Just a few days into the new year is a good time to look back at the New Year's resolution, for health, diet and fitness! A 75-ditness challenge may not be the first thing that comes to your mind. However, this has gained a massive traction on TikTok. It is called the "75 Hard" challenge, where participants also document their progress. The challenge includes strict rules to comply with. These include: adhering to a healthy diet with no cheat meals or alcohol, completing two 45-minute workouts daily (one outdoors), drinking over three liters of water, and reading 10 pages of a non-fiction book each day.

While this might seem like a straightforward regime, experts suggest that for some, a more relaxed version may help them better.

What the participants feel?

As reported in BBC, Devamsha Gunput, 29, who successfully completed the 75 Hard challenge while juggling a full-time job as a digital consultant in Edinburgh described it as a "tough but transformative journey". One of the biggest challenges she faced was setting boundaries with her South Asian family to maintain her strict diet.

Living in Edinburgh’s dark, wet, and cold weather made outdoor workouts particularly difficult. Despite these hurdles, Devamsha noticed lasting benefits, including more consistent exercise habits, improved reading routines, and a better relationship with food.

The origin of this challenge

The challenge was originally created in 2019 by author and podcaster Andy Frisella to foster mental toughness. While not a certified personal trainer or doctor, Frisella designed the program based on his personal experiences, emphasizing discipline rather than weight loss or specific physical outcomes.

Initial challenges

For Sophie Deakins, 27, who completed the challenge while managing a cinema in London, 75 Hard was a way to address her struggles with consistency and discipline. She eliminated sweets, opting instead for natural sugars from fruit and honey, and tracked her diet and water intake meticulously.

Sophie found the first few weeks challenging as she adjusted to new habits, particularly when socializing, as it often revolved around dining out and drinking. By being open about her goals, she was able to navigate these situations without succumbing to temptation.

Post-challenge, Sophie continued some habits, like avoiding unnecessary coffee shop purchases and limiting eating out, which not only improved her health but also saved her money. Most importantly, she experienced a significant mindset shift, overcoming self-doubt and excuses about time.

Balancing the Pros and Cons

While many find 75 Hard rewarding, it’s not suitable for everyone. Strength and conditioning expert and gym coaches advise considering the significant time commitment required for the workouts, reading, and other tasks. They suggest adopting simpler elements like daily movement and drinking more water without feeling overwhelmed.

Motivation is another concern. The pressure to transform one’s life at the start of the year can be counterproductive. Experts recommend setting achievable goals that add joy and value to daily life rather than creating stress.

What does not work out?

The 75 Hard challenge has not been clinically studied, nor has it been made after considering an average person's ability to cope with such changes so quickly. It is personally designed by Frisella, whose strength may not match others. This is what is making its long-term benefits unclear. Healthcare providers, doctors, and other experts point out that a more basic routine, such as regular exercise and a balanced diet, might achieve similar results without the extreme demands.

Ultimately, while 75 Hard can help build discipline and mental toughness, it’s essential to tailor health and fitness goals to your needs. For reliable guidance, the NHS Live Well website offers comprehensive advice on diet, exercise, and mental well-being.

Finding an hour for the gym is one of the most common reasons people skip workouts. But what if short bursts of exercise at the office or home could deliver similar benefits?

A small trial from China suggests that splitting squats into short bursts throughout the day, a practice known as "exercise snacking", may build strength about as effectively as completing the same workout in one session.

How the trial worked

The study was published in the October 2026 issue of the Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness. It was led by researchers at Tongji University, including Rongxuan Zhai and Lejun Wang. The team recruited 45 male students aged 18 to 25, all with at least six months of regular weight training behind them.

Participants were randomly placed in one of three groups: fragmented resistance training, traditional continuous training, or no supervised training at all. For eight weeks, the two training groups squatted three times a week on a Smith machine under expert supervision, with the weight rising over time for each person. The fragmented group did three separate one-minute bouts of 20 weighted squats. The traditional group did one continuous session of 60. The total amount of work was the same.

What they found

Both training groups got clearly stronger than the control group. According to the study’s abstract, one-rep max squat strength beat the control group by about 20.6 kilograms in the fragmented group and about 28.9 kilograms in the traditional group. ScienceAlert reported that muscular strength, isometric squat force and relative muscular endurance improved in both training groups compared with the control group.

Also Read: Just Four Days Of High-Fat Diet May Increase Inflammation, Study Finds

The traditional group’s gains were larger on paper, but ScienceAlert reported that the difference between the two training styles was not statistically significant. “The present findings do not support the conclusion that traditional continuous resistance training is superior,” the authors concluded.

The one clear difference was enjoyment. Participants who squatted in short bursts reported having more fun than those who did one long session. The authors suggest that “dividing the same training volume into several brief sessions may reduce the perceived burden associated with prolonged exercise while allowing individuals greater flexibility to integrate exercise into their daily schedules.”

Why it matters

“Exercise snacking”, meaning short bouts of activity spread through the day, has become popular in recent years. Earlier research has mostly looked at aerobic activity such as climbing stairs or brisk walking. ScienceAlert noted that it has been linked with better cardiorespiratory fitness and blood sugar control.

This trial looked at resistance training instead. That matters because strength work usually means a dedicated gym session, which is harder to fit into a busy day. Breaking it into one-minute pieces could make it easier to start.

What the study can’t tell us

The trial was small, and the volunteers were young men who already lifted weights. They did one exercise, the squat, for eight weeks. The results may not apply to women, older adults, beginners or other exercises. Because the sessions were supervised, the study also can’t show whether people would keep up short bursts on their own.

ScienceAlert noted that the researchers had expected traditional training to build better endurance than the short bursts. That hypothesis was not supported here. The authors say longer studies in more diverse groups are needed.

The bottom line

For people short on time, this early evidence suggests that a few one-minute sets of squats spread through the day can do much of what a longer session does. It is a promising option, not yet a proven replacement for a full workout. Anyone with a health condition or injury should check with a doctor before starting a new exercise routine.

Most of us know exercise is good for the heart. It makes the muscle stronger and brings the resting heart rate down. But new research from the University of Bristol suggests there is another layer. Regular exercise may also change the nerves that tell the heart how fast to beat.

What The Researchers Did

The heart is partly run by the autonomic nervous system, the body’s autopilot. It handles heartbeat, breathing and digestion without you thinking about it. According to a University of Bristol statement, the team studied rats that did 10 weeks of moderate treadmill running. They then examined the stellate ganglia, two small clusters of nerve cells on either side of the lower neck and upper chest. These clusters send the “go faster” signals to the heart.

The study appeared in the journal Autonomic Neuroscience, with researchers from University College London and two Brazilian universities.

In untrained rats, the left and right clusters looked fairly similar. In trained rats, they did not. Healthline, reporting on the paper, said the right cluster held about four times as many neurons as the left. The nerve cells also changed size in opposite directions. Those on the left grew to nearly twice their size, while those on the right became slightly smaller.

The trained rats also had a lower heart rate, around 280 beats a minute against 314 in untrained rats, while their blood pressure stayed about the same, according to Healthline’s report on the study.

Why It Matters

Doctors already target these nerve clusters in some patients. Nerve blocks and denervation procedures calm them down to treat irregular heartbeats, angina (chest pain from poor blood flow to the heart) and stress-induced “broken-heart” syndrome.

Dr. Augusto Coppi, the study’s lead author, said in the University of Bristol’s statement that the clusters work like the heart’s “dimmer switch.” He said that knowing how they differ on each side could one day help doctors pick the side most likely to benefit.

Also Read: Vanessa Trump Recovers From 'Very Invasive' Breast Cancer, Reveals Early Sign Of The Disease

This was a rat study. Dr. Coppi himself said in the same statement that the findings are early-stage and that clinical studies would need to follow. The team still has to show how these changes affect the way the heart actually works. They plan to test larger animals and eventually people, using noninvasive markers so no surgery is needed.

So this is not a new reason to change anyone’s treatment. It is a clue, not a cure.

The advice itself is old and well proven. The World Health Organization recommends that adults aged 18 to 64 do at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate aerobic activity a week, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous activity. Brisk walking, swimming and cycling all count. WHO data also shows that about a third of adults worldwide still don’t do enough.

If you have a heart condition, get chest pain, or take heart medicines, check with your doctor before starting a new routine. For everyone else, the message is simple. Your heart is not the only thing that changes when you work out. The nerves that control it may change too.

For someone living with obesity today, the treatment conversation has become more complex and, in many ways, far more hopeful. With newer weight-loss pharmacotherapies offering significant results, patients and clinicians now have more options than ever before. The key question is no longer whether medication or surgery is better, but rather which approach or combination of therapies is most appropriate for a particular patient.

Obesity is a chronic, relapsing disease that can affect much more than body weight. It is closely linked to severe metabolic comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnoea, fatty liver disease, joint problems and reduced quality of life. Treatment must therefore focus not merely on short-term weight loss, but on long-term metabolic health and sustained weight maintenance.

How Newer Weight-Loss Medicines Are Changing Treatment

Newer anti-obesity medicines, including GLP-1-based and related therapies, have significantly expanded the options available to patients. They can support meaningful weight loss and improve metabolic health when combined with appropriate nutrition, physical activity and behavioural support. They may be particularly useful for patients who are not ready for surgery, those who need to improve their health before an operation, or those who experience weight recurrence after previous treatment.

However, these medicines do not work in the same way for everyone. Long-term treatment may be required, while side effects, affordability, access and adherence can influence outcomes. Some patients may also regain weight after stopping treatment. In India, the cost and continued access to these therapies are therefore important considerations when planning long-term care.

Also read: Is ‘Ozempic Face’ Influencing The Beauty Industry? Global Cosmetic Brand Highlights A New Trend Amid GLP-1 Boom

Why Bariatric Surgery Remains An Important Option

For patients with severe obesity, particularly those with established metabolic complications, metabolic and bariatric surgery remains an important treatment option. Procedures such as sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one-anastomosis gastric bypass can influence appetite, gut hormones and glucose metabolism, in addition to reducing stomach capacity. This can result in substantial weight loss and improvement in conditions such as diabetes and sleep apnoea.

The decision to undergo surgery should be based on factors such as the severity of obesity, associated illnesses, previous treatment attempts and the patient's readiness for an operation and long-term follow-up. Surgery is not an endpoint; nutritional care, lifestyle changes and regular monitoring remain important afterwards.

Also read: Swiss Team Including Indian Scientists Develops Electric Implant To Lower Blood Sugar Without Insulin Or Drugs

Combining Medication, Surgery And Lifestyle Changes

Weight regain also needs to be viewed in the context of obesity as a chronic disease. Treatment may need to evolve over time, with medicines, surgery and lifestyle interventions playing different roles at different stages. A patient may use medication before surgery to improve metabolic health, while another may require medication later to manage weight recurrence. This approach allows treatment to adapt to the patient's changing needs rather than treating weight loss as a one-time goal.

Technology is also influencing how bariatric surgery is performed. Technology has fundamentally elevated precision in minimally invasive bariatric procedures. Robotic-assisted surgical systems, such as the da Vinci Surgical System provide three-dimensional visualisation and wristed instruments that flex and rotate with dexterity far exceeding the human hand.

Operating at a dedicated console, the surgeon maintains full control throughout the procedure, as the system translates hand movements in real time with built-in tremor filtration. These capabilities are particularly advantageous during complex reconstructive procedures such as gastric bypass, where precise suturing, micro-dissection, and delicate tissue handling are paramount.

The technology, however, works within a broader surgical ecosystem. Patient selection, surgical expertise, standardised protocols, anaesthesia and postoperative care remain central to achieving good outcomes.

What Real-World Experience With Robotic Bariatric Surgery Shows

Our real-world experience of 545 patients undergoing robotic bariatric surgery with the da Vinci Surgical System showed consistent outcomes across procedures, including in patients with severe obesity. There were no conversions to open or laparoscopic surgery, the 30-day post-discharge complication rate was 2.02%, and no mortality was reported during follow-up.

At one year, mean BMI reduced from 44.55 to 32.68 kg/m², while outcomes in patients with BMI ≥50 kg/m² remained broadly comparable with the overall cohort. For patients, this translates into predictable perioperative outcomes and meaningful weight reduction, while for surgeons, the experience demonstrates how robotic assistance can be integrated into bariatric practice, including the management of technically challenging cases.

The changing obesity landscape ultimately calls for a comprehensive, personalized approach to treatment. Anti-obesity medications have expanded the options available to patients, while metabolic and bariatric surgery remains the cornerstone intervention for those who require substantial, durable weight loss and metabolic improvement. Neither approach should be viewed in isolation from nutrition, physical activity, behavioral health, and long-term follow-up.