HIIT before or after lifting?
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Personally I think HIIT (real HIIT, not Marketing Dept. HIIT) and heavy weight training are a really poor match.
Both put stress on your body and both need recovery time.
Do them alternate days and where's the recovery time?
Do them in the same workout period and whatever you do second has been compromised by what you did first - where's the quality of training?
Should question yourself what exactly are you hoping to gain from your workouts, what's your priority?
What should you do to maximise the benefits of your workouts in relation to your goals.
The difference in mind-set between "exercising" and "training" if you like.
I agree, your goals are important.
But what's wrong with doing HIIT post workout? What does it matter the actual speed you are going so long as your heart rate reaches a specified zone? Doesn't really matter if you are sprinting at 12mph pre-lift/off lifting day, or going 10.5mph post workout, if your heart rate still reaches the same levels.
HIIT for weight loss isn't about setting new speeds and getting faster, its about getting your heart rate to a specified level. If you are training for performance, obviously it's different.
Except Cals aren't determined by heart rate - they're determined by work performed. Running at 12 mph is more work performed than running at 10.5 mph - for the same time. As such, HIIT performed at a lower speed will burn fewer Cals than HIIT at a higher speed - regardless of heart rate.
Which is true, but the purpose of HIIT is to stress and extend your ability to perform at or beyond the training threshold.
IOW, go for 90 seconds vs 45 seconds.
The assumption is that you can already perform at a certain level... the goal is to perform longer at that level. Assuming proper recovery, doing Fatigued HIIT still successfully stresses your anaerobic and aerobic capacity.
Sure, but the assertion that it's burning the same - or more - Cals, is incorrect.
This is crazy; so if we're working out and your heart rate is steady at 140 and mine is holding at 170, we're burning the same amount of calories if we're going the same speed? That's what you're saying?
You're saying that increasing speed by 2mph is going to result in a slower heart rate?
I'm saying that if you do HIIT either before your workout, or on a day off from lifting fully recovered, you will be able to go faster at X heart rate compared to having to go slower post lifting to get to the same X heart rate; in turn burning the same amount of calories at two different speeds, with the same heart rate.
If you're running 10.5 or 12 mph after weight lifting, you're Usain bolt
NOPE!
If you run 30 seconds at 5 mph(12 minute mile) by 200 lb man you'll burn 6 calories
If you run 30 seconds at 6 mph(10 minute mile) by 200 lb man you'll burn 7.5 calories
If you run 30 seconds at 7 mph(8.5 minute mile) by 200 lb man you'll burn 8.5 calories
Now, if your HIIT is distance based... say 100 meters or 220 meters, then you would be correct... But at some point you wouldn't be doing HIIT, because you'd be taking more than 30 seconds per work interval.
Yeah, anyone can find those numbers online or on their treadmill..... Just like something saying someone biking at moderate intensity for 60 minutes burns 750 calories, the term moderate intensity is based off the persons heart rate as a percentage of their max heart rate. It's all based off your heart rate.
So you know that over time your cardiovascular system is getting more efficient and since you do it multiple times per week you should be doing it at a much higher speed than when you started?
And once your cardiovascular system gets more efficient, your heart rate lowers, meaning you're not burning as many calories, so in order to keep that constant, you must progress a variable to increase your heart rate.
I wasn't asking you because I don't know how exercise impacts the body.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Personally I think HIIT (real HIIT, not Marketing Dept. HIIT) and heavy weight training are a really poor match.
Both put stress on your body and both need recovery time.
Do them alternate days and where's the recovery time?
Do them in the same workout period and whatever you do second has been compromised by what you did first - where's the quality of training?
Should question yourself what exactly are you hoping to gain from your workouts, what's your priority?
What should you do to maximise the benefits of your workouts in relation to your goals.
The difference in mind-set between "exercising" and "training" if you like.
I agree, your goals are important.
But what's wrong with doing HIIT post workout? What does it matter the actual speed you are going so long as your heart rate reaches a specified zone? Doesn't really matter if you are sprinting at 12mph pre-lift/off lifting day, or going 10.5mph post workout, if your heart rate still reaches the same levels.
HIIT for weight loss isn't about setting new speeds and getting faster, its about getting your heart rate to a specified level. If you are training for performance, obviously it's different.
Except Cals aren't determined by heart rate - they're determined by work performed. Running at 12 mph is more work performed than running at 10.5 mph - for the same time. As such, HIIT performed at a lower speed will burn fewer Cals than HIIT at a higher speed - regardless of heart rate.
Which is true, but the purpose of HIIT is to stress and extend your ability to perform at or beyond the training threshold.
IOW, go for 90 seconds vs 45 seconds.
The assumption is that you can already perform at a certain level... the goal is to perform longer at that level. Assuming proper recovery, doing Fatigued HIIT still successfully stresses your anaerobic and aerobic capacity.
Sure, but the assertion that it's burning the same - or more - Cals, is incorrect.
This is crazy; so if we're working out and your heart rate is steady at 140 and mine is holding at 170, we're burning the same amount of calories if we're going the same speed? That's what you're saying?
You're saying that increasing speed by 2mph is going to result in a slower heart rate?
I'm saying that if you do HIIT either before your workout, or on a day off from lifting fully recovered, you will be able to go faster at X heart rate compared to having to go slower post lifting to get to the same X heart rate; in turn burning the same amount of calories at two different speeds, with the same heart rate.
If you're running 10.5 or 12 mph after weight lifting, you're Usain bolt
NOPE!
If you run 30 seconds at 5 mph(12 minute mile) by 200 lb man you'll burn 6 calories
If you run 30 seconds at 6 mph(10 minute mile) by 200 lb man you'll burn 7.5 calories
If you run 30 seconds at 7 mph(8.5 minute mile) by 200 lb man you'll burn 8.5 calories
Haha no, I do this multiple times a week post workout at 12 for 1min intervals.... It's a 5:00 mile.... Guys run that for a marathon....
Then maybe you need to up your lifting game.
And get off the treadmill.. since it takes 15-30 seconds to get up to that speed....
And yeah, marathoners run that for a marathon... on the road.
They don't run that after they've spent an hour lifting weights.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »But what's wrong with doing HIIT post workout? What does it matter the actual speed you are going so long as your heart rate reaches a specified zone? Doesn't really matter if you are sprinting at 12mph pre-lift/off lifting day, or going 10.5mph post workout, if your heart rate still reaches the same levels.
It matters, I'm not sure how much. With your example, probably not very much if running isn't what's important to you.
Heart rate = your body's reaction to the work you're doing + to many other factors. Lags power by up to 30 seconds.
Pace = a good approximation of your external workload if you're on flat ground w/o too much wind.
Pace is just a much better target, it's more objective, it's comparable from one day to the next, it's what matters if you're a runner, and it's instantaneous which is important for short intervals.Except Cals aren't determined by heart rate - they're determined by work performed.
Not relevant in this particular case because HIIT is a terrible way to burn calories. It burns fewer cals than a moderate workout because of the rest, it demands more recovery time which can prevent large burns from LSD training. HIIT is a specific type of workout for fitness purposes.
I like you haha rather than picking sides, just picking a piece from both sides and going on it.
But I believe RPE, if you know your body well enough, can be better than going off pacing. Usually can estimate heart rate within 5-8 beats. (excluding the first couple minutes where it seems like your heart rate is flying compared to where it actually is)1 -
Yeah, anyone can find those numbers online or on their treadmill..... Just like something saying someone biking at moderate intensity for 60 minutes burns 750 calories, the term moderate intensity is based off the persons heart rate as a percentage of their max heart rate. It's all based off your heart rate.
I bike 4,000 to 5,000 miles per year. I record my HR while I ride but almost never look at it until after I get off the bike. It's useful for predicting recovery time and for PWR:HR ratios.
210 watts is what it takes to burn ~750 kCal in an hour on a bike. Doesn't matter what heart rates that happens at. If I drink a lot of coffee or worry about how I'm going to pay for an upcoming trip, my HR will be higher because of it, but an average of 210w burns 756 kCal per hour.
Whether 210w is easy, moderate, or hard depends on your fitness level. If you're capable of outputting that much power for 60 minutes, you're in better shape than many recreational cyclists. Anyway, it's simple: intensity factor = normalized power / functional threshold power.0 -
@rdridi12stanmann571 wrote: »Personally I think HIIT (real HIIT, not Marketing Dept. HIIT) and heavy weight training are a really poor match.
Both put stress on your body and both need recovery time.
Do them alternate days and where's the recovery time?
Do them in the same workout period and whatever you do second has been compromised by what you did first - where's the quality of training?
Should question yourself what exactly are you hoping to gain from your workouts, what's your priority?
What should you do to maximise the benefits of your workouts in relation to your goals.
The difference in mind-set between "exercising" and "training" if you like.
I agree, your goals are important.
But what's wrong with doing HIIT post workout? What does it matter the actual speed you are going so long as your heart rate reaches a specified zone? Doesn't really matter if you are sprinting at 12mph pre-lift/off lifting day, or going 10.5mph post workout, if your heart rate still reaches the same levels.
HIIT for weight loss isn't about setting new speeds and getting faster, its about getting your heart rate to a specified level. If you are training for performance, obviously it's different.
Except Cals aren't determined by heart rate - they're determined by work performed. Running at 12 mph is more work performed than running at 10.5 mph - for the same time. As such, HIIT performed at a lower speed will burn fewer Cals than HIIT at a higher speed - regardless of heart rate.
Which is true, but the purpose of HIIT is to stress and extend your ability to perform at or beyond the training threshold.
IOW, go for 90 seconds vs 45 seconds.
The assumption is that you can already perform at a certain level... the goal is to perform longer at that level. Assuming proper recovery, doing Fatigued HIIT still successfully stresses your anaerobic and aerobic capacity.
Sure, but the assertion that it's burning the same - or more - Cals, is incorrect.
This is crazy; so if we're working out and your heart rate is steady at 140 and mine is holding at 170, we're burning the same amount of calories if we're going the same speed? That's what you're saying?
Real world example:
Three people training together on indoor power meter equipped bikes - all producing the same power (200w), therefore all burning almost identical amount of calories.
Heart rate of youngster on my left = 180, mine = 150, exceptional but amateur cyclist on my right = 130.
The youngster was perfectly comfortable at a HR that is above my tested max, the exceptional cyclist is just ticking over as his capability is far higher. All burning the same amount of calories remember.
That's a huge range between a sample of just three fit people. Throw unfit or elite athletes into the mix and the range would be even bigger.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions