Is HIIT undoing all my hard work on the gym floor?
Kiahz
Posts: 17 Member
I've recently read that intense cardio such as HIIT can be bad for those hard earned gains from lifting weights...any thoughts?
0
Replies
-
I've actually always heard the opposite, that steady-state cardio is what can lead to muscle degradation but HIIT is fine. I find that I see the best gains and fat loss when I combine lifting with HIIT.
That being said, there's nothing that's really going to "undo" your lifting (except maybe not eating enough, causing your body to fuel itself with muscle). I've seen strength gains over the past 6 months even though I've been training for a marathon that whole time. If you're consistent with your weights, some cardio isn't going to ruin anything.0 -
It can definitely impact your recovery if that's a concern, but "undoing" work...no.0
-
Was this information in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which was discussing research,
or was it from a website run by who knows who & commented on by who knows who?
I'm betting on the latter.
No, cardio won't "undo" any gains from lifting weight,
unless you're overdoing it & not eating enough (as Lauren said).
But maybe if you're doing a lot of cardio (which generally uses leg muscles), go a little lighter on the strength
work on legs the days surrounding the cardio, so they have time to rebuild the muscle (which is when it gets
stronger; that's why rest days are important).1 -
Thanks guys....I've had great results combing both so when I read that I was slightly baffled, the person was highly qualified so it made me think. At the same time though I'm a big believer in doing whatever works for u, and combining both certainly works for me0
-
Do you have a link to what you read?0
-
kiahdarby257 wrote: »I've recently read that intense cardio such as HIIT can be bad for those hard earned gains from lifting weights...any thoughts?
0 -
"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo0 -
kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.0 -
Wouldn't it be great if muscles were that responsive? Like Alice in wonderland?
0 -
He is likely referencing a day/or over generalizing the results of a single study. Need a constant supply of shiny objects....0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
Yup, seems to be about recovery - you really do need to let muscles rest and recover. I do HIIT immediately after the resistance training, then have a rest day the following day consisting only of light exercise like walking (which for my level of fitness isn't a challenge). You might experience overtraining if you did strength training, HIIT with the same muscles the next day, and then strength training again.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
*nods*0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
1) Because it's trendy and if they call it "HIIT", they can get people to sign up for their workout classes (money!).
2) Because they can make up their own protocols, call it "HIIT" and sell books, DVDs, programs, etc. (money!).
The definition of HIIT is short periods of maximal intensity exercise interspersed with less intense recovery periods. There are many different protocols used (Tabata being probably the most well-known) - but basically if you're not doing maximal intensity during the work periods, it's not HIIT. It may be interval training, but it's not High Intensity Interval Training (which is what the acronym stands for).
While there may be no specific protocol, any form of actual HIIT is going to be very uncomfortable. More uncomfortable than most people will tolerate, and certainly brutal for a beginner with limited/no aerobic capacity (not to mention the possibility of injury from going all-out with a body that's not conditioned for that type of effort).0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?0 -
Got any links?[/quote]
Try https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/HIITvsCardio.html for starters, but there are many more if you google HIIT scientific studies
Interval training is great and gives real benefits, in fact it is more appropriate to most people, but to say that interval training is the same as HIIT is saying that joging is the same as sprinting0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
0 -
I've been doing hiit workouts also and don't quite a bit of research on it. From what I've found it'd the oposite. It's really good for retaining muscle mass. Long periods of cardio is training your muscles for endurance so hiit can help with bulking.
Like a couple others said though make sure you're still getting the calories in that you need.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
0 -
I've bookmarked this for further reading on the supplied links, but personally I think some of the original HIIT protocol testing was a bit flawed as well. One of the original Tabata protocols (AE1 or some combo of those letters and numbers I think) disqualified people spinning below a certain pace. Regardless of the load involved, spinning at such a low pace (IIRC 85 RPM) was more of a strength loading type setting vs what any real world biker would do attempting to set max effort and pace.
As such, I would question the method by how they would be judging maximal effort, when in fact the test itself might simply be skewed towards strength over the overall power curve.
As for the overall effort and "puke factor" references, personally I feel that the type of exercise performed would have a huge impact. Even at maximum effort, people lacking in strength in certain areas just couldn't tax their body as hard unless the load was weight biased. As in a sprinter or runner build type person with smaller muscles could readily sprint for 20 second intervals at max capacity without exerting nearly as much effort as a heavy person, or large body builder type. Less resistance to motion, less overall load, and no gearing involved.
What makes a runner puke might be easy for a heavy lifter, and what is easy to the runner might make the lifter puke.0 -
I am usually hesistant to link to wikipedia, but the article on HIIT is fairly well-written and includes a number of different protocols with references.
Also, Catalyst (a science and technology programme on the ABC, which is the Australian equivalent of the BBC) did an episode on interval training and HIIT in particular earlier this year. It can be found here on iView or here on youtube.0 -
...So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Here's an article which discusses HIIT pretty extensively, with links to studies, research review, etc. Lyle wrote a whole series of articles about steady-state vs. interval training, most of which are linked from that article.0 -
A lot of different responses in here already. The short answer is "no" it's not going to hurt your strength training gains. It's all a matter of finding balance between all of your training modalities as to not negatively impact your recovery. Too much of any form of exercise can impede one's progress if their recovery protocol isn't good or enough.0
-
really depends on goals and what you're after.
It won't "hurt" in that it makes your work go away... but you may not be as an efficient of a beast at the squat rack if you are regularly doing HIIT work between/before your lifts.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Well said.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions