exercise war that’s getting in the way of getting people moving
when the noise is stripped away, what remains is remarkably simple: the best exercise is the one a person will do.
5 minute read
people are exercising their mouths more than their bodies in a debate that does more harm than good when trying to help people increase movement.
getty images
for a world being urged to move more, far too much time is spent arguing about how.
high-intensity interval training (hiit) was once the domain of elite athletes, but it has since surged into the mainstream, promising busy people a way to get fit faster, sweat harder, and do it all in less time. it’s efficient, effective, and doesn’t require a gym membership or hours to spare. but what began as a novel approach to exercise has become something else entirely: polarizing.
the rise of hiit has triggered a divisive and often toxic debate instead of uniting people around a movement. supporters praise it as revolutionary, while critics dismiss it as unsustainable. lines have been drawn, teams have been chosen, and somewhere along the way, the original goal—getting more people to move—has been lost in the noise.
that’s the irony: while experts and researchers battle over the ideal way to exercise, millions of people are quietly choosing not to exercise at all.
what hiit promises—and why it scares people off
hiit is simple in theory. it involves alternating between brief periods of high-effort activity and short rest intervals: sprint, recover, repeat. the result is a workout that can be completed in a fraction of the time of traditional endurance routines. for many, this structure is a game changer—especially for those balancing careers, family and a general aversion to long exercise sessions.
advertisement
however, the intensity that gives hiit its power also fuels its controversy. it feels too hard, fast and inaccessible to some. it’s been marketed with grit, pain and sweat as badges of honor. that image can be alienating for the everyday person trying to start or restart their fitness journey.
and this is where the backlash begins. instead of embracing hiit as one option among many, advocates and opponents have positioned it as the pinnacle of modern exercise or the downfall of sustainable fitness. moderate-intensity continuous training (mict), such as brisk walking or cycling, is often held up as the gentler, more realistic counterpart. the debate between the two approaches has grown into a cultural tug-of-war.
data lost in the drama
beneath the tension lies a surprisingly straightforward truth: both methods work.
a comprehensive review of existing studies found that while people may feel less comfortable during hiit, their enjoyment afterward tends to be higher than with mict. that so-called “exercise high” is real; for many, it can motivate them to keep going.
what’s more telling is that adherence—whether people stick with a routine—turns out to be about the same for both hiit and mict. in supervised settings, adherence rates hovered around 89 per cent for hiit and 92 per cent for mict. the numbers dipped to 63 per cent and 68 per cent in unsupervised settings, respectively. the difference is minimal.
advertisement
this flies in the face of the narrative that hiit is too difficult for the average person to stick with. it shows that with the proper support, either approach can work. people are more adaptable than they’re often given credit for.
but instead of guiding public health messaging or fitness coaching, this nuance is often buried under academic sniping and ideological turf wars.
debate that’s doing damage
what should be an open conversation about options has devolved into a fight over superiority. online forums and academic journals have become arenas for passive-aggressive rebuttals, social media callouts and territorial posturing.
this isn’t just an academic squabble. the way experts talk—especially when those discussions become combative—ripples outward. it affects policy, public health messaging, gym culture, and individual decision-making. when people are told there’s a “right” way to exercise and don’t see themselves reflected in it, they often opt out entirely.
the longer this battle continues, the more potential exercisers it turns away. for someone standing at the edge of starting a new routine, the last thing they need is to be caught in the crossfire between conflicting messages. confusion becomes paralysis. and paralysis leads to inaction.
advertisement
what matters
when the noise is stripped away, what remains is remarkably simple: the best exercise is the one a person will do.
it doesn’t matter whether someone prefers lung-busting intervals or slow, steady jogs. what matters is consistency. sustainability trumps intensity if the goal is long-term health, mental well-being, and functional strength.
rather than obsessing over the theoretical ideal, the focus must shift to the behavioural reality. what makes someone show up again tomorrow? what fits into their life without friction? what leaves them feeling better afterward?
these questions are more important than whether a protocol hits a certain heart rate threshold or burns a few more calories. the science of movement means little if people aren’t moving.
better way forward
it’s time to reframe the conversation. the goal isn’t to crown a winner in the hiit versus mict debate. it’s to support a culture of movement where all forms of exercise are valid, welcomed, and celebrated.
that means acknowledging individual differences—some people thrive on variety and intensity, while others enjoy routine and rhythm. it means presenting fitness as a spectrum, not a binary. it means equipping people with tools, not ultimatums.
advertisement
and most critically, it means reestablishing civility in how experts discuss exercise science. productive dialogue demands curiosity, humility, and respect. science doesn’t advance through shouting matches. it advances through listening, refining and evolving together.
the real crisis
while professionals argue, the public health crisis of inactivity continues to grow. billions of people remain sedentary, and the costs—physical, mental and economic—are staggering. the obsession with crafting the perfect message or defending a personal theory distracts from the larger issue: people need help getting started and staying engaged.
the conversation needs to stop being about methods and start being about people. not hiit or mict, but the barriers, motivations, fears and preferences that shape whether a person builds a habit or gives up after a week.
ultimately, the most effective workout doesn’t win academic approval. it’s the one that fits a person’s life, brings them energy, and makes them want to come back for more.
it’s not about pushing harder. it’s about pulling people in.
share story
