We have known for some time now that shorter bouts of more intense exercise can be just as effective as longer bouts of less intense effort. This was somewhat revolutionary when it first took hold as a training philosophy at least 10 years ago.

Since then, some famously brutal training systems have had their day in the exercise and fitness limelight. Crossfit, insanity and Tabata are some names that spring to mind, all contributing to the ‘go hard or go home’ approach that has proliferated in the fitness world of late.

I knew this instinctively many years ago when preparing for a course which required me to drastically improve my cardiovascular fitness. I was going for long runs of an hour or more, as often as I could. This regimen quickly resulted in nagging aches and pains that just would not go away: shin splints, knee pain, back pain. Most of the time my inability to go for a run was due more to these issues than it was to poor cardiovascular endurance or an unwillingness to get going.

In the end I went with my intuition and did away with the long runs altogether. Instead, I jogged to a nearby hill and sprinted up it as many times as I could, walking down again each time. The updated session took under half the time. I repeated it three times per week and was thrilled to see my injuries cease and fitness levels rise exponentially over the course of the next three months. Of course, this is all anecdotal and purely my own personal experience, but expert researchers have been busy pushing the boundaries of just how far the short-and-sweet principle can be pushed.

If you have seen the headlines over the past fortnight, you might have been shocked to hear that the very latest figure we have now been given is one minute. Yes, apparently, just a minute of intense training can be as effective as 45. But how could this possibly be true?

Before we get carried away by the unbelievable nature of this claim, let us first examine its exact origins.

The headlines described a study conducted at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. The university has already carried out prior research validating the efficacy of short and intense exercise interventions. However, this time they have slashed away even more time from the equation.

The amount of intensity you put in is directly proportional to the amount of time you can save

Researchers split 27 sedentary male participants into three groups for the duration of the study, which lasted 12 weeks. The first group did not engage in any extra physical activity at all and acted as the control group. The second group engaged in 50-minute sessions, comprising of moderate intensity continuous training, while the third group engaged in 10-minute sessions comprising of high-intensity sprint interval training.

After the 12-week period, the second and third groups were found to have undergone exactly the same positive physiological adaptations, proving that there appears to be a very strong inverse relationship between intensity and time. The amount of intensity you put in is basically directly proportional to the amount of time you can save.

So where did the ‘one minute’ claim come from then? In presenting the findings of this latest study, reporters took into account the exact amount of time spent engaged in physical activity, and did not factor in warming up, resting time between bouts of activity, or cooling down. To be more precise, the continuous training group performed approximately five minutes of warming up and cooling down and 45 minutes engaged in the main component of the session, which consisted of the actual continuous training.

The sprint interval training group similarly performed five minutes of warming up and cooling down, but only five minutes engaged in the main component of the session. Within that main component, participants performed three all-out sprints lasting 20 seconds, each followed by just over a minute of rest. Reporters arrived at the one-minute claim by adding the three 20-second bouts together and eliminating the four minutes of rest.

In truth, that one minute would only work with the warm-up, rest periods and cool-down periods included. You therefore, ultimately, need at least 10 minutes of time, not just one. The message nevertheless is clear; time is no longer the issue, effort is. Increasing intensity seems to be the critical factor and it goes without saying that maximal intensity requires maximal effort.

What makes abbreviated training all the more significant is that other research in the exercise science field has confirmed that lack of time is still the number one excuse people nominate for not participating in a physical activity or exercise programme.

Stack all this research alongside the rising international obesity and inactivity statistics, and it seems that despite more time-efficient training prescriptions, we are still not quite getting there, so one cannot help but ask: is lack of time really the problem?

Perhaps a more valuable pursuit would be to really examine our motives for getting in better shape, improving our health and seeing how we can muster the will to get going, safe in the knowledge we do not need to live in the gym to see results.

If you can bring a healthy dose of motivation and will to train intensely, then exercise science has plenty of time-efficient solutions for you to choose from, so why not give it a try?

matthew.muscat.inglott@mcast.edu.mt