Can Weightlfiting be HIIT?

tsazani

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?

jennybearlv

Can I call super setting steady state cardio?

sijomial

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

No - the rise in HR isn't as a result of oxygen demand, it's not cardio.

HIIT isn't magic despite Marketing and ill-educated or cynical PT's hanging it on every form of intense exercise these days.
Why to you feel the need to call weight training HIIT?

And by the way compromising your weight lifting by shortening rest between sets just in the pursuit of bumping up your HR wouldn't really be a good idea.

SLLeask

Rather than wondering if I can somehow call my weightlifting HIIT when it isn't, I'd be wondering why I care about a marketing term..! If HIIT was never a trendy "thing" and you had never heard of it, would you be happy with what you were doing? I suspect so.

But, on the other hand, if it somehow makes you feel better, call whatever exercise you want "HIIT" - it really isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference to the effect on your body whether you call it "weightlifting", "HIIT", "mini HIIT" or "Old Man's Contentment"!

Azdak

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.

cmriverside

@tsazani

I would listen to Azdak. He doesn't tell you his qualifications - but he's got them.

Azdak

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

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.

Azdak

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).

kshama2001

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

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

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.

WendyLeigh1119

Maybe with Kettlebells mixed in rather than "lifting" like some live classes do? Because of the swinging and weird moves and such.

RavenLibra

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

Motorsheen

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

VintageFeline

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.