Treadmill HIIT question

erickirb

ahamm002 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Not sure what's difficult to understand from the thread. If 8mph for 30 seconds is enough to be driving the HR level then the originator is going to get far more benefit from building the aerobic base.

Without a credible aerobic base the benefits from HIIT are negligible.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but it's wrong. Interval training is a great way for beginners to improve aerobic performance and increase VO2 max.

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

The originator clarified that she was interested in fat loss, so she's going to get far more benefit from other type of training. I've already suggested resistance training rather than long duration pootling along on the elliptical, though either of those will give far more benefit than HIIT.

It's a question of relative effectiveness. In this instance resistance training > long diration low intensity CV > HIIT

Once again, I have no idea where you're getting this wrong information but please stop repeating it. In terms of exercise, sprint intervals are great for fat loss. They're been shown to be more effective than long duration low intensity cardio in numerous studies.

Resistance training is also effective. But unless you're doing circuit training then it's probably not quite as effective for pure fat loss as true sprint intervals. But that's neither here no there. If the OP wants to burn fat then HIIT an effective way to do it. There is no reason to tell her she's doing it wrong when she isn't.

I would disagree with the last point, best for losing fat is a small caloric deficit (regardless of type or any cardio) combined with strength training to maintain muscle so a larger % of your loss will come from fat.

Cardio (HITT included) is good for you, but when it comes to fat/weight loss the benefit is that is allows you to eat more while losing the same amount of fat/weight you could have with no cardio.

MeanderingMammal

ahamm002 wrote: »

In terms of exercise, sprint intervals are great for fat loss. They're been shown to be more effective than long duration low intensity cardio in numerous studies.

May have already covered this upthead, but essentially it becomes about proportionality. Yes a HIIT session has the potential to burn a slightly higher proportion of fat than other fuel, but asa HIIT session will be very short duration you're talking about a slightly higher proportion of a smaller number, so still a small gross effect.

Where HIIT has benefits is around the enduring effect, particularly when coupled with a combination of resistance and aerobic base work. Note that I'm not talking about afterburn here, but about the enduring improvements to VO2Max, complementary to the improvements in bodyfat percentage from retention of lean mass.

QuikDogs

I will throw this out fwiw: I can't do HIIT without Sean O'Malley ("CardioCoach") coaching me. These mp3's are the best, and I've tried lots of others. CC 8 is my favorite.

MeanderingMammal

ahamm002 wrote: »

.... as true sprint intervals. But that's neither here no there.

If the originator was doing true sprint intervals then I suspect we wouldn't be having this debate, but what she's describing is a fairly low intensity interval set, very far from HIIT. Hence the advice to work on the aerobic base, rather than play around at the fashionable end of the spectrum.

ahamm002

erickirb wrote: »

I would disagree with the last point, best for losing fat is a small caloric deficit (regardless of type or any cardio) combined with strength training to maintain muscle so a larger % of your loss will come from fat.

Cardio (HITT included) is good for you, but when it comes to fat/weight loss the benefit is that is allows you to eat more while losing the same amount of fat/weight you could have with no cardio.

Well I won't disagree with you about the calorie deficit combined with resistance training. But a calorie deficit is a given if we're talking about burning fat. Exercise regimens such as circuit training and sprint intervals have been shown to have a high "metabolic effect."

branflakes1980

kennie2 wrote: »

I might just ask one of the PTs at the gym.... as to 0 running i can run about 5k but i just dont as i get suuupperrr bored hence why i normally use the elliptical as then i can watch a show or something. Also to the guy saying he can run steady at 8mph, thats nice but youre also a male and probably a lot taller.

This is the second time, the first time you said I "i'm a girl so 8mph is as fast as I can go" now this? What does being a girl have to do with it?? I am super confuzzled! This is pretty offensive to all of the ladies that don't let having a vagina hold us back from doing super awesome totally rad stuff. Statements like this are really, really bad Mmmkay!

MeanderingMammal

branflakes1980 wrote: »

kennie2 wrote: »

...thats nice but youre also a male and probably a lot taller.

This is the second time, the first time you said I "i'm a girl so 8mph is as fast as I can go" now this? What does being a girl have to do with it??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevie_Kremer
https://jomeekblog.wordpress.com/

Both short, female and fast as *kitten*

SkinnyGirlCarrie

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

branflakes1980 wrote: »

kennie2 wrote: »

...thats nice but youre also a male and probably a lot taller.

This is the second time, the first time you said I "i'm a girl so 8mph is as fast as I can go" now this? What does being a girl have to do with it??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevie_Kremer
https://jomeekblog.wordpress.com/

Both short, female and fast as *kitten*

thank you both!