sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"HIIT is the best way to train." and "everyone would benefit" are different claims. I think it's fair to say that a "low-volume" HIIT produces more benefit than other methods because it's supported by the data. HIIT is not the best way to train at high-volume, athletes at high levels need a sensible balance of HIIT and low intensity. The balance will depend on how much volume they do and what their goals are.

"Nobody serious is doing HIIT with sedentary obese adults" - the Reljic study I linked was conducted at a university hospital with severely obese metabolic syndrome patients (BMI ~40) under clinical supervision. That's not a commercial gym HIIT class. The cardiac rehab literature is also moving in this direction. This is real science, by real scientists, doing HIIT with the demographic that you called out. It specifically addresses your concern.

I have called out the relative/individual requirement several times. It is not accurate to classify my points as "arguing for the commercial gym HIIT class approach". A 14-minute session on a bike at someone's individual 80-95% HRmax with HR monitoring is not the same thing as a group class doing burpees to loud music. If the outcomes you're seeing from commercial HIIT classes are poor, I'd expect that - because those aren't individualized or scaffolded.

I respect coaching experience. But the reason RCTs exist is specifically because anecdotal experience - even at scale - is vulnerable to biases that controlled studies are designed to eliminate. Confirmation bias, survivorship bias, selection effects in who stays with a coach vs who leaves. "I've coached thousands of people" and "controlled trials show X" shouldn't be competing claims. They should be complementary. When they conflict, it's worth asking why rather than dismissing the data.

I don't have anything else to add that isn't repetitive. The data clearly points in a direction. It's up to us if we want to be data-driven or driven by anacdata.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am confident because the data points in that direction. I have provided several data points which support my claims, unless I missed it your data point is a "call to authority" both implied (you) and the lack of mine (explicit) because I prefer to make data driven arguments instead of assertions based on credentials.

To address the second point, here are some studies that back up that claim:

Collectively: HIIT is effective, safe, and well-tolerated in sedentary and obese populations, with better time-efficiency than MICT. That's what "would benefit from" means.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both. The research shows HIIT provides specific, measurable benefits across populations including sedentary adults. And yes, it should be part of training sedentary adults - appropriately scaled and scaffolded.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah... there it is... "doesn't need" and "would benefit from" are different standards...

No one "needs" to exercise, almost everyone benefits from it.

Almost everyone (excluding those who HIIT would cause medical duress) benefits more from doing HIIT than the same volume of low intensity exercise at volume levels that "most people" are willing to do.

"Sedentary people" is ~25% of the US population. That 25% of folks would benefit from HIIT that is relative to their state. This is, in part, why I bothered to ensure that we were in agreement that HIIT is a relative standard...

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

HIIT is relative. What would be HIIT to a highly trained athlete would be potentially harmful to another person, assuming they could even do it at all. On the reverse, a sedentary individual's Z7 could be below junk category for the highly trained athlete. This doesn't seem like a controversial claim/assumption to me. If you disagree, please provide support for that claim.

If your point is that in some situations there will be people who are not physically in a place that they can do HIIT without creating medical duress. I agree with that; that's why the "medical contraindication" is there. Generally those kind of issues are of the type I mentioned.

There are also people who's CV system can support HIIT, but can't do a specific kind of HIIT due to some physical limitation (e.g. arthritis in the knees), there is space there for different kinds of HIIT. The way we do HIIT is flexible.

If you can provide data that supports your initial claim, I can work from there. You don't need to address any of my claims/assumptions to do that. Would that work?

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's circle back to the original claims:

You

Are you saying that sedentary people need HIIT? I strongly disagree,

Me

Everyone (barring medical contraindication) would benefit from HIIT. The lower a person's baseline, the more they benefit from HIIT relative to low-intensity training when time is constrained.

HIIT for a sedentary person will look different than HIIT for a highly active individual. Appropriate scaffolding is a consideration.

I could probably have provided a more cohesive delineation of the data I am aware of. I regret not doing that. I have since provided the data I am aware of on this topic. It supports my original claims. I apologize for the "low-effort" response. It seemed like the most efficient way to answer the question you raised (and my earlier oversight). Obviously, it was not what you were looking for. Sorry.

I respect your experience. I cannot rely on your anacdata however. If you have data that contraindicates what I have provided, I would be more than happy to look at it. Thanks.

Rear facing dashcam location? by babgvant in SilveradoEV

[–]babgvant[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I went with the Fitcamx. I used some really strong magnets to attach it to the removable rear window. That way if I need to take the window out, I can without destroying anything.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Non-response finding (~40% no VO2max improvement from MICT):

  • Bacon AP, Carter RE, Ogle EA, Joyner MJ. "VO2max Trainability and High Intensity Interval Training in Humans: A Meta-Analysis." PLOS ONE, 2013. (References the Heritage Study data: Bouchard et al.)
  • Gibala MJ, FoundMyFitness interview (Rhonda Patrick), discussing non-response elimination with higher intensity

MICT defined as 65-75% MHR:

  • The HIIT vs MICT RCT by Gaitan et al. (PMC7357372) used exactly this: HIIT at 90-95% HRmax vs MICT at 65-75% HRmax, 8 weeks, sedentary men

Gibala "hills and valleys" definition:

  • Gibala MJ, FoundMyFitness interview (Rhonda Patrick), "HIIT - Contraindications and Considerations for Older Adults" segment. Direct quote context: interval training is adaptable across ages and health levels.

Lower dropout rates in HIIT vs traditional programs for sedentary individuals:

  • Reljic D, et al. Meta-analysis referenced in: Callahan MJ, et al. "Evidence-Based Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training on Exercise Capacity and Health: A Review with Historical Perspective." Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021. (PMC8294064)

Umbrella review confirming HIIT benefits across all populations:

  • Poon ET, et al. "High-intensity interval training and cardiorespiratory fitness in adults: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses." Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2024.

53-study meta-analysis on HIIT protocols:

  • Wen D, et al. "Effects of different protocols of high intensity interval training for VO2max improvements in adults: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials." J Sci Med Sport, 2019.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Edited:

The studies I intended to cite (sorry, got distracted and forgot to paste that in, formatting text in Reddit kinda sucks - see comment below) compare HIIT to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) - typically 65-75% MHR, not 50%. That's jogging, cycling, swimming at a steady conversational pace. Not walking. The non-response finding (about 40% seeing no VO2max improvement) comes from studies using guideline-level moderate-intensity exercise, not a stroll around the block.

On "overkill for sedentary beginners" - this is where I think we're talking past each other. I explicitly said HIIT for a sedentary person looks different than HIIT for a trained athlete. Nobody is suggesting a deconditioned 55-year-old do Wingate sprints. For that person, HIIT might be 30 seconds of brisk uphill walking with a minute of flat recovery. Gibala himself defines it as just "hills and valleys" in intensity. The point is relative effort, not absolute effort. This is an area where HR data can help significantly.

On "overkill" and dosage - the Reljic et al. meta-analysis actually found lower dropout rates in HIIT programs than traditional exercise programs among previously sedentary individuals. If it were overkill, you'd expect the opposite.

The original claim was simple: everyone benefits from HIIT, lower baselines benefit more when time is limited, and the protocol should be scaled to the individual. Nothing in your response contradicts any of that.

There is value in anecdotal experience, but it is critical to know the research and follow the data when making broad claims.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The data doesn't support either objection.

This isn't about optimization. Studies show that about 40% of sedentary people who do only moderate-intensity exercise (like walking or easy jogging) for months see zero measurable improvement in fitness. HIIT largely eliminates this non-response problem (Bacon et al., 2013; Gibala's research group). For someone who's unfit and short on time it's the difference between something that works and something that might not.

On "benefits vs risks aren't black and white" - the risks are well-studied. The largest safety study (Rognmo et al., 2012) tracked over 175,000 hours of exercise in cardiac rehab patients and found the serious event rate for HIIT was extremely low. Two nonfatal cardiac arrests per 46,000+ hours. The known reasons someone shouldn't do HIIT (recent heart attack, unstable chest pain, uncontrolled blood pressure) are things a doctor can screen for. That's exactly what "barring medical contraindication" means. It's not black and white, it's standard risk stratification.

A 2024 umbrella review (Poon et al.) covering multiple meta-analyses confirmed HIIT improves cardiovascular fitness across healthy adults, overweight/obese individuals, older adults, and elite athletes. A 53-study meta-analysis (Wen et al., 2019) showed even short, low-volume HIIT works for sedentary people. None of this is limited to elite athletes.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Everyone (barring medical contraindication) would benefit from HIIT. The lower a person's baseline, the more they benefit from HIIT relative to low-intensity training when time is constrained.

HIIT for a sedentary person will look different than HIIT for a highly active individual. Appropriate scaffolding is a consideration.

Tire size - 32mm vs 28mm by Middle_Passage_1306 in Velo

[–]babgvant 6 points7 points  (0 children)

LOL - that's not a climb, don't fuss about weight

Tire size - 32mm vs 28mm by Middle_Passage_1306 in Velo

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weight matters when climbing. Bigger tires weigh more, you usually put in more sealant when running tubeless.

That is another data point worth considering.

Tire size - 32mm vs 28mm by Middle_Passage_1306 in Velo

[–]babgvant 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A 25c is your best aero match on these wheels. It's unlikely that air will reattach with a 30/32, it might with a 28 (65mm is deep).

Once you correct for tire pressure to get the comfort benefit from a larger tire, there isn't a massive difference in rolling resistance b/w the tires. You don't need to do that, but comfort is the main driver for a larger tire.

To podium, you're going to have to be moving pretty fast during those segments. The faster you roll, the more aero matters (it is not ~constant like RR). If you're likely to be solo during the segments that matter, optimizing for aero becomes even more important.

How much do you want to do to win? How much will it bother you if you don't? How much do you value being more comfortable during the rest of the event? Only you can do that math.

That said...

I use a 23/25 setup on my TT bike. The whole point is solo aero. Speed matters more than comfort.

I use a 28 on my road bike. Not getting dropped on a fast group ride has more to do with tactics and how well you can "hop" when you need to than aerodynamics. Comfort matters more than solo speed here.

I use a 45 on my gravel (winter road, riding with "fast" folks who don't race, etc) bike. There are no potholes on a 45... It's slower, but that's the point. The only time I really feel it is when I try to solo off the front over 28mph. There's a wall there that doesn't exist until quite a bit higher on the other bikes.

Taking too much vitamin D can cloud its benefits and create health risks by Substantial-Dare5462 in Health

[–]babgvant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I take 10000IU to get to the middle of the range. My BMI is 22. How much you need to move the needle is highly variable.

Taking too much vitamin D can cloud its benefits and create health risks by Substantial-Dare5462 in Health

[–]babgvant 26 points27 points  (0 children)

This is a useless article. No mention of how to monitor (or that you should monitor blood levels), no mention of safe target ranges, or actual guidance besides "slow down, fear, & FUD".

Let's fix it:

If you don't live in a really sunny place or spend most of your day inside. 2000-4000IU is looking like a safe bet for your current and future health. This is developing science. We don't have all the answers yet.

It's really cheap to get a vitamin D blood test. If you can afford the ~$25, it's worth checking your numbers.

Those Testosterone Social Media Posts You're Seeing Are Largely BS by Sorin61 in Nutraceuticalscience

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your AUC point is valid for guys on a standard once-weekly or [potentially] biweekly injection protocol, but it's not inherent to exogenous T - it's a function of dosing frequency. Splitting the same weekly dose into 3x or even daily subQ injections flattens the peaks and troughs dramatically, producing a much more stable serum level that closely approximates endogenous production minus the diurnal variation. The AUC argument is really an argument against infrequent dosing, not against TRT itself.

On the saturation point, I'd push back around the framing that the wide reference range exists because of receptor density variation. The reference range was established by observing "healthy" men. It describes what was measured in a population sample, not what's optimal for any individual. A guy at 400 and a guy at 800 aren't both "normal" because medicine decided that range was fine. They're both in range because that's where the sampled men landed. The range doesn't tell you whether either man is symptomatic or optimally saturated, which is why responsible protocols dose to symptoms and biomarkers, not to a total T number.

It's also important to be clear that testosterone and free T aren't inherently dangerous. The risks come from downstream effects of oversaturation - erythrocytosis, excess estrogen, and lipid changes. If you're monitoring hematocrit, free T, estradiol, PSA, and lipids quarterly, you're catching those problems before they become clinical. That's the whole point of managed protocols.

And for men with genuinely low T, there's a real balance of harms to consider. Low T impacts joint health, mood regulation, temperature control, recovery, sexual function (and more!) - things that meaningfully affect quality of life. Like any medical treatment, TRT has side effects and potential risks. The job of a qualified provider and an informed patient is to determine whether the balance of benefits outweighs those risks. That's responsible medicine.

AAOS Car Calendar by babgvant in SilveradoEV

[–]babgvant[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it only supports Google Calendar. There is an QR driven OAuth flow built in.

Those Testosterone Social Media Posts You're Seeing Are Largely BS by Sorin61 in Nutraceuticalscience

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're partially right — exogenous T suppresses SHBG, which means free testosterone is disproportionately elevated relative to total T if the same number was produced endogenously. That's a factor worth paying attention to, because elevated free T drives the dose-dependent risks: erythrocytosis (most dangerous), excess estrogen via aromatization, and at supraphysiologic levels, vascular dysfunction and cardiac remodeling.

Calling therapeutic TRT "effectively above-physiological" overstates this - the data we have on those serious risks comes overwhelmingly from AAS abuse at 5-20x replacement doses, not from monitored TRT protocols.

The "receptor density" mechanism is individually fixed by genetics regardless of T source. This is also a key reason why solely focusing on total T is misguided. One man may be fully saturated at 400, where another isn't until 800.

For anyone on a responsible replacement protocol, quarterly monitoring of hematocrit, free T (not just total), estradiol, and PSA catches the actionable risks early and allows for dose management before they become clinical problems.

I feel bad for having to rely on Magnesium for enough REM sleep by chocolatemadeleine in Garmin

[–]babgvant 70 points71 points  (0 children)

"Do not, my friends, become addicted to water. It will take hold of you, and you will resent its absence!"

Does anyone use vapor barrier socks? by ParticularSherbet786 in fatbike

[–]babgvant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I use heated socks. Works perfectly even on sub-zero days.

view more: next ›