Jogging v hiit?

Timshel_

msthang444 wrote: »

Can someone help? I'm having issues reconciling jogging v hiit. If i jog 2.5 miles in 30 min i burn ~300 cals. Turbofire/insanity for 30 min burns 181-240 cals. Why is the hiit supposedly better?

Both have their place, and both burn similar calories. Standard steady state cardio is easier to quantify because it burns the majority of the calories during exercise, but HIIT has an 'after-burn' effect (EPOC) which brings it in line with work done in steady state. From a purely calorie stand-point the main interest in HIIT workouts is that you can get similar caloric burns in approximately 1/3 the duration. Studies also show that HIIT has an increased reduction of fat over a similar period of steady state. Beyond that, everything becomes a bit subjective and the benefits or downfalls will depend on your goals.

Programs like Insanity of the like are billed as HIIT, but they are actually moderate and high intensity steady state. If it is continuous motion at the high HR, it should be logging more calories then less intense jogging, but because it is intervals that are meant to riase and lower the HR, that is were readings for calories become a bit blurred.

So what really matters?

In my opinion, for anyone starting steady state is key until they get muscles and joints used to the movement and impact. at some point I fully believe in adding short session of HIIT (4 weeks or less and maybe a few times a year to every 3-4 months) in with steady state. Anyone can do it, but when done correctly (80-90% of max, aka not catching your breathe and feeling like you will cough up a lung) it isn't for everyone. The good news is, while HIIT was reserved for athletes trying to gain additional, small competitive edges, work over the last few years shows that average exercising adults benefit even more in their cardiovascular improvements (the worse shape you are in, the greater the benefit).

It is certainly worth looking into and studying about to see if you believe it is right for your goals.

Most people starting out and even through their whole weight loss work can simply eat at deficit and walk to lose weight and see cardio improvement. Those that look for more challenge or have performance goals, that is when HIIT would be considered.

Then again, because opinions vary. I always suggest doing reading from sources you trust. Then try it for yourself. What you like and think works for you is really all that matters.

NorthCascades

"Afterburn" comes from repairing muscle tissue that was damaged during exercise. That happens a great deal with lifting, which is why you need so many calories to bulk up. It also happens during intense cardiovascular exercise. For example, if you bike up a hill at race pace, you're using your leg muscles to generate a lot of force and power, which breaks them down somewhat and then they need repair. This happens whether you're doing intervals or not. If you ride a bike or run over a mountain pass at the steadiest state you can manage, you'll have plenty of afterburn, much more than from a HIIT session. There's nothing special about HIIT here; it's the intensity, not the HIIT.

When you get right down to it, most of a HIIT workout is spent resting, so you'll get more calories and more afterburn without all the rest - just doing steady, intense exercise instead. HIIT is for slackers.

Timshel_

NorthCascades wrote: »

When you get right down to it, most of a HIIT workout is spent resting, so you'll get more calories and more afterburn without all the rest - just doing steady, intense exercise instead. HIIT is for slackers.

That's funny.

I would recommend anyone interested read up.