Can Weightlfiting be HIIT?
Options
Replies
-
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.2 -
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.)3 -
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!4 -
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.1 -
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.
1 -
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.
0 -
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.
3 -
canadianlbs 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).
0 -
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions