Science-Based 7 Minute Exercise

Alex

We know, we know. We should exercise more. But who has the time to go to the gym?

American College of Sports Medicine's Health & Fitness journal just squashed that excuse with this: a set of 12 exercises with only body weight, a chair and a wall that takes only 7 minutes of your life. Best of all, it's all based on science, as Gretchen Reynolds of the New York Times' Well Blog summarized:

“There’s very good evidence” that high-intensity interval training provides “many of the fitness benefits of prolonged endurance training but in much less time,” says Chris Jordan, the director of exercise physiology at the Human Performance Institute in Orlando, Fla., and co-author of the new article. [...]

The exercises should be performed in rapid succession, allowing 30 seconds for each, while, throughout, the intensity hovers at about an 8 on a discomfort scale of 1 to 10, Mr. Jordan says. Those seven minutes should be, in a word, unpleasant. The upside is, after seven minutes, you’re done.

Link [the Scientific paper] - via The NY Times' Well Blog


Comments (11)

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

I agree with you that good science is done outside of academia. But a scientific paper does not open with an advertisement for a commercial enterprise, as this particular one does. There may be interesting and worthwhile information in this publication, but it doesn't meet the widely-agreed-upon criteria of a scientific publication. In the abstract, the authors claim no conflict of interest. If there was any functioning peer review, the advertising language in the introduction would not have made it to publication. The authors do have a very serious conflict of interest: they are overtly advertising the "Human Performance Institute, Division of Wellness and Prevention, Inc., in Orlando, FL" in florid prose (e.g., "From our work with elite performers, we have learned that managing energy is the key to sustaining high performance."). This is a trade publication, and that is fine. But to call such a thing science dilutes the meaning of the word.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Oh no, don't discount the fact that the study is done outside the hallowed halls of academia as being unscientific a priori - there's plenty of good science being done in commercial entities (like biotech companies, for example).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I was interested in the scientific paper itself, so I clicked. The paper begins: "At the Human Performance Institute, Division of Wellness and Prevention, Inc., in Orlando, FL, our clients are high-performing professionals from a variety of industries.". So, no, it is not a scientific paper.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The rule I've found more useful is "When two vowels go walking, the second one does the talking." By and large, the second of two consecutive vowels contributes its sound more than the first.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I gave up on silly rhyming schemes to learn correct spelling a long time ago, due to this ie/C thing. I decided to just learn the words themselves, and that worked feni...er, fine.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Running some numbers on a 60,000 word dictionary with word-counts for each word (in millions) (e.g.

Counts for words you'd goof if you use the i-before-e... rule:

Counts for words with cie: 146

Counts for words with not C ei: 394

Counts for words you'd get correct:

Words with cei: 73

Not c ie: 1,836

These numbers change if you know to never begin a word with ie nor end a word with eis. (Exceptions to this are very, very rare.)

The words "their" and "being" count for 154, so if you remember them, you're in pretty good shape with the rule. Right: 2063. Wrong: 386.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Or, the could just teach them the whole poem, which is always useful when spelling those tricky words: i before e except after c OR WHEN SOUNDING AN A AS IN NEIGHBOR OR WEIGH.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Sammy - I think you learnt the one I did -

i before e except after c, or when said like 'a' such as neighbour and weigh.

Alas the rule never explained the exception for weird xD

The rule might not be entirely correct, but it's still a good basis to teach primary school kids in my opinion. The amount of atrocious spelling I see from my 20-something friends is more than enough proof of that in my opinion.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I learned the rhyme a little different:

I before I, when sounded as 'e', except after 'c'

It's worked well for me over the years since I went to school
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I would never even consider the rule for words like veil or sufficient; I think the "words with ee sound" is understood. And it still helps for those words that it DOES work for.

But if you are going to misuse the rule for veil and sufficient, you are probably going to have some issues with spelling anyway.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
bud:
You say the rule helps for the word that it works for, but that precludes that everyone knows what words it works for and what words it doesn't. What's the point of having the rule if we all have to memorize what words are applicable?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
English is a very difficult language. Receive vs weigh vs weird. It seems that every rule has an exception. That's why I always have a dictionary handy.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It's a general rule for introductory words rooted in the English language that serves as the first rung. Eventually it sinks in that there are other words that don't follow the song– most other words; but it's just a song. You don't take away a childhood, educational song about colors because it doesn't cover all of the colors either. This is impudent and uncool. As a mostly british gentleman, I want you to know that I don't support this in the least bit. It's not like I go to spell a word that I know doesn't follow the rule, and then think to myself– "Yeah...but the song said that it was–".

This is just plain silly. There's a reason this story is being posted in the 'Oddly Enough' sections of the world, and it's because you have to ask "What do they care?" Ban a miniature children's rhyme.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Seize the weird ancient Raleigh scientist being.
So their...I mean, there!
There are many others, but jeez, add this to the recent move to drop apostrophes, and you're really increasing the chances of being misunderstood.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The FULL rule, as I learnt it, is:

"'i' before 'e' except after 'c' when it rhymes with 'me'."

I have yet to find any exception to this rule. The reason for the failure is the problem that many people did not learn the full version of the rule and many teachers were ignorant of the full version.

I was taught the full rule by my Mother who was a licensed Teacher with many years experience and I myself am a Trained Primary School teacher.

When I was in the Fourth Grade of my primary school I pointed out the full rule to the teacher who had never heard it before. She then tried to list may of te words that did not follow the shortened rule and became very upset, and almost abusive, when I pointed out that none of her extensive list rhymed with 'me'.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Lan3-- “When two vowels go walking, the second one does the talking” may not be a perfect rule for English words, this is a great rule for remembering how to pronounce German words (especially German last names) which often have "ie" or "ei" and which always seem to cause confusion!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
While I enjoy that Brits spell "color" as "colour" (and the spell checker on this site doesn't like "colour") it's understandable that they have problems spelling. Consider these words: learnt for learned, burnt for burned, towards for toward. Most people these days have difficulty spelling or speaking. People use words that don't even exist such as lent for loaned.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
"Lent" is indeed a word. It is the past participle of "lend".

Definition
lent (LEND)
past simple and past participle of lend

eg I lent her my handkerchief.

Learnt is the past simple and past participle of learn.

eg He learnt his lesson.

"Learned" is defined thus:
learned
adjective FORMAL
describes someone who has studied for a long time and has a lot of knowledge:

eg a learned professor

From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary.

The other words you cited fall into the same category. Americans attempt to distort the language but for reference you should always consult an English, English dictionary if you are going to complain about the use of allegedly, non-existent words. Especially as this topic is about the English not the Americans.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I disagree vehemently with the idea that the rule has so many exceptions that it is not worth teaching. Where the i/e combination forms a dipthong, it should be obvious to anyone who pronounces the word correctly which combination is required. The base rhyme "I before E after 'C' and in words which sound like 'A,' ... like neighbor, weigh, etc" covers most of the common words. The remaining exceptions are easily memorized. At least I have found this to be the case in American English. If we have completely succumbed to the sloth tendency that any pronunciation and definition is acceptable, then I stand corrected. {;^D)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"Science-Based 7 Minute Exercise"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More