Professional athletes don't train for cardiometabolic health. They train to perform at competitions. The study is perfectly fine for the people it is intended to serve in the context of their lives. Normal people neither want nor need to train like athletes. They certainly don't need to follow a training program to compete at the Olympics. But they would still be well served to train in some form because of their increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Optimizing that form for efficiency is a key to population health. This paper is just the latest in a stream of evidence that suggests shorter but higher intensity bursts of exercise might be the more efficient way of training if you want to min-max your workout time and health as a normal person who has a real job and possibly a family and other hobbies.

> actual athletes

Probably need to define. Are we talking about professional athletes or just people who have a lot of training experience?

Exercising hard for a person who has never trained is very different than someone with years under their belt training. An untrained person can't even tap into what hard means compared to a trained person.

I'm also confused about the focus on endurance. Yes, all people need some cardio, but everyone would do better with additional strength. The stronger someone is going into their 50s, they better they will end up in the 60s and 70s.

Just to add my interpretation of what Magness would say, which is: intense interval training tends to show significant gains over moderate work in shorter (8 weeks) study periods, but those gains level off quickly in the long term. A more blended training approach that incorporates all types of training intensities (hard, moderate, easy) will outperform just doing hard interval training, over the long term. And this advice applies to all types of athletes, not just people training at a high level.

But athletes don't have health as their main goal.

Isn't it likely that blended exercise is best for longevity anyway? i.e. per week 1-2h Zone 2 and 20 minutes HIIT (nordic 4x4?) and then as much strength training as you can fit in, say 3 x 1h PPL per week, and maybe some sauna too.

This is likely around what is best for most people and probably cutting the strength training time to 1h before cutting the rest if you "don't have time".

Most people don't exercise at all. If some of these people draw the wrong conclusion from such a study and start exercising at high intensity, it will still be better than their current couch-potato training protocol.

Good and best is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment.

What are you talking about when you speak of good/best outcomes? I think especially when it comes to talking about fitness it is important to be explicit about outcomes because only with outcomes in mind can you talk about what “good” actually means.

In that context I’m a bit confused by your focus on (endurance) athletes. Their overriding goal is obviously increasing their athletic performance in a way that keeps them injury free. Their main focus aren’t health outcomes. That’s not the same. So if you focus on them you are in danger of talking past each other.

To that point: sure, those studies often have unrealistic protocols but the way (performance) athletes train is also unrealistic for most people!

If those studies are about population health they should have realistic protocols (in terms of: realistically achievable and adhered to by non-athletes, in the best case also empirically grounded in the sense of: this is a realistic range of activities non-athletes might actually engage in on a regular basis) for non-athletes.

If you're waiting around for motivation to exercise, you will never succeed. It needs to be a habit. You need discipline.

It's not about motivation, it's about discipline. Motivation is fleeting, and if someone only exercises when motivated it's going to be hard to keep going. Discipline is what will get a person to exercise enough that it becomes part of their life. But to your point, discipline is not that common.

I've done some sort of workout almost every day for the last 25+ years. It had nothing to do with motivation, but making exercise a part of my day like brushing my teeth.

This still seems like a step in that direction. If you can have more benefits by spending less time training and enduring physical discomfort, then that should be an overall guideline for training aimed at the general population. Although the biggest change in health we've ever seen in our obesogenic society is still from semaglutide and I think physical exercise will never reach the same prevalence as a drug that you can take.

What about the fact that due to modern medicine many people now live twice as long and therefore need to stave off the effects of aging, e.g. loss of muscle mass and stability, to have a good quality of life in those bonus years?

The point of all these articles is that if you exercise hard you get extra health benefits. Even folks that move all the time and clock 15k steps per day may not get those benefits because it's not the right exercise.

Yeah. The formula isn't terribly complicated: don't eat crap and move your body in different ways.

Despite doing exercise (including high intensity stuff like spin class) I was overweight and had a HOMA-IR of 3.8 (Moderate Insulin Resistance) and insulin 13.2 (Early Insulin Resistance).

This was because I was addicted to sugary stuff.

I cut my refined sugar intake to almost zero and in two months HOMA-IR went to 1.02 (Normal Range) and insulin to 4.9 (Optimal / Longevity Range). My triglycerides had peaked at 228 (Moderate Risk) and dropped to 96 (Normal/Good). Glucose went from 116 (Prediabetes) to 85 (Healthy).

My assistant in cutting all that sugar was Claude. I used Claude as my buddy: I'd chat with Claude when I had cravings and it gave me alternatives and support. And it worked.

EXCLUSIVE: Local man gleefully continues letting himself go while awaiting scientific consensus on universally optimal diet and exercise

This is about comparing different exercise intensities ? Sprinting > jogging basically ?