help reduce fat around your organs a development 'cause' of type 2 diabetes.

You are right to suggest that everyone buys a glucose meter, then they would know on a ride, how much to eat and at what time. It would also increase the sales of test strips and hopefully drive down the cost to a point that the NHS could afford to allow diabetics to test more frequently than once a week! (rant over!)

il_principe

Mmmm. I thought it was an interesting programme, but really of no relevance to us cycle commuters. What I didn't understand was would following a HIT regime make you healthier, but not necessarily fitter? I got into work today and my boss was talking about it. He basically said "so all that cycling you do is pointless." I suggested that he follow the HIT regime for 3 months and then try cycling up some mountains, he declined.

How bloody depressing would it be to discover you're a non-responder? 2 of my colleagues have already decided that they are...

rjsterry

Il Principe wrote:

Mmmm. I thought it was an interesting programme, but really of no relevance to us cycle commuters. What I didn't understand was would following a HIT regime make you healthier, but not necessarily fitter? I got into work today and my boss was talking about it. He basically said "so all that cycling you do is pointless." I suggested that he follow the HIT regime for 3 months and then try cycling up some mountains, he declined.

How bloody depressing would it be to discover you're a non-responder? 2 of my colleagues have already decided that they are...

Indeed. I think the main thrust of it was that the official government advice is so general as to not be much use. the wide variety of responses to exercise means that some will benefit from a couple of hours of moderate exercise a week, while some will do better on the HIT regime. They also point out that a small proportion will not respond to exercise at all. I do worry that this will get dumbed down to "you don't really need to do very much" - leaving out the intensity - or people assuming that they are non-responders - so why bother - because they have terrible diet.