Such high calorie burns? What?

abrunson2626

Commander_Keen wrote: »

I am on the tread mill for 100 min.
I burn 1500+ calories
My current weight is 220+
I do HIIT.. I run for 45 seconds (7.2)mph and walk for a min

100 mins of HIIT??
I just started doing HIIT on the Arc Trainer, I warm up for a 3 mins at level 3. After that i do 30 secs as fast and hard as i can on level 15, then drop down to level 3 at a slow pace for 1 min 30 secs. I can repeat this 3 times and I'm done, my legs feel like they are going to flat burn off. I can't hardly sit or walk without them throbbing. I can't see how anyone can come close to hour and 40 mins of HIIT.

Commander_Keen

LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »

I kinda don't believe anyone can do 100 minutes of HIIT.
HIIT is all out sprinting, going as hard as you can until you think your heart is going to burst and you are begging for mercy, then back to steady state cardio for recovery. No walking allowed, unless walking is steady state cardio for you.

I'm not being mean here. I'm not ready for true HIIT right now. But I've done a lot of it, and the most even my friend who is super fit can do is 45 minutes. And even then, she doesn't. It's too hard on the body and if you do too much of it it's counter productive for training.

I don't think there is a word for what that is. There should be. Like maybe, medium intensity interval training? Like when I ramp up the elliptical and go all out for forty seconds then take it back to normal speed for forty seconds?

You and I have different meanings to the term HIIT then.
For me, its not about running at 9 mph or 10 or 12. but to run faster than you would normally run at.
So for me, I am comfortable running at 6.0 mph. and 7.0 mph is much harder for me to do for a length of time.

ccsernica

For my current running route, weight, and time, every calculator I've seen has me burning at least 600 cal in the 48 minutes it takes me to finish. I choose not to believe the ones that tell me I burn 750 cal.

abrunson2626

Commander_Keen wrote: »

LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »

I kinda don't believe anyone can do 100 minutes of HIIT.
HIIT is all out sprinting, going as hard as you can until you think your heart is going to burst and you are begging for mercy, then back to steady state cardio for recovery. No walking allowed, unless walking is steady state cardio for you.

I'm not being mean here. I'm not ready for true HIIT right now. But I've done a lot of it, and the most even my friend who is super fit can do is 45 minutes. And even then, she doesn't. It's too hard on the body and if you do too much of it it's counter productive for training.

I don't think there is a word for what that is. There should be. Like maybe, medium intensity interval training? Like when I ramp up the elliptical and go all out for forty seconds then take it back to normal speed for forty seconds?

You and I have different meanings to the term HIIT then.
For me, its not about running at 9 mph or 10 or 12. but to run faster than you would normally run at.
So for me, I am comfortable running at 6.0 mph. and 7.0 mph is much harder for me to do for a length of time.

Nothing wrong with what you are doing but it's not truly a HIIT program.

HIIT - "HIIT is the concept where one performs a short burst of high-intensity (or max-intensity) exercise followed by a brief low-intensity activity, repeatedly, until too exhausted to continue. Though there is no universal HIIT session duration, these intense workouts typically last under 30 minutes, with times varying based on a participant's current fitness level."

Commander_Keen

abrunson2626 wrote: »

Commander_Keen wrote: »

HIIT - "HIIT is the concept where one performs a short burst of high-intensity (or max-intensity) exercise followed by a brief low-intensity activity, repeatedly, until too exhausted to continue. Though there is no universal HIIT session duration, these intense workouts typically last under 30 minutes, with times varying based on a participant's current fitness level."

So why is mine not correct??
45 seconds is a short burst,
7.2 = max intensity.
Brief low intensity activity = walk for 60 seconds
110 min = repeated until too exhausted to continue.

abrunson2626

Commander_Keen wrote: »

abrunson2626 wrote: »

Commander_Keen wrote: »

HIIT - "HIIT is the concept where one performs a short burst of high-intensity (or max-intensity) exercise followed by a brief low-intensity activity, repeatedly, until too exhausted to continue. Though there is no universal HIIT session duration, these intense workouts typically last under 30 minutes, with times varying based on a participant's current fitness level."

So why is mine not correct??
45 seconds is a short burst,
7.2 = max intensity.
Brief low intensity activity = walk for 60 seconds
110 min = repeated until too exhausted to continue.

Look up HIIT on youtube and you will see what I'm talking about. The high intensity part of HIIT is 100% max of what you can do no less. HIIT is design to be a much shorter workout but still get the same as a longer but less intense one.

I'm sorry but you you're doing hour and 50 mins you're not doing 100% max on the high intensity part.

cwolfman13

http://blog.nasm.org/sports-performance/hiit-hvit-viit-know-differences/

LeoT0917

The_Enginerd wrote: »

LeoT0917 wrote: »

I think you may be missing the point. From a biochemical point of view, while the work output needed to cover 10 mi at at a 6 min/mile pace for a squat, 4ft 9in flabby 160 lb runner compared to a 6 ft Olympic middle distance 160 lb athlete may be similar, the calories burned to get that output will likely be quite different. It actually takes energy to produce energy (I. E. The body is not an ideal engine) and that energy cost will be quite different based on the biological fuel source (glycogen, glucose, fat, diglycerides, muscle, etc.), efficiency of oxygen transport from the lungs to the muscles, level of hydration, etc. Is the energy being produced via aerobic vs anaerobic pathways? Etc. etc.

I guarantee you that the heart of the squat poorly conditioned runner running the 10 miles in 60 minutes will be pumping at a much higher rate than the Olympic athlete which clearly takes more calories over the same time period. At least until they keel over with cardiac arrest.

A similar analogy would be two cars that weigh the same but have engines that operate at significantly different efficiencies. One will burn less fuel (i. e. Fewer calories) to travel the same distance.

The differences in HR have nothing to do with any calorie burn differences between the two runners. The differences in HR are due to the vast differences in their cardiovascular fitness. In addition, there are pretty significant differences in individual heart rate vs. cardiovascular output, and HR is affected by many other things such as weather conditions and recovery.

Any difference in running calorie burn between two runners of the same weight is going to be down to: 1) running efficiency (i.e. power output to run at a certain speed) and 2) biomechanical efficiency (i.e. efficiency in converting calories to power output).

These efficiencies vary from person to person, but honestly worrying about those minutia is majoring in the minors. These efficiencies tend to lie within a fairly narrow range on average. It is not "significantly different" as you keep insisting. And it's a more accurate indicator than HR, which is a fairly loose indicator of calorie burns.

LeoT0917

Let's agree to disagree.

'Are You Burning as Many Calories as You Think?' - http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/burning-many-calories-think/