HIIT Workouts

stephinator92

Hi all- I'm looking to incorporate some HIIT workouts into my treadmill routine which has been pretty static to this point.

Can anyone make any recommendations either on workouts or resources to find good ones?

MeanderingMammal

What are you aiming to achieve from it?

What distance do you run now, and what pace do you run at?

troytroy11

I have been using Insanity Max 30 for over a year now and incorporate that into treadmill and outside running. It never gets old for me but everyone is different.

stephinator92

So far I've only been walking. I want to improve my lung capacity (cardiovascular?) and become stronger so when I do start jogging steadily it's not as bad. Also looking to attain some fat loss

MeanderingMammal

stephinator92 wrote: »

So far I've only been walking. I want to improve my lung capacity (cardiovascular?) and become stronger so when I do start jogging steadily it's not as bad. Also looking to attain some fat loss

OK, so in that case a treadmill HIIT session is unlikely to gain you much, you'll benefit from building your aerobic base first, then adding some speedwork. In all honesty the main thing you'll do is increase your injury risk.

I would suggest using Couch to 5K to get you to running for 30 minutes. That's an interval based programme that then allows you to build using a Bridge to 10K that'll get you ruing for 60 minutes.

Once you can comfortably run for an hour you'll be in a position where sprint itnervals start to give you some value.

stephinator92

Alright- I started C25k in the fall and it became too cold for me to continue outside- I'll start back up with it on the treadmill if that's my best bet!

tillerstouch

If you've only been walking I agree you may want to start by just being able to do a steady jog for a longer period of time.

That being said, being able to run comfortably for an hour is an arbitrary number, if your goal isn't to be able to run a 5K then why do that program. If your goal is to jog for heart health then starting interval training at any point has value and in fact hiit has been shown to be better for your heart then steady cardio.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/22648463
http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/hiitversusconcardio.html
Here are just 2 articles I found on Google scholar showing that hiit was more effective then steady cardio.

The reason to wait though is because hiit involves getting your heart rate up very high, and if you are only able to walk right now then it could lead to an injury or just cause burn out. If you want to start hiit not doing it on a treadmill would help avoid injury, that way you have control over your speed and ability to stop vs a treadmill setting the pace. Also hiit involves really pushing yourself but make sure you're still being careful. You also could do hiit with a jump rope, swimming, and lots of other exercises that would probably be safer then doing it on a treadmill.

When you're just starting out give yourself more rest between the high intensity parts and then gradually reduce that time until you're able to do more around a 1:1 ratio.

MeanderingMammal

tillerstouch wrote: »

That being said, being able to run comfortably for an hour is an arbitrary number, if your goal isn't to be able to run a 5K then why do that program. If your goal is to jog for heart health then starting interval training at any point has value and in fact hiit has been shown to be better for your heart then steady cardio.

The snag with all of these papers is that they require pretty careful reading to get beyond the headline. In the first of the two articles you cite the abstract talks about better but doesn't talk about what that means? In practice the protocols described weren't all that representative of HIIT, with the maximum intensities in what we'd generally dscribe as threshold range(85%MHR), rather than maximal (95%MHR).

The latter article concludes that both steady state and high intensity work has value.

I'd also note that many fo the articles talk in terms of percentages, rather than absolutes. So, again in the second article there is no appreciation of what 10% better means... Does that mean the difference between 10 and 11 or 1000 and 1100? The two are materially different outcomes.

I'd equate it to calorie consumption. I can run for 40 minutes steady state and burn 400 calories, or I can do a HIIT session that takes 40 minutes including warm up and cool down, and burn 450 calories. I can do the former five days per week, but wouldn't be able to do the latter properly that frequently. Is it really worth the recovery demand for a relatively minor improvement?

tillerstouch

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

tillerstouch wrote: »

That being said, being able to run comfortably for an hour is an arbitrary number, if your goal isn't to be able to run a 5K then why do that program. If your goal is to jog for heart health then starting interval training at any point has value and in fact hiit has been shown to be better for your heart then steady cardio.

The snag with all of these papers is that they require pretty careful reading to get beyond the headline. In the first of the two articles you cite the abstract talks about better but doesn't talk about what that means? In practice the protocols described weren't all that representative of HIIT, with the maximum intensities in what we'd generally dscribe as threshold range(85%MHR), rather than maximal (95%MHR).

The latter article concludes that both steady state and high intensity work has value.

I'd also note that many fo the articles talk in terms of percentages, rather than absolutes. So, again in the second article there is no appreciation of what 10% better means... Does that mean the difference between 10 and 11 or 1000 and 1100? The two are materially different outcomes.

I'd equate it to calorie consumption. I can run for 40 minutes steady state and burn 400 calories, or I can do a HIIT session that takes 40 minutes including warm up and cool down, and burn 450 calories. I can do the former five days per week, but wouldn't be able to do the latter properly that frequently. Is it really worth the recovery demand for a relatively minor improvement?

The point of the papers was to show the effectiveness of hiit workouts which they do. I would love to see some research on how hiit only adds value if you can "run comfortably for an hour."

I don't use cardio to create a calorie deficit, calorie deficit through eating less is all that is necessary for weight loss so calories burned is irrelevant with proper calorie tracking. So for the most part cardio is only necessary for heart health.

Also OP simply stated they want to jog without mentioning a distance. So your suggestion to work up to a 5K may be unnecessary. I lift weights and don't care at all about how far I can run, the only reason I do cardio is for my heart so hiit pars with my lifting much better then running for 40 minutes.

My advice to OP would be build up some endurance first then go ahead and try some hiit, start with a higher ratio of low to high intensity and then start lowering the low intensity. Also I wouldn't recommend hiit every day but instead 2-3 times a week and the other days do steady cardio.

Also I do agree with you that jumping right into hiit treadmill workouts is a bad idea.

kcjchang

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

The snag with all of these papers is that they require pretty careful reading to get beyond the headline. In the first of the two articles you cite the abstract talks about better but doesn't talk about what that means? In practice the protocols described weren't all that representative of HIIT, with the maximum intensities in what we'd generally dscribe as threshold range(85%MHR), rather than maximal (95%MHR).

Gibaba et al. gentler option for sedentary people who had done no exercise for over a year? Three minutes of warm-up, 10 repetitions of 60-second bursts at 60% peak power (80- 95% of heart rate reserve) each followed by 60 seconds of recovery, and then a 5-minute cool-down.

It's not HIIT. It's even hard to categorize his original 2009 regimen, "The Little Method", as HIIT without a smirk.

MeanderingMammal

tillerstouch wrote: »

The point of the papers was to show the effectiveness of hiit workouts which they do.

And the point of my response was that it pays to dig into the detail of what is meant by what's written. HIIT has value, undoubtedly. It's not the magic bullet that's claimed on these boards.

HIIT helps to improve VO2Max far more than anything else. Using the model described in the abstract, essentially threshold rather than high intensity, there is a marginal improvement in stroke volume compared to short duration low intensity work. There is nothing out there that compares it with moderate duration moderate intensity.

Essentially the examples cited are walking cf threshold level interval training, not endurance pace running cf HIIT sprints.

I've read many reports that claim to assess HIIT, and then don't compare in a meaningful way, either not really HIIT or compared against an unrealistic baseline.

I don't use cardio to create a calorie deficit, calorie deficit through eating less is all that is necessary for weight loss so calories burned is irrelevant with proper calorie tracking. So for the most part cardio is only necessary for heart health.

So the point of the example about marginal benefits from HIIT was merely an example of marginal benefits. Perhaps I shouldn't have phrased that in a way that would anticipate inference of it being an example. I would observe, and it's an N=1 example, I can eat to 1900 cals and feel hungry, or I can eat 2900, run off 1000 and not feel hungry. So whilst I'd agree that one needn't do any training at all and just eat at a deficit, some form of training does help. I saw something recently that essentially identified greater enduring success for those whose deficits were supported by training than those who only ate to deficit.

Also OP simply stated they want to jog without mentioning a distance. So your suggestion to work up to a 5K may be unnecessary. I lift weights and don't care at all about how far I can run, the only reason I do cardio is for my heart so hiit pars with my lifting much better then running for 40 minutes.

To be honest 5K is a pretty standard objective for most people starting to run. Actually I said a C25K plan would get someone to 30 minutes, which is pretty much a minimum that's worthwhile running for on a routine basis. A 5K is the shortest easy access race that doesn't involve access to a track and/ or club membership, so if someone aspires to run I generally wouldn't suggest anything shorter. Races are pretty motivational for people and it's particularly useful for people who're stuck on treadmills, getting into virtual racing and the like.

With respect to whether an hour is arbitrary or not, it may be. The majority of running plans tend to emphasise steady state up to 60 minutes before getting more complex around sprint intervals, threshold runs, long runs and recovery sessions. The majority of speed gains come from more time on the feet, rather than trying to get creative around how to train.

There is a very valuable point there about the need to combine CV work with resistance training. A new runner isn't going to run every day, so it's worth including some resistance training into a plan as well as running.

ZRx4

Umm hope these names help. I like hiit and one of the girls I know, got the results she wanted from doing hiit only. Previously running 6 miles then hitting crossfit afterwards. EveryBODY is different.

Melissa bender 30-day challenge
Melissa ioja-Boss mode etc

ZRx4

Btw those are on YouTube lol

stephinator92

Thanks everybody!

nicolemarie999

OP - Sounds like C25K or HIIT would meet your goals. Personally, I love HIIT work outs and have never had an injury related to one, but make sure you do a really good long warm-up and go easy and keep it short at first- allow your body to get used to it. I found it really does help to quickly improve your aerobic capacity. I don't think HIIT is "better" or "worse" than endurance training and vice versa and a well rounded program would combine both (as well as some strength training). Some people like to sprint hard and then rest and some prefer to run steady and some like to do both . I'm sure you will form your own preferences, it's important to do what you like because you will be more likely to stick with it.

I think people like HIIT because you don't need to work for 40 minutes and you get similar aerobic capacity improvements as if you did. For sure you are not getting the calorie burn or training your legs to tolerate long distance running but if you are short on time it's a great way to improve aerobic capacity efficiently.

hockeysniper8

There is a fitness blender account on youtube with Hiit workouts, try Tabata too

kcjchang

HIIT, especially Tabata's regimen, is not for beginners. Tabata regimen calls for interval intensity of 150% of VO2Max or higher. If fact HIIT is not for beginners, period. Just because your doing hard or harder intervals, they are necessary HIIT. HIIT is a finishing tool to get competitor ready for competitions. The fatigue generated it's not something that the body can tolerated for long periods, 6-8 weeks at two (maybe three) sessions per week tops. The benefits also dissipates quickly because of the rest needed to recover (although one is left with a slightly higher base). There's been numerous study that show limited to no benefit for the untrained as compared to higher intensity steady state training. The biggest bang for HIIT is that it can raise one's threshold but that's something not needed for beginners/recreational since reach your current potential threshold and the ability to sustain it would be paramount before trying to raise it to your genetic limiter.

robertw486

I think the term HIIT has become complete grey area in use, and what defines it these days is hard to put a finger on. Personally I wouldn't ever call it HIIT unless it was capable of exceeding oxygen uptake and thus every interval results in increasing heart rate, often very quickly.

That being said, intervals at many levels of output can help most people IMO. I often mix things up on the elliptical and toss in some higher intensities and intervals that make me work harder. I would suggest to the OP that the treadmill is a tricky machine to do high output on, and use caution. A bike or anything else that allows YOU to dictate pace lets you push more for short periods, because it instantly adjusts to your output. On a treadmill you can adjust but not as quick. The better option might be to set a higher pace and watch time, bumping up the sustained time you can keep that pace.


As for the real higher intensity HIIT such as Tabata, I think they are still not really understood by many. It's not as terrible as some make them to be, but not easy either. Being that the gauge of power they use, VO2max, is a measure of fitness level the effort required is in line with that persons fitness levels. I did one a few days back on the elliptical, at the required output of 170% VO2max for the work period. I saw big improvements over the one I did back a few months ago, and my max HR was down about 20 BPM. But even with the improvements from sustained training, my HR went from 100 to 165 in that four minutes, less than 3 of which are the work period.

I did the Tabata after some upper body stuff and 3 miles of warm up. Doing the Tabata alone, I'm confident I could do it 4-5 times a week without issue. But from my training, I think anything that has intervals that create an oxygen deficit can and will help develop better power output on the anaerobic side. And that can be isolated from, or combined with aerobic type training at lower intensities. Both should increase VO2max.

PaleoPretty25

Thegymbox treadmill workouts on YouTube. They help alot.

Rick_Nelson81

I get pretty good results doing sprints on the treadmill for as long as I can as fast as I can, and then walking until my heart rate comes down enough so that I can do it again. I warm up by walking briskly for 5 min, do about 5 sprints (I aim for 60 sec) and then cool down by walking again. Call it whatever you want, that's my technique. It may not by optimal, but it's what I call HIIT. My max heart rate usually peaks at around 185, and I start again when it comes down to around 140. Any useful criticisms/helpful are welcome.