Can Weightlfiting be HIIT?
Replies
-
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.
You're right. Not to mention that the OP very clearly said that he didn't believe that stuff anymore.
Great question, great answers in this thread. I'm learning a lot.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
JerSchmare wrote: »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.
You're right. Sorry. But, Fed Up was just so full of woo, based on bad data (China Study), and lots of leaps from the problem to the solution, and zero accountability on the part of the face stuffers. Also, showed children as victims without any responsibility given to the parents, who buy all the food for the house.
The problem was identified. That is all. The rest is total crap.
I agree with you about the propaganda in Fed Up. I also applaud your humility in admitting the lack of kindness and civility. Well done!
Btw, I noticed a few playing the age card so I thought I'd join in. 66 here. WeightTraining w/ a progressive full body compound routine (including squats & deads) plus a couple of auxilliaries 2x to 3x per week. Mix of high & low intensity cardio on non-weight training days. Vo2 max in the low 40s. I tell my kids I plan on outliving the money.1 -
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.
oh thank goodness. i thought i was going to have to re-think my whole life for a minute there. and on a weekend, too.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.
ah hah. the thing i didn't know and would never have guessed on my own was the pressure factor in lifting hr. of course, experientially they would seem like the same thing to the average person, so that was pretty interesting. as a totally n=me anecdotal thing, i saw a huge drop in my resting heart rate after starting to lift, which never happened any of the many times i re-became a bike commuter and got conditioned to that. it's always been sort of puzzling to me how being more and more comfortable with the demands of lifting hasn't necessarily changed much about me on my bike - even accounting for the tired-muscles factor.
maybe i should try valsalva biking as an experiment
2 -
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.
Except VO2 has been shown to be the best predictor of all cause deaths.3 -
RAD_Fitness 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.
Except VO2 has been shown to be the best predictor of all cause deaths.
Really? All cause? Do post the study data. And please make sure they show the morbidity base line for vo2max.2 -
canadianlbs wrote: »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.
oh thank goodness. i thought i was going to have to re-think my whole life for a minute there. and on a weekend, too.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.
ah hah. the thing i didn't know and would never have guessed on my own was the pressure factor in lifting hr. of course, experientially they would seem like the same thing to the average person, so that was pretty interesting. as a totally n=me anecdotal thing, i saw a huge drop in my resting heart rate after starting to lift, which never happened any of the many times i re-became a bike commuter and got conditioned to that. it's always been sort of puzzling to me how being more and more comfortable with the demands of lifting hasn't necessarily changed much about me on my bike - even accounting for the tired-muscles factor.
maybe i should try valsalva biking as an experiment
Well this may be related to the fact that the lifting muscles (fast twitch) and the cardio endurance muscles (slow twitch) don't totally help in a workout of the other focus.
My endurance muscles never helped in my lifting, but the aerobic system in good shape helped recovery between sets.
The lifting muscles may help you power up a hill better (if short enough) and get a normal anaerobic debt there but once at top the endurance muscles take over and breathing/HR may be a tad higher for awhile to recover that debt, but those muscles in use now are just fine usually if they got a break.
Make it a long hill though and attack it too fast using lifting muscles ....
So if your biking is mainly flat with no benefit to the lifting muscles being available, then you probably didn't notice it.
I am surprised your resting would not have dropped after starting up bike community again - unless you were already a decent degree of fitness (VO2max), and the biking was at a speed to not require much in the way of improvements.
Or did weight drop while taking it up again?
0 -
RAD_Fitness 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.
Except VO2 has been shown to be the best predictor of all cause deaths.
Really? All cause? Do post the study data. And please make sure they show the morbidity base line for vo2max.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576863
https://www.escardio.org/Sub-specialty-communities/European-Association-of-Preventive-Cardiology-(EAPC)/News/The-World-Fitness-Study-Estimating-VO2max-to-predict-mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951585/1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness 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.
Except VO2 has been shown to be the best predictor of all cause deaths.
Really? All cause? Do post the study data. And please make sure they show the morbidity base line for vo2max.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576863
https://www.escardio.org/Sub-specialty-communities/European-Association-of-Preventive-Cardiology-(EAPC)/News/The-World-Fitness-Study-Estimating-VO2max-to-predict-mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951585/
So a couple of thoughts.
The reason why I asked "all cause" so specifically is that v02 max would not account for things like accidental death or hormone receptor breast cancer. But I understand, after reading the 2 studies, why you used that terminology. Just for the record. I agree that more cardio vascular health is better than less.
The 2nd link to the EAPC article doesn't work.
My original statement, if you will reread it carefully, does not discount the benefit of cardio vascular exercise or health. The response was to someone who was incorporating HIIT to "cover all bases". He was already doing cardio and, I would assume, getting v02 max increase benefits from that.
My original statement stands. HIIT is a specific protocol for a specific performance related outcome. Eg, if you are a footballer (soccer in the U.S.), it is desirable to have improved all out sprinting capability when the occasion requires. That sports specific outcome is very different from CV health as demonstrated by good or improving v02 max for the average person. For this person, true HIIT is not only unnecessary but carries an unacceptable level of risk. As has been stated by Azdak, that does not discount the benefit of interval training for most folks. So, no real need for HIIT to gain the benefits.
1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness 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.
Except VO2 has been shown to be the best predictor of all cause deaths.
Really? All cause? Do post the study data. And please make sure they show the morbidity base line for vo2max.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576863
https://www.escardio.org/Sub-specialty-communities/European-Association-of-Preventive-Cardiology-(EAPC)/News/The-World-Fitness-Study-Estimating-VO2max-to-predict-mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951585/
So a couple of thoughts.
The reason why I asked "all cause" so specifically is that v02 max would not account for things like accidental death or hormone receptor breast cancer. But I understand, after reading the 2 studies, why you used that terminology. Just for the record. I agree that more cardio vascular health is better than less.
The 2nd link to the EAPC article doesn't work.
My original statement, if you will reread it carefully, does not discount the benefit of cardio vascular exercise or health. The response was to someone who was incorporating HIIT to "cover all bases". He was already doing cardio and, I would assume, getting v02 max increase benefits from that.
My original statement stands. HIIT is a specific protocol for a specific performance related outcome. Eg, if you are a footballer (soccer in the U.S.), it is desirable to have improved all out sprinting capability when the occasion requires. That sports specific outcome is very different from CV health as demonstrated by good or improving v02 max for the average person. For this person, true HIIT is not only unnecessary but carries an unacceptable level of risk. As has been stated by Azdak, that does not discount the benefit of interval training for most folks. So, no real need for HIIT to gain the benefits.
Curiosity and also off-topic for the thread, but: Why do you explicitly exclude hormone receptor breast cancer, @mmapags? I'd expect some correlation between better VO2max and reduced ER+/PR+ BC incidence/mortality based on estrogen/exercise relationships and obesity/estrogen/exercise relationships.
Please don't take this question as having any implications whatsoever about HIIT: It's a tangent.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness 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.
Except VO2 has been shown to be the best predictor of all cause deaths.
Really? All cause? Do post the study data. And please make sure they show the morbidity base line for vo2max.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576863
https://www.escardio.org/Sub-specialty-communities/European-Association-of-Preventive-Cardiology-(EAPC)/News/The-World-Fitness-Study-Estimating-VO2max-to-predict-mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951585/
So a couple of thoughts.
The reason why I asked "all cause" so specifically is that v02 max would not account for things like accidental death or hormone receptor breast cancer. But I understand, after reading the 2 studies, why you used that terminology. Just for the record. I agree that more cardio vascular health is better than less.
The 2nd link to the EAPC article doesn't work.
My original statement, if you will reread it carefully, does not discount the benefit of cardio vascular exercise or health. The response was to someone who was incorporating HIIT to "cover all bases". He was already doing cardio and, I would assume, getting v02 max increase benefits from that.
My original statement stands. HIIT is a specific protocol for a specific performance related outcome. Eg, if you are a footballer (soccer in the U.S.), it is desirable to have improved all out sprinting capability when the occasion requires. That sports specific outcome is very different from CV health as demonstrated by good or improving v02 max for the average person. For this person, true HIIT is not only unnecessary but carries an unacceptable level of risk. As has been stated by Azdak, that does not discount the benefit of interval training for most folks. So, no real need for HIIT to gain the benefits.
Curiosity and also off-topic for the thread, but: Why do you explicitly exclude hormone receptor breast cancer, @mmapags? I'd expect some correlation between better VO2max and reduced ER+/PR+ BC incidence/mortality based on estrogen/exercise relationships and obesity/estrogen/exercise relationships.
Please don't take this question as having any implications whatsoever about HIIT: It's a tangent.
I get you. Primarily from my own experience with my 33 year old daughter who developed aggressive ER+, PR+, HER- breast cancer that went from stage 2 to stage within a year. She had great CV fitness and a strong v02 max number (I forget exactly what it was). She was one of the fittest people I knew. This an N=1 experience but in the dogged research we all did to find a way to save her life, we never once came across any correlation beyond the usual general immune system benefits of exercise. I think in folks with hormone receptor + cancer, the body is misfiring and not longer operating in a way that we understand. If we did, we could stop it and effect a cure instead of treating it after it occurs.
Not to leave the story hanging, at the end of January of this year, she had approximately 6 months to live if we didn't find something to slow down or stop the progression of cancer. It had gone to her lungs, brain, liver, spine, hips, femur and clavicle. She change med team and kept pursuing alternative and integrative strategies. She decided on an outside shot with a therapy with no clinical trails but had shown anecdotal dramatic improvement in some women with her profile. In others, none. It was a new generation chemo drug Carboplatin in conjunction with high dose, high THC Cannabis Oil. In a 3 month scan in early May, cancer was gone from her liver, spine, femur, clavicle. Reduced in the brain, lungs and breast. Overall, 90% reduction in volume and mass of tumors. Got an all but clear brain scan just this past week.
Ding, ding ding!! We've got a winner!! We got the miracle we had been hoping and praying for. She's going to be around for awhile now.
12 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness 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.
Except VO2 has been shown to be the best predictor of all cause deaths.
Really? All cause? Do post the study data. And please make sure they show the morbidity base line for vo2max.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576863
https://www.escardio.org/Sub-specialty-communities/European-Association-of-Preventive-Cardiology-(EAPC)/News/The-World-Fitness-Study-Estimating-VO2max-to-predict-mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951585/
So a couple of thoughts.
The reason why I asked "all cause" so specifically is that v02 max would not account for things like accidental death or hormone receptor breast cancer. But I understand, after reading the 2 studies, why you used that terminology. Just for the record. I agree that more cardio vascular health is better than less.
The 2nd link to the EAPC article doesn't work.
My original statement, if you will reread it carefully, does not discount the benefit of cardio vascular exercise or health. The response was to someone who was incorporating HIIT to "cover all bases". He was already doing cardio and, I would assume, getting v02 max increase benefits from that.
My original statement stands. HIIT is a specific protocol for a specific performance related outcome. Eg, if you are a footballer (soccer in the U.S.), it is desirable to have improved all out sprinting capability when the occasion requires. That sports specific outcome is very different from CV health as demonstrated by good or improving v02 max for the average person. For this person, true HIIT is not only unnecessary but carries an unacceptable level of risk. As has been stated by Azdak, that does not discount the benefit of interval training for most folks. So, no real need for HIIT to gain the benefits.
Curiosity and also off-topic for the thread, but: Why do you explicitly exclude hormone receptor breast cancer, @mmapags? I'd expect some correlation between better VO2max and reduced ER+/PR+ BC incidence/mortality based on estrogen/exercise relationships and obesity/estrogen/exercise relationships.
Please don't take this question as having any implications whatsoever about HIIT: It's a tangent.
I get you. Primarily from my own experience with my 33 year old daughter who developed aggressive ER+, PR+, HER- breast cancer that went from stage 2 to stage within a year. She had great CV fitness and a strong v02 max number (I forget exactly what it was). She was one of the fittest people I knew. This an N=1 experience but in the dogged research we all did to find a way to save her life, we never once came across any correlation beyond the usual general immune system benefits of exercise. I think in folks with hormone receptor + cancer, the body is misfiring and not longer operating in a way that we understand. If we did, we could stop it and effect a cure instead of treating it after it occurs.
Not to leave the story hanging, at the end of January of this year, she had approximately 6 months to live if we didn't find something to slow down or stop the progression of cancer. It had gone to her lungs, brain, liver, spine, hips, femur and clavicle. She change med team and kept pursuing alternative and integrative strategies. She decided on an outside shot with a therapy with no clinical trails but had shown anecdotal dramatic improvement in some women with her profile. In others, none. It was a new generation chemo drug Carboplatin in conjunction with high dose, high THC Cannabis Oil. In a 3 month scan in early May, cancer was gone from her liver, spine, femur, clavicle. Reduced in the brain, lungs and breast. Overall, 90% reduction in volume and mass of tumors. Got an all but clear brain scan just this past week.
Ding, ding ding!! We've got a winner!! We got the miracle we had been hoping and praying for. She's going to be around for awhile now.
Best wishes to your daughter & family, sir.
I'm a 17-year survivor of stage III BC (ER+/PR+; Her2 wasn't yet being tested). I've understood regular exercise to be helpful in reducing risk of both initial incidence & metastatic recurrence of BC, to the point that the progressive cancer centers now encourage and even provide exercise programs. This, from research results published after my treatment. Seventeen years ago, rest during treatment was advised, and exercise not much emphasized after, except for physical therapy for post-treatment range of motion problems. The benefit basis is still a bit of an open question, but I believe suspected to be less an immune system issue than an estrogen-level-related issue or something like that. However, I think there may've been a recent study showing more benefit, in terms of metastatic recurrence, in the ER-/PR- subgroup . . . but I may be misremembering this last.
Of course, n=1 is different from population risk. There's no guaranteed way to avoid getting cancer, sadly. I'm sorry that your daughter has had to go through this.
I'd offer some research links, but I'm sorry to say I had them on a computer that's now toast.
OP, apologies for the extreme digression from your very useful and interesting thread. I hope you'll forgive me.2 -
I also like the idea about doing HIIT for a specific reason or sport. Since my goals are to reduce IR (insulin resistance), stay in shape, and maybe improve my VO2max I do not need or want to do HIIT.
But now I can talk about it.
Correct. In the stage you are in, any cardio will improve v02 max and any weight training will improve muscle structure and RMR as well as both contributing to fat loss.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness 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.
Except VO2 has been shown to be the best predictor of all cause deaths.
Really? All cause? Do post the study data. And please make sure they show the morbidity base line for vo2max.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576863
https://www.escardio.org/Sub-specialty-communities/European-Association-of-Preventive-Cardiology-(EAPC)/News/The-World-Fitness-Study-Estimating-VO2max-to-predict-mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951585/
So a couple of thoughts.
The reason why I asked "all cause" so specifically is that v02 max would not account for things like accidental death or hormone receptor breast cancer. But I understand, after reading the 2 studies, why you used that terminology. Just for the record. I agree that more cardio vascular health is better than less.
The 2nd link to the EAPC article doesn't work.
My original statement, if you will reread it carefully, does not discount the benefit of cardio vascular exercise or health. The response was to someone who was incorporating HIIT to "cover all bases". He was already doing cardio and, I would assume, getting v02 max increase benefits from that.
My original statement stands. HIIT is a specific protocol for a specific performance related outcome. Eg, if you are a footballer (soccer in the U.S.), it is desirable to have improved all out sprinting capability when the occasion requires. That sports specific outcome is very different from CV health as demonstrated by good or improving v02 max for the average person. For this person, true HIIT is not only unnecessary but carries an unacceptable level of risk. As has been stated by Azdak, that does not discount the benefit of interval training for most folks. So, no real need for HIIT to gain the benefits.
Curiosity and also off-topic for the thread, but: Why do you explicitly exclude hormone receptor breast cancer, @mmapags? I'd expect some correlation between better VO2max and reduced ER+/PR+ BC incidence/mortality based on estrogen/exercise relationships and obesity/estrogen/exercise relationships.
Please don't take this question as having any implications whatsoever about HIIT: It's a tangent.
I get you. Primarily from my own experience with my 33 year old daughter who developed aggressive ER+, PR+, HER- breast cancer that went from stage 2 to stage within a year. She had great CV fitness and a strong v02 max number (I forget exactly what it was). She was one of the fittest people I knew. This an N=1 experience but in the dogged research we all did to find a way to save her life, we never once came across any correlation beyond the usual general immune system benefits of exercise. I think in folks with hormone receptor + cancer, the body is misfiring and not longer operating in a way that we understand. If we did, we could stop it and effect a cure instead of treating it after it occurs.
Not to leave the story hanging, at the end of January of this year, she had approximately 6 months to live if we didn't find something to slow down or stop the progression of cancer. It had gone to her lungs, brain, liver, spine, hips, femur and clavicle. She change med team and kept pursuing alternative and integrative strategies. She decided on an outside shot with a therapy with no clinical trails but had shown anecdotal dramatic improvement in some women with her profile. In others, none. It was a new generation chemo drug Carboplatin in conjunction with high dose, high THC Cannabis Oil. In a 3 month scan in early May, cancer was gone from her liver, spine, femur, clavicle. Reduced in the brain, lungs and breast. Overall, 90% reduction in volume and mass of tumors. Got an all but clear brain scan just this past week.
Ding, ding ding!! We've got a winner!! We got the miracle we had been hoping and praying for. She's going to be around for awhile now.
Best wishes to your daughter & family, sir.
I'm a 17-year survivor of stage III BC (ER+/PR+; Her2 wasn't yet being tested). I've understood regular exercise to be helpful in reducing risk of both initial incidence & metastatic recurrence of BC, to the point that the progressive cancer centers now encourage and even provide exercise programs. This, from research results published after my treatment. Seventeen years ago, rest during treatment was advised, and exercise not much emphasized after, except for physical therapy for post-treatment range of motion problems. The benefit basis is still a bit of an open question, but I believe suspected to be less an immune system issue than an estrogen-level-related issue or something like that. However, I think there may've been a recent study showing more benefit, in terms of metastatic recurrence, in the ER-/PR- subgroup . . . but I may be misremembering this last.
Of course, n=1 is different from population risk. There's no guaranteed way to avoid getting cancer, sadly. I'm sorry that your daughter has had to go through this.
I'd offer some research links, but I'm sorry to say I had them on a computer that's now toast.
OP, apologies for the extreme digression from your very useful and interesting thread. I hope you'll forgive me.
Thank you so much. All caring responses are appreciated but the caring response from one who has lived it touches the heart a little more. I have learned through this, as I'm guessing you did, that the saying is true. That which doesn't kill you, does make you stronger. If not physically, spiritually and emotionally.2 -
Or did weight drop while taking it up again?
it did, but i see that as incidental since i've had at least two widely-spaced situations where i restarted cycling from a dead stop and my weight dropped during those phases too, by at least as much as any loss i've had since i started lifting.
it could be from a number of unrelated factors since my life habits change around every few years anyway; i just thought it was interesting.
i should keep an eye on it just for curiosity if i ever have to take an extended break from lifting.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions