If you are worried about injury risk with sprinting, you could consider rowing.
> Physiologists, in fact, have calculated that rowing a two-thousand meter race — the Olympic standard — takes the same physiological toll as playing two basketball games back-to-back. And it exacts that toll in about six minutes.
I've always found rowing machines difficult. I guess I got what many have when starting with bikes, where I'd rather go slower at higher resistance, and hence I don't really spool up the resistance fan.
If you use an air rower like the C2, you can adjust the damper to control the simulated drag profile. Fully open is like rowing through sand. The most constricted setting you can keep spooled up with very little effort.
The important part is that the setting doesn't really matter in terms of how difficult the workout will be. You are always in charge of this. The performance monitor software in these machines only measure the power into the flywheel.
If you find that less drag feels better and more engaging, then just use that setting.
> The most constricted setting you can keep spooled up with very little effort.
Guess I've used different ones. The ones I've used seems to not spool up when going slowly, you need a certain pulling speed to get it to spool up regardless.
The full title "Scientists Identify 3-Minute Exercise That May Outperform 90-Minute Workout" has the "perhaps, maybe, who knows" found in the full article. Flim flam and flummery.
"...three minutes of sprinting produced a dramatic molecular response in the bloodstream, far exceeding the changes seen after 90 minutes of moderate exercise." Key word MODERATE. What about comparing it to HIIT for example?
If you are worried about injury risk with sprinting, you could consider rowing.
> Physiologists, in fact, have calculated that rowing a two-thousand meter race — the Olympic standard — takes the same physiological toll as playing two basketball games back-to-back. And it exacts that toll in about six minutes.
https://archive.nytimes.com/6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...
I've always found rowing machines difficult. I guess I got what many have when starting with bikes, where I'd rather go slower at higher resistance, and hence I don't really spool up the resistance fan.
If you use an air rower like the C2, you can adjust the damper to control the simulated drag profile. Fully open is like rowing through sand. The most constricted setting you can keep spooled up with very little effort.
The important part is that the setting doesn't really matter in terms of how difficult the workout will be. You are always in charge of this. The performance monitor software in these machines only measure the power into the flywheel.
If you find that less drag feels better and more engaging, then just use that setting.
> The most constricted setting you can keep spooled up with very little effort.
Guess I've used different ones. The ones I've used seems to not spool up when going slowly, you need a certain pulling speed to get it to spool up regardless.
The original paper at Elsevier writes about 6 * 30s cycling sprints with 4min interruptions.
All the sites in between only give a vague abstraction of that.
The full title "Scientists Identify 3-Minute Exercise That May Outperform 90-Minute Workout" has the "perhaps, maybe, who knows" found in the full article. Flim flam and flummery.
"...three minutes of sprinting produced a dramatic molecular response in the bloodstream, far exceeding the changes seen after 90 minutes of moderate exercise." Key word MODERATE. What about comparing it to HIIT for example?
What's "90M"? A 90-million exercise? 90 megabytes?
Capitalization and abbreviations matter. There was nothing wrong with original headline or the article. OP had to tamper and obfuscate it.
[dead]