> Healthy older adults (n = 123, average age 72.0 years, body mass index 25.8 kg/m2) completed three 45-min supervised exercise sessions per week for 6 months. Participants were randomised to treadmill-based moderate-intensity training (n = 45), or high-intensity interval training (n = 41) or a low-intensity active control condition (n = 37), with individualised heart-rate prescription. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to quantify body composition at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months.

ok they didn't even include light/moderate weight lifting as another control, so this is a fairly poorly executed study

basically it comapres hiit with treadmill walking in which case yes, it's slightly more useful, but hiit also causes a lot of damage in a lot of ways

> "but hiit also causes a lot of damage in a lot of ways"

Please do explain this.

Technically weight lifting (muscle hypertrophy) also causes "damage" but in a controlled an beneficial way.

The hyper rationalist cult on HN has created a race to see who will be the first to claim "this is a fairly poorly executed study".

It really impresses the crowd here if you ignore all limitations introduced by reality, and fail to clearly even assert the requirements that would result in an "adequately executed study."

Bonus points if you finish your shallow skepticism by redirecting the conversation in the direction of your original preheld biases.

Double bonus points if you fail to link to a study that both supports that preheld bias and meets your own standards for how studies should be conducted.

"hiit also causes a lot of damage in a lot of ways"

Oh! I didn't know about this. Are there any references you could quote?