HIIT vs steady state cardio
Replies
-
I started doing HIIT runs when I couldn't get passed a 9-10 minute mile pace. I was really skeptical - it made no sense to me that running alternating with walking would in any way improve my pace... boy was I wrong. I started out doing a 30 minute HIIT treadmill run that I found on the Internet. Within a few weeks of doing it 2-3 times a week my pace started improving... I went from running 10 minute miles to running 8:20-8:40 minute miles.
I don't think it burns more calories than running a steady even pace for the same length of time... I end up covering the same distance.0 -
Terpnista84 wrote: »Can be more effective for/at what?
Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.
For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.
If you’re not doing anything to retain muscle, eating at a deficit will reduce muscle along with fat. If you keep your protein up and lift weights, you’ll retain more of your muscle. Cardio doesn’t cause muscle loss, calorie deficits do.
0 -
If I'm on a stationary bike & I'm sprinting...the trainer may say to be on your race level (this depends on your strength & experience) & a speed at 130-134. Maintaining this for a minute...or minute and a half! That's exhausting:) During the challenge minutes of riding, the trainer would say be on your race level & maintain a speed at 140-150...30 seconds for three or four intervals...that's HIIT for me:)! At the end of each interval I'm in a sweat pool and sucking wind through my mouth for at least 30-40 second!!! And, drinking water to hydrate!!:). But bottom line, the truth is that a combination of good steady workout and a healthy lifestyle is what will transform your body. I have done it!!0
-
jojoeastcoast wrote: »determined_14 wrote: »
Yup, I want to know this too. Although my guess is that whether the Fitness Blender workouts "count" as HIIT depends a lot on our level of effort. From what I gather, HIIT means you go flat-out for your interval, then active-rest, then flat-out. And as tired as I get doing Fitness Blender tabata (even having to stop sometimes), I don't think it qualifies to the level of effort I've heard others describe as HIIT.jojoeastcoast wrote: »So what is REAL HIIT?
Some of my fitnessblender.com workouts are labelled HIIT. They will be 20 seconds on, 10 off (in the off you are doing a boxer shuffle) times 4 (total 2 minutes per round)... the HIIT exercises are things like burpee variations, jump squats (OUCH)... Usually there is a strength component breaking up the rounds. I admit -- I canNOT do 4x sets of 20 on/10 off jumpsquats!
Yes -- I guess I should clarify -- If I could actually complete the round, is it true HIIT?
HIIT works like this:
- Warm up (this is very important).
- Go for 20 - 30 seconds at 100% (some would call it 110%). Literally, you should run this like your life (or your child’s life) depended on it and it was the last 20 - 30 seconds you have left (there won’t be another round).
- Rest for 40 - 90 seconds at 10 - 20% effort (e.g., walking or jogging). In this case, you’re trying to get your heart rate back down below moderate (you can start to talk).
- You repeat the above up nine more times. However, at the point you aren’t fully recovering (for me it is around 7 to 8 rounds), you stop.
- Cool down and stretch (also very important).
Most people aren’t near going full out and are saving themselves for the following rounds. That’s intense intervals, but not HIIT. Also, if you’re doing this for more than 30 minutes, you’re probably not going hard enough during the work sessions.
0 -
-
joejccva71 wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Can be more effective for/at what?
Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.
For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.
It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week.
In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.
That "horrible" body composition is what wins races. If you're an endurance athlete, you want to be as light as possible without becoming unhealthy. The more you weigh, the more calories you need to burn to travel the same distance at the same speed.
By being lighter, you burn fewer calories, which means you can go further and faster at the same level of energy exerted.
Most Tour de France winners are on the extreme low end of the BMI scale because they can climb faster and go further before they become tired.
The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »With a true HIIT session, you are metabolically done. So, if done right, you’ll only be able to handle two (maybe three once you’re trained) a week. HIIT is a good shock to the system type thing, but if you’re looking for cardiovascular health, nothing beats just going on long, steady cardio sessions.
I concur, I'm kinda on the fence with HIIT cardio. For weight loss anyway. What worked for me, personally was long bike rides, several times a week. Now, for caridovascular improvement, I like HIIT. I'm doing T25 and it has helped me a ton in my mountain biking. Hills and soft sand I used to suck wind in, now I just tear it up.0 -
-
0
-
I find that my body responds better doing HIIT type workouts. Therefore I mostly do that and save the steady state cardio for the days when I still want to workout but my body is in need of a rest from the heavy stuff.0
-
chivalryder wrote: »joejccva71 wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Can be more effective for/at what?
Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.
For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.
It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week.
In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.
The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.
It sure is fun to watch those 180lbs come around the last corner on a sprint stage though....
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »joejccva71 wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Can be more effective for/at what?
Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.
For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.
It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week.
In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.
The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.
It sure is fun to watch those 180lbs come around the last corner on a sprint stage though....
Only on flat stages. I'm sure it's a lot less dramatic after a hilly stage. 0 -
chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »joejccva71 wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Can be more effective for/at what?
Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.
For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.
It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week.
In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.
The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.
It sure is fun to watch those 180lbs come around the last corner on a sprint stage though....
Only on flat stages. I'm sure it's a lot less dramatic after a hilly stage.
On a hilly stage, you wouldn't likely see any sprinters "sprinting" to the finish anyway
0 -
0
-
chivalryder wrote: »joejccva71 wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Can be more effective for/at what?
Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.
For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.
It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week.
In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.
That "horrible" body composition is what wins races. If you're an endurance athlete, you want to be as light as possible without becoming unhealthy. The more you weigh, the more calories you need to burn to travel the same distance at the same speed.
By being lighter, you burn fewer calories, which means you can go further and faster at the same level of energy exerted.
Most Tour de France winners are on the extreme low end of the BMI scale because they can climb faster and go further before they become tired.
The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.
I cringe when I see some of these comments. The poor Tour De France riders are stood up for unfair comparisions way too often. Stage racing (in particular grand tours) takes a special skill set. The top three are: 1) The ability to recover day after day, 2) be a good climber (not great, but good) 3) be a good Individual Time Trialist and 4) a really stong team for support. And I guess some luck. That is what wins grand tours. The importance of 2/3 vary on tour routes year to year.
To address the highlighted parts above, there is a parity between weight and watts, generally the more you weigh the more watts you can produce comfortably so those little angels of the mountains tend to suffer on the flats when those big guys drill it, unless of course they have a strong team to protect them.
So the first two highlighted sections, not so true. You need to do a little reasearch before you quote weight and type of rider...Cavendish is currently one of the best sprinters in the pro peloton. He races in the low 150's. Miguel Indurain raced in the mid 170's and won the TDF 5 times. Of course he was great at 1) recovery and 3) ITT. Many "good" climbers today are in the 140's and can limit their losses in the mountains but excel at time trialing. When Horner won the Vuelta he was racing at a couple ticks under 140 and you saw how he comparded to Rodriquez (races at mid 120's) on climbs.
To OP, do it all, long steady state work, mix in interval work of various lenghts and recovery periods and weights. I sure would not get too caught up in what someone on these boards labels as HIIT or not.
0 -
It's all dependent on one of two things 1) are you shooting for calories or 2) are you setting a straight time for your cardio. If it's #1 then it's the same because you are just shooting for calories out and regardless if you are doing HIIT or steady if you are trying to hit 400 calories lost either way is 400 calories lost. If you are going for time HIIT gives you more bang for your buck because of the variation or work and heart rate you are putting on your body so you will burn more doing HIIT cardio for 45 minutes vs steady for 45.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions