That is also how I initially read it, but the paper states that there were 5 sprints per hours for a total of 160 seconds a day.

From the paper:

> i.e.; 4-s x 5 per h x 8-h = 160-s per day

Still probably would not do it. But why?

I wonder what other exercise modality this could be replaced with. Do 3 squats?

1 flight of stairs.

a good comparison!

Sprinting up a flight of stairs, then walking back down, and repeating it five times, once an hour.

That I have a good gauge of. Yeah, that would feel good. Pity I live in a first-floor flat...

I mean this sounds way healthier to me than endless cardio. That is much more taxing for the body. This short sprints could certainly spike metabolism without the running out of limiting factors that happens with endurance exercise. Net effect, your body stays in a physiologically high activity state without producing excess stress hormones. Sign me up

It's not offering all the other benefits of exercise (ie. building muscle and cardiovascular health). You're not going to not get fat doing this, and I doubt it'll keep you from being out of breath while climbing the stairs.

Cardio builds very little muscle. Take it from the mouth of a quite competitive high school runner. Used to run about 30km per week (not high by many standards, exceedingly high by my current standards). Diet and lifestyle are more important for fitness. Endurance exercise is pretty bad for the heart, just look at the marathon runners. Ouch. The thing is cardio becomes addictive as most people have low intrinsic energy (due to diet, lack of sun, etc...) so when they release stress hormones through cardio they now feel a bit better. Not very sustainable in the long run. Look at our history as a species and nowhere do I see much cardio until the 20th century. Activity for sure, sign me up. Cardio as understood nowadays with endless running and crossfit? Only thing I might actually run away from