Hacker News Reader

Running and walking seems to be particularly good for thinking. Could be a link to our evolution, or the fact that it’s a simple exercise you don’t have to focus on and are free to think.

Sports are great for getting in the zone but usually too mentally taxing for background thinking. Boxing, for example, is amazing relaxation but you really can’t think about anything else during a round.

Sometimes high intensity stop all other thoughts is exactly what the brain needs. Other times prolonged low intensity gives just the space you need to hear yourself think.

>Sometimes high intensity stop all other thoughts is exactly what the brain needs.

HIIT has been great for the rest of the day as long as I don't overdo it, but yeah, completely focused on the workout during that.

I find HIIT doesn’t do it for me. Can’t push myself hard enough in such short bursts because I have ridiculous cardio conditioning* from running. Boxing is great because it’s hiit but with technique and tactics and strategy.

* ridiculous conditioning in that I can keep average heart rate at 155bpm for 2 hours no problem. Most hiit isn’t long enough to get me above 110

What do you normally do to get to a 155 bpm heart rate? Not an expert but when I've done HIIT workouts, they've always started with a mild warm up to elevate the heart rate. Maybe you'd benefit from something more strenuous to start.

Sprint up hill or grab onto straps and try repeated jumps into the air from a deep squat. Try adding a weighted vest if this isn't enough. If that doesn't work you should join the Navy Seals.

Thanks, however I have no issue getting my outta shape heart to 155 bpm! Was wondering if OP needed a stronger warmup to get their heart rate in the "target zone" for the HIIT work.

Continuous fartlek style running will get you to 155+ bpm. Back off the pace to actively recover to 120 bpm, then go after it again.

Problem is, you need to be fit to do this right, reducing the risk of injury. Always preferred fartlek to repeat intervals on the track. Both have their place however.

If anyone is new to fartleks, it’s a Swedish word that means ‘speed play’. They’re an excellent tool for training.

Maybe be careful the first few times you type that on a phone - my poor running coach got a lot of text messages about ‘fart leaks’ when I was trying to report on my training. They are not the same.

Edit - If you’d like to try one, Mona fartleks are pretty well known.

https://www.runnerstribe.com/features/the-mona-fartlek-a-cla...

Oh yes, I remember giggling at Fartlek in high school.

Few terms are more perfectly suited to the high school mind.

2 hours of running at 4:45/km keeps your heart rate nice and high.

When I ran a marathon in 3:24:xx my average heart rate was 170bpm.

I have a lengthy background in hiit (specifically CrossFit). And I say this in the most polite way possible.

You're doing HIIT wrong if you cannot elevate your heart rate beyond 110 bpm. Whatever you're doing, there's a huge gap in the training programming/protocol.

Everyone suffers in CrossFit. Everyone.

Can confirm. It’s pretty easy to elevate heart rate while doing HIIT. Even if you do it for 10 years.

I agree. My problem is that I am unable to push myself hard enough for such short periods. My explosivity isn’t good enough.

And I have fast recovery which makes typical rest periods too long compared to how hard I’m able to push myself during the thing.

Probably would work better if I got a personal trainer to push me specifically rather than in a group/video setting

HIIT with heavy weights works very well for me, but I don’t have those available at home. When gyms are open I prefer boxing anyway :)

The training with weights is something else. Olympic weightlifting as part of a metcon is just a different level of physical fitness.

Good luck finding stuff that keeps you interested. That’s all that matters.

Seconded. Did HIIT and Crossfit stuff off and on for a while.

The main difference between being fit and not fit, when it comes to HIIT, is that you can do more burpiees or curls or whatever in the 45 second period.

It still sucks just as much, but your high-score is better.

HIIT means all-out sprints with short rests in between, but that's (unfortunately) not how it's presented in social media sometimes. No matter your shape, running all-out sprints in that particular way will get you to the max heart rate. It's just there are too many people misusing the word now.

You won't get to max HR from a 40 meter dash.

No, of course not, but that's not the correct protocol for HIIT. The first few intervals definitely don't get you to max heart rate, that's why the rest periods are kept short.

I thought they present it as ratios as well, so 1:1 is 1 minute on, 1 minute off, or 2m on, 2m off. They give different ratios depending on your level of conditioning, so like 2:1 for fit folks or 1:2 if you're not as fit. I've heard max effort most of the time, but some others have just recommended doing what feels comfortable for newer folks.

I got it from searching on google scholar, there were lots of papers on it because it's both a buzzword and a seemingly effective training technique for even high-level athletes. The basic issue with the whole concept is that it's supposed to produce similar improvements to long steady sessions of cardio, but only very hard efforts with short intervals produce such improvements. So beginners can't really do hard efforts very well, and if they also use long rest periods, and especially if they don't go all-out, then the benefits aren't there for them at all and it just becomes false advertising. I think it's a little sad how a valuable bit of sports science got mangled. If you do all this stuff to save time and you don't even get the benefits, then doing low-intensity cardio is just so much better. I run a lot these days but I can't imagine an all-out anaerobic sprint that's 2m long, it seems both difficult and biologically impossible, I think that's just regular interval training (not high-intensity).

Have you ever tried taking off your shoes at the end of a run, doing some 100m gliders and then hard 40m sprints?? I ran barefoot all last outdoor season so your mileage may vary but I can always get into high intensity zones when I do that.

Or, if that doesn’t do the trick for you, mixing burpees and light jogging is a lot of fun.

You're probably doing it wrong? Try running 400m flat out sprints with 1 min rest between each one and tell me how high your heart rate gets.

According to my watch, I have pretty good recovery. 150bpm down to 120 or less in 1min

Boxing for 10 years trained that into me very well. 1min rest between 3min rounds

As a cyclist, I noticed an interesting difference between road cycling and mountain biking. Road cycling is zen meditation. Great for coming up with solutions. Meanwhile MTB is entirely different. No chance to think. But great to remove built up stress.

In my experience, both is necessary in different life situations. And sometimes both. First reduce stress, then evaluate the source and remove it. Otherwise it’s permanent rollercoaster.

100% agree - never realized this when I got into the sports. Cycling lets me go deep into thought and break things apart. Mountain biking is all action so you can actually tune out.

Someone said that doing highly repetitive exercises like running can cause increase in the stress hormone cortisol and hence we must do that in limit. Is that true?

No offense, but we're supposed to counter argue against an anonymous "someone" for which you don't even provide a source? Post a link, we can go from there.

That said, I've been a competitive distance runner for over 40 years. What adverse effects should I be seeing? 'cuz I can't think of any.

It was my close family who told that. I told him that I got an Peloton bike for exercise. At that point he told me what I wrote above. It was part of a conversation and not a webpage that can be linked. Sorry about that.

Hey friend, you have no reason to apologize. That idea comes from a former endurance athlete turned fitness blogger named Mark Sisson. It’s quite a famous article amongst competitive long distance athletes, mostly because it ignores how we actually train.

Mark Sisson’s entire idea is based off of the idea that long distance athletes train at what’s called tempo pace. Tempo pace is about 80-85% of maximum heart rate.

He went on to argue that consistently training at long distances increases cortisol levels and said this is bad.

There are two problems with this. First, distance runners don’t do all of their training at tempo pace because that’s stupid. Second, cortisol isn’t all bad - the body needs to be over stressed at points in order to create the adaptations that we are exercising for.

Point being, you’ve got to be careful just like you are with any form of exercise. If you destroy your body day after day for long enough, bad things will eventually happen to you.

The important thing to always remember is that more runners die from drinking too much water than die from not drinking enough. Everything can and will kill if taken to the very extreme.

Wow, I didn’t know there was so much backstory to this one. Thanks!

No problem at all. You asked a really good question and deserved a suitable answer. Take care and if you get into running, I hope we get to grind hills together someday!!!

Good luck!!!

This idea comes from Mark Sisson and frankly, if you’ve been a competitive runner for that long, you should likely know that and be prepared to argue it. I’ve been a competitive runner for a fraction of that time and have had this conversation so many times it’s muscle memory.

The article this idea comes from is based on the idea that long distance runners spending their whole runs at 80 - 85% of their max heart rate. That’s only about 20 seconds off my 5k race pace if I want to compete at that distance. There’s no way that I’d keep that pace at distance - my coach would fire me, I’d be an idiot and I’d overtrain myself into oblivion.

So it’s based on a crap premise? No wonder I’ve not heard of it, and for that I make no apologies.

No but you could have been kind and helped someone learn. Instead you chose to respond with ego...just like you did now!

It’s not true. Also cortisol is not actually bad for you in the context of exercise.

Basically, ignore any subject matter that tries to reduce cortisol to being "bad".

Cortisol isn't inherently good or bad. It's context-specific. It's not something you want to universally lower. In fact, if you take supplements or medicine that significantly lowers cortisol (e.g. by inhibiting cortisol synthesis) you'll find that you don't feel very good at all. You need an appropriate amount of cortisol to respond to activities.

Running extreme amounts (100s of miles per week over and over again) should be approached with additional education and appropriate attention to one's health, but generally speaking someone running for fun and paying attention to their body (e.g. don't force yourself to run if your body is telling you to take a break) doesn't need to worry about anything.

Yes, whether results for rodents on a seven week exercise program actually transfer to humans remains to be seen.

But I would like to point out that besides subjective preference and enjoyment, it is quite clear to me that humans are pretty crap compared to everything physical, except for long-distance running.

We are not the fastest. Not the strongest. Not the best swimmers or climbers.

But as an animal, and on a population level, we are really good at jogging.

So besides being useful for endurance hunting, perhaps it is also the kind of upkeep we need to stay healthy physically as well as mentally?

It is the lack of fur allowing sweat cooling that prevents heat stroke that made us the apex predators; we jogged all mega fauna we met to extinction.

Other animals sweat though, like horses, hippos (no fur).

yes those are other not extinct species :)

We know that fundamentally it's our endurance that gives us a physical edge, but I am curious...

> We are not the fastest. Not the strongest. Not the best swimmers or climbers.

Are humans the best in aggregate at all of these? Sure, there is always going to be an animal that is faster in one aspect, but are there other animals that are better than humans at all of them?

I mean if the criteria is just those four: strength, top speed, climbing ability, swimming ability - there's probably a lot of animals that are subjectively better than us.

It would depend on how you measure/aggregate it but off the top of my head you could make an argument for: most large cats, chimpanzee, orangutan, bears, some pigs, etc.

It may be that endurance is all we got. But I was thinking that a chimp is very strong and can climb, but is he any good at running and swimming? A cat is a heck of a runner, but isn't really a great climber aside from specific situations. Humans are fairly adaptable.

But probably it just comes down to our endurance/ability to control body temperature, and big brains to devise creative ways of defeating other animals.

That's one hell of an advantage on the other hand; not only can we move entire populations in a fairly short time-frame (by simply grabbing our things and walk/run there), we can also adapt to the new surroundings and find ways to thrive. It's easy too see how our ancestors and other hominids colonized the entire planet.

A physically peak and coordinated human possibly, but it probably comes down to what traits you're actually comparing. Man's advantage is our ability to make tools and be creative. Without proper training and mental prep the average human isn't that fast, can't climb well, won't swim more than 500 feet. If you put the average human today in the middle of the Amazon with nothing, I don't really know if that works out great for most people.

>We know that rodents enjoy running wheels because they use them voluntarily.

I can think of a lot of behaviors that humans engage in voluntarily that we would not call 'enjoyable', so I am not certain we can state this categorically.

I totally agree with the rest of your statement though, and I would add that people tend to overlook variety as well. Enjoyment is so key, and we tend to enjoy things that are novel. Relative to the cost of a gym membership, it's pretty reasonable to pick up a new activity/active hobby every so often to add to the mix. A plastic kayak, some old skis, a tennis racket. If you are saving 50-100 bucks a month by not paying for a gym, allow yourself the luxury of some new (to you) equipment every couple of months and keep things fresh.

> even if it's just getting outside and seeing other people in passing as you run past

There is nothing social about that at all, that's just not what the word means.

This feels a little harsh. It is known that when humans see other humans doing similar things a bond(empathy) can be created without ever even talking to that person.

When I drive my Jeep and do that little Jeep wave to other Jeeps, that gives me a sense of community with those people(no matter how dumb or weird people driving other cars think it is).

When you run and someone runs past you and you do the little head nod, that is absolutely social, you absolutely relate to that person and create a small social bond.

It's also fun running into those other runners later. I used to run on a 5k trail near my office (for about 5 years), and would see a lot of colleagues later and recognize them from an afternoon or lunchtime run. It created another point of relation for us besides just sharing an office and a mutual boss four levels above us.

Maybe "social" isn't the right word, but it's a break from isolation. I find that going to the gym just to get out of the house and be in the presence of other people seems to make me feel better. I don't really talk to anyone there, unless it happens to be someone I already know.

Social exposure is a broad definition that doesn't necessarily require talking to someone.

Obviously having a conversation with someone is more of a social interaction than sitting quietly in a room with your peers or walking past another person, but any amount of being around people is still more social exposure than being isolated alone in a room.

It's the same reason that coding alone in a private office is different than coding quietly in an open office: Being around people is social exposure.

I've always hated the idea of gyms or solitary exercize because of the social/fun factor. Why do a boring workout when you could play basketball or tennis or a hundred other active social activities. Admittedly it was easier to find sports partners when I was in college but it's still not that hard to find as an adult with a bit of effort.

That's you and that's fine but others prefer more solitary passtimes.

Depends on what you're getting out of the exercise. I never found sports (except when I played soccer regularly) to get me the kind of workout and results I was after (even then I was in great cardio condition and could run for hours, but my upper body was weak). Even my friends who prefer sports still spend a few hours (2-5) a week doing other training, including strength or even just more focused cardio, often selected to support or complement their preferred sport.

Maybe it's the focused isolated strength training that is missing from most sports-as-workout. But I think something like basketball compares favorably to HIIT type of workouts.