Is what I am doing HIIT and does it make you gain water weight?
noirelb
Posts: 216 Member
So 1st question:
It's working, so I'm not complaining but just curious. I used to do recumbent stationary bike at about 15-16km/h for 99 minutes (about 450-500 calories for my 226lbs, 5'10'').
I heard about HIIT so I set my bike to programs instead of manual (strength training or cross country). Now I do about 16-17 km/h and for 80-99min and close to 600 calories.
is it HIIT or just strength/cardio training? There's about 5 periods of 2-3 minutes that is extremely difficult to keep going during my workout. and the rest is easy for a few minutes and then somewhat difficult for a few minutes.
Also, I started 2 weeks ago and upped my calories from 1320 to 1500-1600 to not lose too much weight this month and only lost 1 lbs (finally this morning) but I measured myself and lost 5 inches in the past week... (also eating 50-75% of my exercise calories as I am STARVING 30 min post workout)
(I also started squats in that time)
I'm assuming 5 inches should be more than 1lbs (I have no clue for real)? So is this making me gain a bunch of water weight?
It's working, so I'm not complaining but just curious. I used to do recumbent stationary bike at about 15-16km/h for 99 minutes (about 450-500 calories for my 226lbs, 5'10'').
I heard about HIIT so I set my bike to programs instead of manual (strength training or cross country). Now I do about 16-17 km/h and for 80-99min and close to 600 calories.
is it HIIT or just strength/cardio training? There's about 5 periods of 2-3 minutes that is extremely difficult to keep going during my workout. and the rest is easy for a few minutes and then somewhat difficult for a few minutes.
Also, I started 2 weeks ago and upped my calories from 1320 to 1500-1600 to not lose too much weight this month and only lost 1 lbs (finally this morning) but I measured myself and lost 5 inches in the past week... (also eating 50-75% of my exercise calories as I am STARVING 30 min post workout)
(I also started squats in that time)
I'm assuming 5 inches should be more than 1lbs (I have no clue for real)? So is this making me gain a bunch of water weight?
0
Replies
-
No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.1
-
So 1st question:
It's working, so I'm not complaining but just curious. I used to do recumbent stationary bike at about 15-16km/h for 99 minutes (about 450-500 calories for my 226lbs, 5'10'').
I heard about HIIT so I set my bike to programs instead of manual (strength training or cross country). Now I do about 16-17 km/h and for 80-99min and close to 600 calories.
is it HIIT or just strength/cardio training? There's about 5 periods of 2-3 minutes that is extremely difficult to keep going during my workout. and the rest is easy for a few minutes and then somewhat difficult for a few minutes.
Also, I started 2 weeks ago and upped my calories from 1320 to 1500-1600 to not lose too much weight this month and only lost 1 lbs (finally this morning) but I measured myself and lost 5 inches in the past week... (also eating 50-75% of my exercise calories as I am STARVING 30 min post workout)
(I also started squats in that time)
I'm assuming 5 inches should be more than 1lbs (I have no clue for real)? So is this making me gain a bunch of water weight?
Recumbent bike probably isn't burning as many calories as you think.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »So 1st question:
It's working, so I'm not complaining but just curious. I used to do recumbent stationary bike at about 15-16km/h for 99 minutes (about 450-500 calories for my 226lbs, 5'10'').
I heard about HIIT so I set my bike to programs instead of manual (strength training or cross country). Now I do about 16-17 km/h and for 80-99min and close to 600 calories.
is it HIIT or just strength/cardio training? There's about 5 periods of 2-3 minutes that is extremely difficult to keep going during my workout. and the rest is easy for a few minutes and then somewhat difficult for a few minutes.
Also, I started 2 weeks ago and upped my calories from 1320 to 1500-1600 to not lose too much weight this month and only lost 1 lbs (finally this morning) but I measured myself and lost 5 inches in the past week... (also eating 50-75% of my exercise calories as I am STARVING 30 min post workout)
(I also started squats in that time)
I'm assuming 5 inches should be more than 1lbs (I have no clue for real)? So is this making me gain a bunch of water weight?
Recumbent bike probably isn't burning as many calories as you think.
Check out my weight, height, gender, speed and length of time I do it for on any calculator on the internet before answering. I notice that this is the general answer to so many questions on MFP and that's not even the topic here. My bike calculates it pretty well I'd say since it's 200-300 calories lower than all calculators:
1 -
TavistockToad wrote: »No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.
Thanks! I'm assuming HIIT is not as long and cycles are seconds or 2 minutes max? Can you do HIIT with a bike (when I have only 20 minutes to work out, I may want to try it instead of not working out at all)?0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »So 1st question:
It's working, so I'm not complaining but just curious. I used to do recumbent stationary bike at about 15-16km/h for 99 minutes (about 450-500 calories for my 226lbs, 5'10'').
I heard about HIIT so I set my bike to programs instead of manual (strength training or cross country). Now I do about 16-17 km/h and for 80-99min and close to 600 calories.
is it HIIT or just strength/cardio training? There's about 5 periods of 2-3 minutes that is extremely difficult to keep going during my workout. and the rest is easy for a few minutes and then somewhat difficult for a few minutes.
Also, I started 2 weeks ago and upped my calories from 1320 to 1500-1600 to not lose too much weight this month and only lost 1 lbs (finally this morning) but I measured myself and lost 5 inches in the past week... (also eating 50-75% of my exercise calories as I am STARVING 30 min post workout)
(I also started squats in that time)
I'm assuming 5 inches should be more than 1lbs (I have no clue for real)? So is this making me gain a bunch of water weight?
Recumbent bike probably isn't burning as many calories as you think.
Check out my weight, height, gender, speed and length of time I do it for on any calculator on the internet before answering. I notice that this is the general answer to so many questions on MFP and that's not even the topic here. My bike calculates it pretty well I'd say since it's 200-300 calories lower than all calculators:
That calculator is assuming you're doing your work at a certain intensity(load) as well as speed.
Do you have the intensity turned up past 50% for the duration? In other words, on a machine with 25 settings are you at 12-15?
But at the end of the day, the scale results show that you're not burning the calories you think you are.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »So 1st question:
It's working, so I'm not complaining but just curious. I used to do recumbent stationary bike at about 15-16km/h for 99 minutes (about 450-500 calories for my 226lbs, 5'10'').
I heard about HIIT so I set my bike to programs instead of manual (strength training or cross country). Now I do about 16-17 km/h and for 80-99min and close to 600 calories.
is it HIIT or just strength/cardio training? There's about 5 periods of 2-3 minutes that is extremely difficult to keep going during my workout. and the rest is easy for a few minutes and then somewhat difficult for a few minutes.
Also, I started 2 weeks ago and upped my calories from 1320 to 1500-1600 to not lose too much weight this month and only lost 1 lbs (finally this morning) but I measured myself and lost 5 inches in the past week... (also eating 50-75% of my exercise calories as I am STARVING 30 min post workout)
(I also started squats in that time)
I'm assuming 5 inches should be more than 1lbs (I have no clue for real)? So is this making me gain a bunch of water weight?
Recumbent bike probably isn't burning as many calories as you think.
Check out my weight, height, gender, speed and length of time I do it for on any calculator on the internet before answering. I notice that this is the general answer to so many questions on MFP and that's not even the topic here. My bike calculates it pretty well I'd say since it's 200-300 calories lower than all calculators:
That calculator is assuming you're doing your work at a certain intensity(load) as well as speed.
Do you have the intensity turned up past 50% for the duration? In other words, on a machine with 25 settings are you at 12-15?
But at the end of the day, the scale results show that you're not burning the calories you think you are.
1) YES I am doing 50%...my bike goes from 1-10 and I'm staying at 4-7 the entire time. (not that this thread is about this at all)
2) You're trying to find a problem where there isn't one? Read my question. I am curious, and this is working for me.
3) 4-5 inches is HUGE and I'm floating in my high waist work skirt. So I'm happy. Why are you saying the scale results show that I'm not burning those calories when the other guy said it could be water weight?
4) My loss is set at 1.5lbs per week and I lost 1lbs instead of 3lbs in 2 weeks but 4-5 inches ... I'm just asking if I could potentially have water weight in my legs or other places from a new exercise program and starting to do squats.
5) why are you answering if you're just trying to *kitten* on people?
3 -
So 1st question:
It's working, so I'm not complaining but just curious. I used to do recumbent stationary bike at about 15-16km/h for 99 minutes (about 450-500 calories for my 226lbs, 5'10'').
I heard about HIIT so I set my bike to programs instead of manual (strength training or cross country). Now I do about 16-17 km/h and for 80-99min and close to 600 calories.
is it HIIT or just strength/cardio training? There's about 5 periods of 2-3 minutes that is extremely difficult to keep going during my workout. and the rest is easy for a few minutes and then somewhat difficult for a few minutes.
Also, I started 2 weeks ago and upped my calories from 1320 to 1500-1600 to not lose too much weight this month and only lost 1 lbs (finally this morning) but I measured myself and lost 5 inches in the past week... (also eating 50-75% of my exercise calories as I am STARVING 30 min post workout)stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »So 1st question:
It's working, so I'm not complaining but just curious. I used to do recumbent stationary bike at about 15-16km/h for 99 minutes (about 450-500 calories for my 226lbs, 5'10'').
I heard about HIIT so I set my bike to programs instead of manual (strength training or cross country). Now I do about 16-17 km/h and for 80-99min and close to 600 calories.
is it HIIT or just strength/cardio training? There's about 5 periods of 2-3 minutes that is extremely difficult to keep going during my workout. and the rest is easy for a few minutes and then somewhat difficult for a few minutes.
Also, I started 2 weeks ago and upped my calories from 1320 to 1500-1600 to not lose too much weight this month and only lost 1 lbs (finally this morning) but I measured myself and lost 5 inches in the past week... (also eating 50-75% of my exercise calories as I am STARVING 30 min post workout)
(I also started squats in that time)
I'm assuming 5 inches should be more than 1lbs (I have no clue for real)? So is this making me gain a bunch of water weight?
Recumbent bike probably isn't burning as many calories as you think.
Check out my weight, height, gender, speed and length of time I do it for on any calculator on the internet before answering. I notice that this is the general answer to so many questions on MFP and that's not even the topic here. My bike calculates it pretty well I'd say since it's 200-300 calories lower than all calculators:
That calculator is assuming you're doing your work at a certain intensity(load) as well as speed.
Do you have the intensity turned up past 50% for the duration? In other words, on a machine with 25 settings are you at 12-15?
But at the end of the day, the scale results show that you're not burning the calories you think you are.
1) YES I am doing 50%...my bike goes from 1-10 and I'm staying at 4-7 the entire time. (not that this thread is about this at all)
2) You're trying to find a problem where there isn't one? Read my question. I am curious, and this is working for me.
You're sending mixed messages, You say there's no problem, but you're asking why you're not losing weight.
You're getting contradictory answers because it's too soon to tell what's actually going on in just 2 weeks of a change.
1 -
TavistockToad wrote: »No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.
Thanks! I'm assuming HIIT is not as long and cycles are seconds or 2 minutes max? Can you do HIIT with a bike (when I have only 20 minutes to work out, I may want to try it instead of not working out at all)?
Yes, absolutely. I ride up a short and punchy hill at race pace, then coast back down and do it again. And again, and again, until I'm ready to puke, then I limp home. A bike is a fantastic way to do this type of workout.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.
Thanks! I'm assuming HIIT is not as long and cycles are seconds or 2 minutes max? Can you do HIIT with a bike (when I have only 20 minutes to work out, I may want to try it instead of not working out at all)?
Yes, absolutely. I ride up a short and punchy hill at race pace, then coast back down and do it again. And again, and again, until I'm ready to puke, then I limp home. A bike is a fantastic way to do this type of workout.
I workout when my son is sleeping and fiancé is at work so I won't be able to use my real bike outside but I might try it on my stationary bike! Thanks!1 -
I bet painful hill repeats isn't the kind of ride your family will want to join you on. But you can do the same thing indoors, and not have traffic to distract you.
Set up a fan of you haven't already!
1 -
TavistockToad wrote: »No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.
What TavistockToad said. Not HIIT, interval training. HIIT would be warm up/ all out with speed and resistance for 30 to 60 seconds/ recover for 1.5 to 2 minutes/ rinse and repeat 5 to 10 times/ crawl off thinking you want to die.
Interval training is good stuff though. HIIT is a specific burst/ endurance training protocol that is specific to sports that require that. It doesn't make you retain water though. The increase in intensity might. Or a little sodium might or hormones might. Weight loss is not linear. I have weeks that go down, weeks that go up and weeks that don't change. A good weight trending app helps me not to worry about the peaks and the valleys. The trend is down over time.3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.
What TavistockToad said. Not HIIT, interval training. HIIT would be warm up/ all out with speed and resistance for 30 to 60 seconds/ recover for 1.5 to 2 minutes/ rinse and repeat 5 to 10 times/ crawl off thinking you want to die.
Interval training is good stuff though. HIIT is a specific burst/ endurance training protocol that is specific to sports that require that. It doesn't make you retain water though. The increase in intensity might. Or a little sodium might or hormones might. Weight loss is not linear. I have weeks that go down, weeks that go up and weeks that don't change. A good weight trending app helps me not to worry about the peaks and the valleys. The trend is down over time.
Yes interval training sounds more like it. Thanks. I'm not sure, i started squats and that at the same time and lost inches and no weight until today but I guess I will see with time!. Yes.... I've heard of the weight trending app. I only use MFP reports to see my graph. Maybe I'll get the app.0 -
If I'm losing inches, I don't really give a flying *kitten* about the scale. Truthfully.2
-
-
You believe that eating fewer calories than you use for energy should equate to weight loss, right? The problem is, there's no correlation between intake of calories and calories (energy) used by the body. Decreasing calories in will trigger a decrease calories out. You're dealing with a hormonal paradigm that controls both in and out. The previous theory that the body was an isolated system, thereby subject to the First Law of Thermal Dynamics (Dr. Jules Hirsch, 2012, NYT), was and is incorrect.
There are many experiments that support this hormonal theory: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1919. Dr. Ancel Keys, Starvation Experiment, 1944/1945. To name just two.
The Eat Less, Move More mentality for LONG TERM weight loss will fail. But only 100% of the time. Losing weight and keeping that weight off must be addressed by correcting your hormonal response to the caloric input. Besides, you will ultimately internalize the failure to lose weight. You will believe that the fault lies within yourself. It will become your story.
More later.14 -
tunablue5150 wrote: »You believe that eating fewer calories than you use for energy should equate to weight loss, right? The problem is, there's no correlation between intake of calories and calories (energy) used by the body. Decreasing calories in will trigger a decrease calories out. You're dealing with a hormonal paradigm that controls both in and out. The previous theory that the body was an isolated system, thereby subject to the First Law of Thermal Dynamics (Dr. Jules Hirsch, 2012, NYT), was and is incorrect.
There are many experiments that support this hormonal theory: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1919. Dr. Ancel Keys, Starvation Experiment, 1944/1945. To name just two.
The Eat Less, Move More mentality for LONG TERM weight loss will fail. But only 100% of the time. Losing weight and keeping that weight off must be addressed by correcting your hormonal response to the caloric input. Besides, you will ultimately internalize the failure to lose weight. You will believe that the fault lies within yourself. It will become your story.
More later.
So much no here.4 -
tunablue5150 wrote: »You believe that eating fewer calories than you use for energy should equate to weight loss, right? The problem is, there's no correlation between intake of calories and calories (energy) used by the body. Decreasing calories in will trigger a decrease calories out. You're dealing with a hormonal paradigm that controls both in and out. The previous theory that the body was an isolated system, thereby subject to the First Law of Thermal Dynamics (Dr. Jules Hirsch, 2012, NYT), was and is incorrect.
There are many experiments that support this hormonal theory: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1919. Dr. Ancel Keys, Starvation Experiment, 1944/1945. To name just two.
The Eat Less, Move More mentality for LONG TERM weight loss will fail. But only 100% of the time. Losing weight and keeping that weight off must be addressed by correcting your hormonal response to the caloric input. Besides, you will ultimately internalize the failure to lose weight. You will believe that the fault lies within yourself. It will become your story.
More later.
Nope3 -
tunablue5150 wrote: »You believe that eating fewer calories than you use for energy should equate to weight loss, right? The problem is, there's no correlation between intake of calories and calories (energy) used by the body. Decreasing calories in will trigger a decrease calories out. You're dealing with a hormonal paradigm that controls both in and out. The previous theory that the body was an isolated system, thereby subject to the First Law of Thermal Dynamics (Dr. Jules Hirsch, 2012, NYT), was and is incorrect.
There are many experiments that support this hormonal theory: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1919. Dr. Ancel Keys, Starvation Experiment, 1944/1945. To name just two.
The Eat Less, Move More mentality for LONG TERM weight loss will fail. But only 100% of the time. Losing weight and keeping that weight off must be addressed by correcting your hormonal response to the caloric input. Besides, you will ultimately internalize the failure to lose weight. You will believe that the fault lies within yourself. It will become your story.
More later.
3 times a charm. Or 3 times for emphasis.
So much wrong there.3 -
Wow, studies as recent as 1945.4
-
TavistockToad wrote: »No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.
What TavistockToad said. Not HIIT, interval training. HIIT would be warm up/ all out with speed and resistance for 30 to 60 seconds/ recover for 1.5 to 2 minutes/ rinse and repeat 5 to 10 times/ crawl off thinking you want to die.
Interval training is good stuff though. HIIT is a specific burst/ endurance training protocol that is specific to sports that require that. It doesn't make you retain water though. The increase in intensity might. Or a little sodium might or hormones might. Weight loss is not linear. I have weeks that go down, weeks that go up and weeks that don't change. A good weight trending app helps me not to worry about the peaks and the valleys. The trend is down over time.
Yes interval training sounds more like it. Thanks. I'm not sure, i started squats and that at the same time and lost inches and no weight until today but I guess I will see with time!. Yes.... I've heard of the weight trending app. I only use MFP reports to see my graph. Maybe I'll get the app.
Started squats - there ya go.
Water retained in the muscle for injury repair.
Ditto to you don't need intervals.
If doing lifting - skip the HIIT.
I picture HIIT as close to lifting as you can get with a cardio workout - short intense with longer rest, do another rep/interval.
But if able to do the lifting, why do what is merely close if you have no training reason.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Wow, studies as recent as 1945.
More importantly studies that don't show what is claimed.2 -
TavistockToad wrote: »No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.
What TavistockToad said. Not HIIT, interval training. HIIT would be warm up/ all out with speed and resistance for 30 to 60 seconds/ recover for 1.5 to 2 minutes/ rinse and repeat 5 to 10 times/ crawl off thinking you want to die.
Interval training is good stuff though. HIIT is a specific burst/ endurance training protocol that is specific to sports that require that. It doesn't make you retain water though. The increase in intensity might. Or a little sodium might or hormones might. Weight loss is not linear. I have weeks that go down, weeks that go up and weeks that don't change. A good weight trending app helps me not to worry about the peaks and the valleys. The trend is down over time.
Yes interval training sounds more like it. Thanks. I'm not sure, i started squats and that at the same time and lost inches and no weight until today but I guess I will see with time!. Yes.... I've heard of the weight trending app. I only use MFP reports to see my graph. Maybe I'll get the app.
I picture HIIT as close to lifting as you can get with a cardio workout - short intense with longer rest, do another rep/interval.
I can see where you're coming from with this, but I always thought I'd then as pretty different because lifting heavy is a slower process. What I mean is it might take a couple seconds to get the bar up when I'm struggling, but HIIT on the bike is still 90 rpm. I haven't had my coffee yet this morning, I think what I'm trying to say is the rate of force production is high, so the force must be low.
Anyway, there's no right or wrong answer, were talking about noticing similarities and differences between exercises. It's interesting how people see them.0 -
Heybales, do you think you get v02 max improvements from it?TavistockToad wrote: »No thats not HIIT but if youve increased the intensity of your exercise then yes, you could be retaining water.
What TavistockToad said. Not HIIT, interval training. HIIT would be warm up/ all out with speed and resistance for 30 to 60 seconds/ recover for 1.5 to 2 minutes/ rinse and repeat 5 to 10 times/ crawl off thinking you want to die.
Interval training is good stuff though. HIIT is a specific burst/ endurance training protocol that is specific to sports that require that. It doesn't make you retain water though. The increase in intensity might. Or a little sodium might or hormones might. Weight loss is not linear. I have weeks that go down, weeks that go up and weeks that don't change. A good weight trending app helps me not to worry about the peaks and the valleys. The trend is down over time.
Yes interval training sounds more like it. Thanks. I'm not sure, i started squats and that at the same time and lost inches and no weight until today but I guess I will see with time!. Yes.... I've heard of the weight trending app. I only use MFP reports to see my graph. Maybe I'll get the app.
Started squats - there ya go.
Water retained in the muscle for injury repair.
Ditto to you don't need intervals.
If doing lifting - skip the HIIT.
I picture HIIT as close to lifting as you can get with a cardio workout - short intense with longer rest, do another rep/interval.
But if able to do the lifting, why do what is merely close if you have no training reason.
0 -
The other reason I view it that way is because other interval types will impart some of the same aerobic benefits as HIIT - but HIIT being an attempted overload on the muscle by that force (increased load/resistance even though cadence stays 90 is you say, or turnover the same but going up hill or striding longer), has the chance then of actually increasing it (albeit much slower than lifting but more of the muscle type needed for your sport).
Some of the other interval types are so long in duration by comparison, they are more akin to 20 plus reps circuit training, with brief rests between.1 -
The other reason I view it that way is because other interval types will impart some of the same aerobic benefits as HIIT - but HIIT being an attempted overload on the muscle by that force (increased load/resistance even though cadence stays 90 is you say, or turnover the same but going up hill or striding longer), has the chance then of actually increasing it (albeit much slower than lifting but more of the muscle type needed for your sport).
Some of the other interval types are so long in duration by comparison, they are more akin to 20 plus reps circuit training, with brief rests between.
The CNS impact of HIIT is sufficiently similar to Heavy lifting that they should only be used in conjunction with great caution.0
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
- 427 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