Can Weightlfiting be HIIT?

tsazani
tsazani Posts: 816 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
I'm already in very good shape. VO2max = 41 (very good for my age). My goal is to get to 43 (elite for my age).

I lift weights twice a week. I also do 2 days of yoga and 2 days of steady state cardio.

When I lift weights, my heart rate goes into the 90-95% MHR (maximum heart rate) range. After about a minute rest, it returns to the 70-75% MHR range and I do another set.

Can I say my weighlifting days are a form of HIIT?
«1

Replies

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited July 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited July 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    jennybearlv wrote: »
    Can I call super setting steady state cardio?

    See my other comment.

    Basically, if you decrease the resistance for a weight lifting movement enough to have a more noticeable cardio effect, you decrease the effectiveness of the movement for strength training.

    To increase the cardio training effect of a weight lifting move, you need to decrease the resistance to 30% of so of 1 RM. That's not really enough to effectively build strength.

    As I said before, someone who dislikes traditional "cardio" exercises like walking, running, elliptical, etc., can do movements with weights that can be a reasonable substitute. You just can replace your regular strength training with those sessions.

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Unless you are trying to increase your VO2 max training for a specific sport, the cardio you currently do is fine for general health. There is no need for HIIT. It's a specific protocol for a specific reason. Outside of that reason it carries little advantage. The marketeers have done a good job trying to get us to think we do though.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    I want to call my weightlifting days HIIT because of marketing. My exercise program consists of a hard day (weights) followed by an easy day (yoga) followed by a moderate day (steady state cardio). Then hard, soft, moderate again and rest on Sundays.

    So, as an older dude interested in physical fitness. I'm trying to cover all the bases. Weight lifting maintains my muscle mass. There's lots of anaerobic activity. Yoga for my joints, flexibility, and balance. The steady state cardio is for my heart and lungs.     The only thing (supposedly) lacking is HIIT.

    The problem for me is if I do HIIT sessions and the weight lifting sessions, I feel that I'll go into the dreaded "over training" mode. Plus, I don't know if sprinting is a good thing for a guy who will be 60 years old soon. The older you get, the easier it is to over train. Even worse: INJURIES.

    The following is why I want to call my weightlifting HIIT.

    E.g. if I walk for 30 seconds, then sprint for 30 seconds, and do this 10 times that's HIIT. Thus I would warm up 5 min. Do HIIT for 10 min. Cool down 5 min. Stretch 10 min. This would be a 30 min session. My exercise sessions last exactly 1 hr. So I'd save 60 min per week if I did HIIT instead of steady state cardio.

    Consider the weightlifting. If I do 10 reps (2 sec up and 2 seconds down) that's 40 seconds for the set. Then I rest 60 seconds. I do 17 sets in about 35 minutes. During those 35 min: 3 min in red zone (9%). 16 min in yellow zone (46%). And 16 min (46%) in the green zone.

    So can I call my weightlifting "mini HIIT" for old guys <grin>?

    Sounds like a great plan! Keep at it, and don't worry about what it's called :)
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Unless you are trying to increase your VO2 max training for a specific sport, the cardio you currently do is fine for general health. There is no need for HIIT. It's a specific protocol for a specific reason. Outside of that reason it carries little advantage. The marketeers have done a good job trying to get us to think we do though.

    We get into some slippery semantics of what we actually mean by "HIIT", and what we mean by "advantage" and "benefit" and all that stuff.

    From my viewpoint, this is one of those issues where a very powerful and useful tool (HIIT, or any higher-intensity interval training), is facing a backlash because it has been overhyped and recommended inappropriately.

    So just as I did not want people to overreact and start using HIIT indiscriminately, I also don't want people (in general, not you specifically) to overreact and start dismissing it as a workout tool.

    I generally agree that the "classic" definition of HIIT as a series of all-out intervals is something that few people "need" to do.

    OTOH, accepting a more broad definition of HIIT as being interval training in the 80%-85% intensity range (or even 75%) can have real benefits for the majority of exercisers, including those working out for general health or recreational reasons, and should be included in most peoples' workout routines.

    (again, I am more adding to your comment, not disagreeing with it).

    Yes, thanks for this. Agreed.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited July 2017
    So, as an older dude interested in physical fitness. I'm trying to cover all the bases. Weight lifting maintains my muscle mass. There's lots of anaerobic activity. Yoga for my joints, flexibility, and balance. The steady state cardio is for my heart and lungs. The only thing (supposedly) lacking is HIIT.

    The key word is supposedly!
    I'm an "older dude" too - 57. I'm very fit (last VO2 max test was 54). I don't do any HIIT at all as it's inappropriate, unnecessary and pointless for my fitness goals and capabilities. If it interferes with my other training or recovery it's actually become counter productive.

    But I do long duration interval training specifically to help some of my goals. I also do some extremely short burst maximal effort work, and very long duration base building, and weights... etc etc.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited July 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • WendyLeigh1119
    WendyLeigh1119 Posts: 495 Member
    Maybe with Kettlebells mixed in rather than "lifting" like some live classes do? Because of the swinging and weird moves and such.
  • RavenLibra
    RavenLibra Posts: 1,737 Member
    Awesome responses...my understanding of correct HIIT is to blow up the aerobic into anaerobic in order to push the cardio and respiratory and circulatory systems into an overall higher level of performance... ie run longer and faster. It's most common for endurance athletes, marathon training, triathlon, rugby, road cycling, soccer... where extreme efforts are regularly required... it should only be done under supervision of a qualified trainer and not under a pt... seek out a qualified and certified conditioning coach... after you have consulted with your doctor... even elite athletes have died undertaking HIIT. For the average fitness buff unless you are training for a 30-36 min 10k there's no reason to do proper HIIT... and it should only be done periodically for up to 6 weeks with a long break... 2-3 months between cycles... safety first.., HIIT for its current market ploy... is just regular interval training... just like today's bone broth is your ma's soup stock
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Motorsheen
    Motorsheen Posts: 20,508 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    tsazani wrote: »
    Why the marketing? I hang around with lots of millennials. I've got 4 millennial generation children. Add in the cousins and friends and that adds up to lots of millennials.

    Back to my OP. Here's a quote from WebMD:

    <“High intensity means using as much energy as you can during exercise in a small amount of time,” says Laura Miele-Pascoe, PhD, a professor of coaching education for Ohio University online.
    Your cardio blasts should be 30 seconds to 5 minutes, depending on how fit you are. The goal is to get your heart rate up to 80% to 95% of its maximum rate.>

    According to the above my weightlifting sessions are HIIT. During those 35 min, 55% is spent in the 80-95% MHR zone and 45% is spend in the 70-80% MHR zone.

    So why is it NOT correct to call my weightlifting HIIT? No one has yet given me a satisfactory explanation.

    You have gotten an explanation--it's just not the one you want ;-)

    However, I will try again:

    The heart rate increase that occurs during weight lifting is driven by a different physical response than the increase that occurs with cardio. The increased HR number looks the same on your HRM, but what is happening in your body is not the same.

    When HR increases during cardio, oxygen uptake increases as well; when HR increases during heavy weight lifting, it does not. Increased oxygen uptake is the definition of a cardio training effect, NOT heart rate.

    Even though your HR increases substantially during weight training, the actual cardio effect is modest--not even to the level of your stready-state cardio.

    You can modify strength movements in order to make them more "aerobic", but to do that requires that you lower the resistance to the point where it is no longer real "strength training". However, if you like strength movements rather than cardio, you can do it--just don't substitute those exercises for your regular weight lifting.

    If you want to do HIIT-style cardio training and minimize the impact on your joints, there are a lot of ways to do it other than sprints. HIIT can be done on a bike, rowing machine, stairmaster, or even walking at steep incline on a treadmill.

    PS: sites like WebMD tend to oversimplify things, especially when it comes to exercise. To be honest, even a lot of doctors and degreed fitness trainers are unaware of what I just described. It takes a lot of time, research review, and academic interest to learn the nuances of exercise physiology.

    Mad Re5pext


    giphy.gif
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    I really shouldn't scratch this itch but in what way is a calorie not a calorie by your understanding? because calories are a unit of measure. Nutrition =/= calories.
  • MsHarryWinston
    MsHarryWinston Posts: 1,027 Member
    Soooo do you also believe that a kilowatt is not a kilowatt? A calorie is a unit of energy, that is ALL.

    And changing the name of an exercise to something that it's not because "millennials"? That makes absolutely no sense.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,688 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    Why the marketing? I hang around with lots of millennials. I've got 4 millennial generation children. Add in the cousins and friends and that adds up to lots of millennials.

    (More snipped by rerly-er)

    On the marketing front: As a 61-year-old myself, I suggest you play the "older and wiser" card.

    With the excellent info provided by Azdak and sijomial et al, supplemented by your further self-education on the subject, calmly explain to these young whippersnappers how they've simply fallen for the latest hype; that you have a better-informed, clear-eyed understanding of your own fitness objectives, and the best scientifically-supported methods for achieving them; and that they're free to follow the pop-culture trendsetters over any fashionable cliff they prefer. Nod sagely, then return to your regular workout.

    With detailed physiological explanations to support each point, bolstered by your credentials as a doctor, I think you've got this one won. ;)

    (Personally, I've done a bit of actual HIIT on the rowing machine, even as an oldie, when seriously training for (rowing) racing, and lived. I'd never recommend real HIIT to someone without solid base cardiovascular fitness (would be risky IMO, and pointless) and I shudder when I see people suggest it to actual exercise beginners.)
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    VF watch a movie on Netflix called "Fed Up".

    I have. Whether you believe what is largely propaganda and scaremongering buying into the latest food demon of choice it doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a unit of energy. It's a measurement, like a mile or a gallon. A gallon doesn't change if it's a gallon of water or oil, it's still a gallon.

    A calorie is a calorie. 100 calories of chocolate contains the same energy as 100 calories of chicken breast. What they are not is nutritionally identical.

    And because this conversation is had far too much that's all I'll say about it!
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    Thank you all. Especially Azdak and sijomial.

    Azdak: I didn't realize that "a load is not a load" just like a I didn't understant until last year that "a calorie is not a calorie".

    Up until your explanation I did not differentiate regarding "loads" on HR. My thinking is If it keeps you in the aerobic state (little or no lactic acid production) it's "cardio". If it puts you in an aerobic state (lots of lactic acid production) it's "HIT". There were famous bodybuilders in the 70s that called isometrics, weightlifting, paced quarter, half and mile running, and say basketball "suicides" HIT.

    Your explanation of an increase in HR because of an O2-based uptake with cardio vs a non-O2 based increase with weighlifting is something I want to read about. It took me TOO LONG to ACCEPT that a "calorie is not a calorie". I don't want to make the same stubborn mistake again regarding your EXCELLENT explanation. Any references? We docs always ask that <grin>.

    sijomial: Thank you! As a doctor I give out lots of diet and exercise advise. I also try to "walk my talk" regarding what I tell patients they should do. I make sure I'm doing it TWICE as much. Patients ask me about HIIT. I want to know what I'm talking about. I'm also glad to know that I don't NEED HIT. My excuse will be that I'm too old for HIIT.

    I feel bad that I don't do deadlifts or squats anymore. Both are about the two best weightlifting exercises one can do. Unfortunately, they are also the ones that can injure you the easiest. But I'm cool with it. My main goal with exercise is DON'T GET HURT. I'm too old for getting hurt. I stopped doing dead lifts and squats about 10 years ago.

    I substitute leg presses and hamstring curls for the squats. Nothing I know can really substitute for the dead lifts.

    Lastly kudos on your incredible VO2max. Wow! You do some intense training.

    I bet your running pace could be 8 min miles and stay in the green to yellow zones for a long time. For me a 12 min mile pace will put and keep me in the yellow zone lately I've run at that pace for 36 min. I think I could go longer. If I run at 10 min mile pace I'm in the red zone the entire time. Lately I've done this for a max of 10 minutes. I think I could maybe do 20 to 30 min.

    Re: references for the differences in HR response to lifting.

    Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot of declarative explanations. I don't read too many exercise physiology textbooks any more, but the ones I have looked at don't mention it. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of fitness professionals don't know it either--including some university teachers I have corresponded with.

    I know this because I know basic exercise physiology and because I read a crap ton of research. Often the research studies are not focusing on this aspect directly, but you can pick it up from examining the data tables that are published.

    The most direct reference I have come across was in a textbook published in 19084, written by George Brooks (the man who almost single-handedly refuted the idea of "lactic acid buildup causes fatigue" and "the anaerobic threshold"), and Thomas Fahey.

    In a chapter on the major determinants of cardiac performance during exercise, he discusses the effects of increased afterload caused by peripheral resistance. His quote:

    "Repeated static exercise can result in prolonged elevation of heart rate during the course of a workout. This has led some people to believe that weight lifting can produce a significant endurance training effect. However, there is a fundamental difference between endurance and static exercise in their effects on the heart. Endurance exercise places a volume load on the heart, whereas strength exercise exerts a pressure load."

    This description has been empirically demonstrated in numerous studies. During aerobic exercise, changes in heart rate reflect changes in cardiac output and reflect changes in oxygen uptake (VO2). The relationship is consistent enough that we can use heart rate as a decent indicator of the level of aerobic training taking place (although this is affected by thermal stress, exercise duration, fatigue and other factors).

    Since resistance training exerts a *pressure load*, the increased heart rate does not result in increased cardiac output (or VO2)--the heart is beating faster just to force the blood through the resistance at the same rate.
    When you study VO2 and heart rate during resistance training, the HR/VO2 relationship described above becomes skewed. During aerobic exercise, a heart rate of 85% of maximum might reflect a VO2 of 72% of maximum. During heavy weight lifting, that same 85% of maximum heart rate might only be associated with a VO2 of 20% of maximum.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited July 2017
    This was a good comparison I saw that you should mention to those younger folks that think HIIT must be done and what it is.

    Can a workout that you or they classify as HIIT, be done in non-HIIT mode for longer and more evenly for load on the body?

    As it's been mentioned by your walking / running example - don't run so hard, now how long could you do it?
    Even with pace faster than walking.
    If you were doing it HIIT style, probably could hit (haw!) an hour at steady state.

    Now take your lifting - how much weight would you need to drop it to do it non-stop with no breaks for say an hour.

  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    When HR increases during cardio, oxygen uptake increases as well; when HR increases during heavy weight lifting, it does not.

    do you mind explaining why? it's a little off-topic but this boggled my mind just a bit so i had to ask.

    i always took it for granted all work requires oxygen, therefore lifting requires more of it than standing at a bus stop. i also figured you build up a debt during a set and spent at least part of the rest phase repaying it.

    uniformed, not argumentative.

  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    If you watched Fed Up and thought that was good and legit, you're not very smart, despite you're supposed degrees.

    Well, that wasn't very nice. :/
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    When HR increases during cardio, oxygen uptake increases as well; when HR increases during heavy weight lifting, it does not.

    do you mind explaining why? it's a little off-topic but this boggled my mind just a bit so i had to ask.

    i always took it for granted all work requires oxygen, therefore lifting requires more of it than standing at a bus stop. i also figured you build up a debt during a set and spent at least part of the rest phase repaying it.

    uniformed, not argumentative.

    Sorry if that was confusing. Yes, all activity requires oxygen. Looking back, I didn't write that clearly. What I meant was that oxygen uptake does not increase to the same extent that it does when doing cardio at the same heart rate.

    Someone doing cardio at intensity that gets them to a HR of 130 might have a VO2 of 25 ml/kg/min; they might achieve the same HR doing heavy squats, but the VO2 is only 10-12 ml/kg/min. So that is still an increase over rest (~3.5 ml/kg/min), but not nearly what is achieved with the cardio.

    These are general examples--as I have always said, the response to strength training is quite variable, and you get some different numbers from other studies. But the general concept holds true.

    Your description of the "stress/recovery" process is in the ballpark. The concept of "oxygen debt" has been refuted, but the energy required to restore and recover following a series of repetitions does account for some of the oxygen use. (The increased HR actually does have a small effect of its own, but it's not easy to simply explain, so I usually just ignore it).

This discussion has been closed.

Categories