Interval based training metabolic aftershock
Options
Replies
-
I guess my experience doesn't exist, then. I'm OK with living an imaginary life, then.
The short, 15-minute HIIT workouts (or maybe the nay-sayers would be happier if I called it "baby HIIT") were indeed intense for me, but perhaps it wasn't as "horrible" as it should have been since it was modified. Percent intensity is percent intensity, one might argue. My 90% then was a far cry from my 90% now (especially considering I was having trouble with daily tasks by the point where I began), and I'm sure my 90% now won't compare to where I end up. Either way, I suppose it doesn't matter as much now, since I've graduated on to other longer-period forms of improving myself for now. I did enjoy the workouts enough that I'll definitely be looking into the "grown up" version of HIIT (since there's apparently a difference) once I'm stronger.
Kinda funny that some people think it's a disaster or inappropriate for someone like me (or at least where I started out) to do one of these workouts, seeing as it was recommended by one of my doctors. Then again, perhaps that's why it's "Baby HIIT." Even still, there must be something to gain even at that level, if they recommend it.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by "baby HIIT". When you say your "90%", are you talking about performing to 90% of max HR? Were you doing something less that full, all out, HIIT? If so, it may not really have been HIIT. (They seem to call everything HIIT these days) It may have been Interval Training but not High Intensity. Might have been Medium Intensity even though it felt like high to you. Still very useful and effective. And much better than sitting on the couch by a long shot!
As an example, I am very fit despite my age, 66. I weight train and I do various cardio, walking, running, intervals. I have done HIIT in the past. Warm up, through 15 minutes of work sets, through cool down it takes about 25 minutes. The work sets, either bike or sprints, are ALL OUT for 20 to 30 seconds. Then rest for 1.5 to 2 minutes. Then go again. By the 4th or 5th one, I feel like I might puke, my legs are burning, my lungs are burning and I'm wondering if I will pass out. That is High IntensityInterval Training. It is done at above 100% max HR.
The difference may be accurate terminology. What your doctor recommended may have been Interval Training and he called it HIIT. Heck, at Gym's these days they say they do 1 hour HIIT classes. If you can do it for an hour, it ain't HIIT.
It isn't done above 100% of (actual) HR max. Absent some major health disturbance, your max heart rate is your max heart rate, i.e., the highest heart rate your body can achieve. If my max HR is - as I believe from structured rowing machine step testing - 181, and I hit 190, then 181 was not my max in the first place. (Estimation formulas for HR max are notoriously inaccurate.)
I've heard some say that effective HR max differs by activity, and I sorta get where that's coming from, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.3 -
A dual post:
To the original poster:
If your HIIT program includes a warm-up and cool-down, I recommend logging those by the minute as they appear to match the activity (such as walking or stretching). For the higher-intensity portions, consider the activity and how it relates to the overall time. For instance, if you're doing 6 minutes which is 2/3 running in place at max pace, then 1/3 resting, I'd probably enter it as 4 minutes of jogging to be conservative.
Do be sure to give it your max effort in your "on" times, though! I did a HIIT program to start which included a warm-up, the work-break section, then a cool-down, and though I couldn't quantify it in calories (and wouldn't want to count on too much), I can say with certainty that it did help me get back to "living life," so they do *something*. I felt like I was ready to drop dead at the end of each workout, but the shorter duration allowed me an entry into the foyer of the world of mobility/fitness.
To others (as applicable):
Of course, we can just shoot things down without looking at potential positives, right? Shut doors that can open the possibilities of a healthy world for someone?
To be clear, I am not familiar with the single program being discussed, but regardless of whether it is well-formed or not, it is not representative of an entire category. Speaking from my personal experience, a well-developed 15 minute HIIT program, when executed well and with proper effort (especially if there are separate warm-up and cool-down components), has several benefits.
The first (and foremost in some minds, though least in mine) is the calories being burned (no matter how small it is something). I myself saw improvements in this quarter, though I will readily admit the difference was exponentially amplified by adopting a fully-rounded program with diet change and both strength and aerobic components.
Secondly, though this one is not from my own experience, as I've become a lot more aggressive in working out since I was able to get into water fitness, is that a person on a well-developed rotating 15-minute HIIT program would be able to at least maintain muscle. I haven't seen anyone have big gains by any means (unless starting out from nearly nothing, like me), but I have seen healthy people use it as a sort of maintenance tool.
Finally, and this is what is THE foremost in my mind, it also can aid someone who is extremely out of shape in beginning their fitness journey. For someone who started where I was, it was about the only reasonable place to start. It is something that also comes across as "completely do-able" in the mind of an unfit person to "only give seconds" of hard effort, and thus is more likely to happen. In my case, it really didn't take much to get to the level of exertion needed, but that's fine -- it was a place to start. It was also pretty adaptable for my physical limitations.
My personal stance is to look at a person's situation or give a qualified recommendation (structured, depending on the situation of course, in a way such as: if you're just starting out and give it your full effort for several weeks this may be a great way to start but after that [you might look into]) rather than a blanket statement, at least for this type of workout. Then explain or provide a resource for the person to learn more about what a great HIIT workout is.
Ref the bold - absolutely not.
It is one of a whole host of places people can start from and one of the most inappropriate choices you could make - a bit like someone deciding to run a marathon when they can't even manage a 5k.
It could well be a great way to injure yourself, perhaps seriously.
HIIT workouts (real HIIT which is a tiny subset of interval training) are really most suitable for people accustomed to exercise and probably as part, not the only element, of an overall workout program.
TBH, I'd be hard pressed to think of a much worse idea than starting a beginner off on HIIT (actual HIIT, that is). Not only is it a pathway to crippling DOMS and making them hate the very thought of exercise, it's also a great way to get severely injured by stressing muscles and connective tissue that aren't prepared for the intense demands. Not to mention the impaired recovery by a body/CNS which hasn't developed the work capacity to handle such intensity.
In other words, that's a big fat No.
Yes.
And it will tend to leave a person much more fatigued afterward for quite a while, compared to a calorie-equivalent amount of steady-state exercise, thus validating perceptions that exercise is an unpleasant, exhausting thing that interferes with one's everyday life.
In so many ways, not good for out-of-shape beginners. This is not a back-handed way of dissing beginners, or HIIT. I applaud beginners, and want them to succeed and thrive. I was a beginner in my mid-40s (now 61). I've done HIIT as part of a structured pre-competition training plan. For what it does well, it's great.
Different forms of exercise are good for different things at different times. What's important is fitting the exercise to someone's fitness goals. Personally, I'd put actual fitness effects (including risks) at a higher priority than simple time efficiency.5 -
I think back to the advice that was given regarding this being a beginning program though.
Unless the intervals are slow jog / walking - for a fresh beginner, even the more intense intervals 3 x weekly as many sites say is just very prone to injury.
It's why the tabata study was on bikes, no impact, and yet still warmup, and still a tad different than true HIIT.
Someone starting an actual intense interval training on a stationary bike could luck out depending on how active they were prior.
And probably the soreness might make them miss some of those 3 x weekly sessions, which would actually be to their benefit.
But to recommend it even then, yikes.
Just thinking about the problems many have starting CT5K, and that is usually walking / slow jogging intervals even.3 -
I have a machine (Bowflex M5) that has a HIIT workout mode. It runs 14 minutes and cycles from high intensity to low intensity in intervals the whole time. At medium effort I can burn somewhere around 225 calories in that amount of time. At super high (took me almost 1.5 years on the thing to get this high) intensity and at max resistance I can bury the needle these days and still can't break the 300 calorie mark. So 15 minutes of any HIIT program is going to burn somewhere around 180-300 calories if it's intense enough. It's all subjective to the person, how much effort you put into it, and whether or not the calorie count is actually accurate or not.0
-
I guess my experience doesn't exist, then. I'm OK with living an imaginary life, then.
The short, 15-minute HIIT workouts (or maybe the nay-sayers would be happier if I called it "baby HIIT") were indeed intense for me, but perhaps it wasn't as "horrible" as it should have been since it was modified. Percent intensity is percent intensity, one might argue. My 90% then was a far cry from my 90% now (especially considering I was having trouble with daily tasks by the point where I began), and I'm sure my 90% now won't compare to where I end up. Either way, I suppose it doesn't matter as much now, since I've graduated on to other longer-period forms of improving myself for now. I did enjoy the workouts enough that I'll definitely be looking into the "grown up" version of HIIT (since there's apparently a difference) once I'm stronger.
Kinda funny that some people think it's a disaster or inappropriate for someone like me (or at least where I started out) to do one of these workouts, seeing as it was recommended by one of my doctors. Then again, perhaps that's why it's "Baby HIIT." Even still, there must be something to gain even at that level, if they recommend it.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by "baby HIIT". When you say your "90%", are you talking about performing to 90% of max HR? Were you doing something less that full, all out, HIIT? If so, it may not really have been HIIT. (They seem to call everything HIIT these days) It may have been Interval Training but not High Intensity. Might have been Medium Intensity even though it felt like high to you. Still very useful and effective. And much better than sitting on the couch by a long shot!
As an example, I am very fit despite my age, 66. I weight train and I do various cardio, walking, running, intervals. I have done HIIT in the past. Warm up, through 15 minutes of work sets, through cool down it takes about 25 minutes. The work sets, either bike or sprints, are ALL OUT for 20 to 30 seconds. Then rest for 1.5 to 2 minutes. Then go again. By the 4th or 5th one, I feel like I might puke, my legs are burning, my lungs are burning and I'm wondering if I will pass out. That is High IntensityInterval Training. It is done at above 100% max HR.
The difference may be accurate terminology. What your doctor recommended may have been Interval Training and he called it HIIT. Heck, at Gym's these days they say they do 1 hour HIIT classes. If you can do it for an hour, it ain't HIIT.
I'm differentiating, because people apparently think there's a difference between what this thread was started as (talking about 15 minute HIIT) and something else that is a "true"/"actual" HIIT.
The 15 minute HIIT training that was recommended to me used modified exercises based on a standard set they had, but either way, the summary was that I was supposed to give it my all during 20 second intervals (I was told I should be 100% effort or as close as I could push myself to do, which decreased through the workout as I became exhausted, which is where the 90% came from) to make the workout effective, which is where I got the percentage from above, with short rests between (10-60 seconds depending on whether the set was finished). I gave it my all during those times, and felt like roadkill afterward.
If that isn't HIIT, I guess I must misunderstand. It was enough to make a big difference for me until I was ready/able to get into "real" exercises/strength training. Sorry if that offends someone's sensibilities, but it's what happened for me, and that is why I commented on how some people were shutting things down needlessly. Just because it's 15 minutes doesn't render it ineffective or not worthwhile.
To condemn the possibility of a 15 minute HIIT program existing/being feasible/worthwhile because of one or more marketing ploys out there (again, haven't taken the time to evaluate the specific program, and don't intend to) is very unsporting. Shoot, if a 15-minute program can catch someone's eye and get them moving at full effort, versus not doing anything due to what they feel are time constraints/other obligations, it should be encouraged, at least with the proviso that they'll want to work toward something bigger to make a better long-term difference.
(Edited to correct punctuation.)
Nobody on this thread is dismissing the availability of a 15 minute HIIT program - what they are dismissing are the claims from the posted program that it resets/jump starts/etc both your metabolism and your fat-burning capabilities.3 -
I think back to the advice that was given regarding this being a beginning program though.
Unless the intervals are slow jog / walking - for a fresh beginner, even the more intense intervals 3 x weekly as many sites say is just very prone to injury.
It's why the tabata study was on bikes, no impact, and yet still warmup, and still a tad different than true HIIT.
Someone starting an actual intense interval training on a stationary bike could luck out depending on how active they were prior.
And probably the soreness might make them miss some of those 3 x weekly sessions, which would actually be to their benefit.
But to recommend it even then, yikes.
Just thinking about the problems many have starting CT5K, and that is usually walking / slow jogging intervals even.
@heybales Completely agree that a bike is a great machine for HIIT type workouts, and much less injury prone that most other methods. I did some Tabata on the elliptical we have and the transition to the rest period on a machine that doesn't freewheel is tricky at best, and takes some practice.
But curious as well as to what you would consider true HIIT? I thought for most Tabata protocol was in that group.Spliner1969 wrote: »I have a machine (Bowflex M5) that has a HIIT workout mode. It runs 14 minutes and cycles from high intensity to low intensity in intervals the whole time. At medium effort I can burn somewhere around 225 calories in that amount of time. At super high (took me almost 1.5 years on the thing to get this high) intensity and at max resistance I can bury the needle these days and still can't break the 300 calorie mark. So 15 minutes of any HIIT program is going to burn somewhere around 180-300 calories if it's intense enough. It's all subjective to the person, how much effort you put into it, and whether or not the calorie count is actually accurate or not.
Assuming the calorie estimation is close to correct on the machine, 20 watts per minute average is no joke even after a period of time. I'd say for most of us mere mortals it's probably more likely obtained by steady state vs intervals. I've done some quite a few interval types on our elliptical, but for any given period of time steady state max effort for that time period would give me a higher calorie burn.
0 -
I guess my experience doesn't exist, then. I'm OK with living an imaginary life, then.
The short, 15-minute HIIT workouts (or maybe the nay-sayers would be happier if I called it "baby HIIT") were indeed intense for me, but perhaps it wasn't as "horrible" as it should have been since it was modified. Percent intensity is percent intensity, one might argue. My 90% then was a far cry from my 90% now (especially considering I was having trouble with daily tasks by the point where I began), and I'm sure my 90% now won't compare to where I end up. Either way, I suppose it doesn't matter as much now, since I've graduated on to other longer-period forms of improving myself for now. I did enjoy the workouts enough that I'll definitely be looking into the "grown up" version of HIIT (since there's apparently a difference) once I'm stronger.
Kinda funny that some people think it's a disaster or inappropriate for someone like me (or at least where I started out) to do one of these workouts, seeing as it was recommended by one of my doctors. Then again, perhaps that's why it's "Baby HIIT." Even still, there must be something to gain even at that level, if they recommend it.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by "baby HIIT". When you say your "90%", are you talking about performing to 90% of max HR? Were you doing something less that full, all out, HIIT? If so, it may not really have been HIIT. (They seem to call everything HIIT these days) It may have been Interval Training but not High Intensity. Might have been Medium Intensity even though it felt like high to you. Still very useful and effective. And much better than sitting on the couch by a long shot!
As an example, I am very fit despite my age, 66. I weight train and I do various cardio, walking, running, intervals. I have done HIIT in the past. Warm up, through 15 minutes of work sets, through cool down it takes about 25 minutes. The work sets, either bike or sprints, are ALL OUT for 20 to 30 seconds. Then rest for 1.5 to 2 minutes. Then go again. By the 4th or 5th one, I feel like I might puke, my legs are burning, my lungs are burning and I'm wondering if I will pass out. That is High IntensityInterval Training. It is done at above 100% max HR.
The difference may be accurate terminology. What your doctor recommended may have been Interval Training and he called it HIIT. Heck, at Gym's these days they say they do 1 hour HIIT classes. If you can do it for an hour, it ain't HIIT.
I'm differentiating, because people apparently think there's a difference between what this thread was started as (talking about 15 minute HIIT) and something else that is a "true"/"actual" HIIT.
The 15 minute HIIT training that was recommended to me used modified exercises based on a standard set they had, but either way, the summary was that I was supposed to give it my all during 20 second intervals (I was told I should be 100% effort or as close as I could push myself to do, which decreased through the workout as I became exhausted, which is where the 90% came from) to make the workout effective, which is where I got the percentage from above, with short rests between (10-60 seconds depending on whether the set was finished). I gave it my all during those times, and felt like roadkill afterward.
If that isn't HIIT, I guess I must misunderstand. It was enough to make a big difference for me until I was ready/able to get into "real" exercises/strength training. Sorry if that offends someone's sensibilities, but it's what happened for me, and that is why I commented on how some people were shutting things down needlessly. Just because it's 15 minutes doesn't render it ineffective or not worthwhile.
To condemn the possibility of a 15 minute HIIT program existing/being feasible/worthwhile because of one or more marketing ploys out there (again, haven't taken the time to evaluate the specific program, and don't intend to) is very unsporting. Shoot, if a 15-minute program can catch someone's eye and get them moving at full effort, versus not doing anything due to what they feel are time constraints/other obligations, it should be encouraged, at least with the proviso that they'll want to work toward something bigger to make a better long-term difference.
(Edited to correct punctuation.)
Nobody on this thread is dismissing the availability of a 15 minute HIIT program - what they are dismissing are the claims from the posted program that it resets/jump starts/etc both your metabolism and your fat-burning capabilities.
You have summed it up well.
I am continually amazed at the inability of many/most people to follow simple logic threads.1 -
robertw486 wrote: »I think back to the advice that was given regarding this being a beginning program though.
Unless the intervals are slow jog / walking - for a fresh beginner, even the more intense intervals 3 x weekly as many sites say is just very prone to injury.
It's why the tabata study was on bikes, no impact, and yet still warmup, and still a tad different than true HIIT.
Someone starting an actual intense interval training on a stationary bike could luck out depending on how active they were prior.
And probably the soreness might make them miss some of those 3 x weekly sessions, which would actually be to their benefit.
But to recommend it even then, yikes.
Just thinking about the problems many have starting CT5K, and that is usually walking / slow jogging intervals even.
@heybales Completely agree that a bike is a great machine for HIIT type workouts, and much less injury prone that most other methods. I did some Tabata on the elliptical we have and the transition to the rest period on a machine that doesn't freewheel is tricky at best, and takes some practice.
But curious as well as to what you would consider true HIIT? I thought for most Tabata protocol was in that group.
I think elliptical much better for HIIT than treadmill, but hadn't thought about that slow down part, next time I'm in gym, and not tons of people watching me, I'll have to give a try, and hope I don't fall into the machine works!
I think it's with specific reason it is called by Tabata and others high intensity _intermittent_ training - not interval training.
Obviously it's intervals just like jog/walk is intervals, but the recovery is so short in comparison to what has traditionally been called HIIT from way back, where to allow the intense part to be as intense on the muscles from the first set to the last set, the recovery is longer.
His protocol is 170% of VO2max HR. I go higher than that on HIIT, and all 9 "sets". Most have no idea of VO2max either - hence the reason most applications just say as hard as possible.
Since HIIT is all out effort, no need trying to hit certain HR, you limit yourself by the time doing it and recovery time.
If you reach the point that say 15 sec is the same pace (weight) from 1st to last interval and not hard anymore, then you add 5 sec to time (reps?), and probably the recovery time too so the last set is really as hard.
Since it's all out effort, it'll feel the same first or last set, but distance covered tells you if muscles truly performing just as well. What I've seen by many using an old HIIT protocol is the pace (weight) increases in the same time for a bit, then with improved anaerobic capacity the time increases (reps?) along with rest time, then you have a max intense time not worth going beyond (reps over 20 say?), but you keep increasing pace (weight) at that point. And increasing recovery time past a certain point doesn't keep helping.
Years ago was an article I read that equated it to lifting (and that's why I still like to use that analogy - as close to lifting as you'll get with cardio workout, and why using references above) in that it's an overload to the muscles, and can allow for growth when your sport needs that.
But it must be an overload on muscles that does damage to get that repair stronger.
Obviously holding your breath is extreme example during the rest, to make the next intense part feel really intense no matter what.
Limiting the intense part by just limiting the recovery part doesn't accomplish that muscle growth. Sure other benefits.
But like lifting, if it took you 60 sec for your set at say 10 reps at weight that was max for those reps, but then rested for 30 seconds, is that 2nd set going to be the same weight?
Not likely. So then it's not an overload on the muscles by weight past that.
But make the rest just long enough, you can do that weight again.
And there are other interval types that are good overload for like lactic acid improvements, anaerobic capacity improvements, speed improvements.
And if someone has no specific purpose for the intervals than they love the feeling during and after, and are improving in some manner they like - then do whatever. As Tabata showed, those intervals they came up with improve VO2max so aerobic and anaerobic capacity improved compared to LISS at 70% VO2max for a whole lot shorter time.
Agree too that many doing the intervals purely for the calorie burn aspect as reflected by a HRM that is giving inflated figures, or the imagined large EPOC - are mistaken.
And the often given metabolism increase from repair (like lifting would cause), but not being done in a manner that does any damage to require repair - are missing out.
I know my view of HIIT is probably too narrow (that article way back said intense 15-45 sec, rest 3x as long, and I've seen that repeated elsewhere since then), but it's because other interval types (IT & SIT) improve other things, HIIT is specific purpose that can also improve some of those things on the side, perhaps not as much, but is great at it's focus - muscle overload to increase strength/amount.
I've not tried the Tabata protocol exactly, I should running to see what the HR and pace look like on the 8th set when I limit to 170%, or perhaps go for max effort as most seem to apply it.
For those reading regarding the fact you can't push as hard the longer you go - interesting comparison study by Tabata.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9139179
"The peak oxygen uptake during the last 10 s of the IE1 (55 +/- 6 ml.kg-1.min-1) was not significantly less than the VO2max of the subjects (57 +/- 6 ml.kg-1.min-1). The peak oxygen uptake during the last 10 s of IE2 (47 +/- 8 ml.kg-1.min-1) was lower than the VO2max (P < 0.01)."
"IE1 consisted of one set of 6-7 bouts of 20-s exercise at an intensity of approximately 170% of the subject's maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) with a 10-s rest between each bout. IE2 involved one set of 4-5 bouts of 30-s exercise at an intensity of approximately 200% of the subject's VO2max and a 2-min rest between each bout."
Now I don't know if I could do that IE2 protocol successfully for that long - but then again, it sounds like the subjects couldn't hold to that 170% or 200% either if the last 10 sec dropped that much.
It would be interesting to see how the last set compared to the first, between protocols.1 -
I don't think it works like lifting. Most HIIT workouts involve a lot of rapid movements with low peak force. Think 90 rpm on a bike.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it works like lifting. Most HIIT workouts involve a lot of rapid movements with low peak force. Think 90 rpm on a bike.
And sprinting about same turn-over - though I actually increase both when going all out, so even less peak force.
But the point that was made was for the endurance type muscle being worked during the session, it's high force for it compared to normal usage.
Not too short of time that only the type II is being used, just long enough engaging more type I.
Hence as close to lifting as you'll get with a cardio workout. Not exactly like. Not as much damage to muscle by weight overload, but more than other interval types by the short intense nature.2 -
Thought I would throw this out there in case anyone is interested, you can download 'Tabata songs' online. 8 rounds of 20 seconds of work / 10 seconds rest. Its much easier for me to listen to the cues than to look at a clock or stopwatch, which tends to cut my work down.
They have them set to all music genres, as well as remixes of some popular songs as well...1 -
@heybales
Thanks for the in depth reply. I've messed with a lot of interval stuff myself, and ended up doing the Tabata IE1 on the elliptical just to check it out. It took some messing around with settings to even find the right resistance/ramp angle to allow me to hit 170% average for the 20 seconds. I have to accelerate hard enough that I use the hand rails to hold myself down until leg speed is up, and then use them to balance when I slow down to avoid being tossed off. A bike would be much nicer, I just don't have one at home.
As for the study and IE2, I don't think I could hit that on the elliptical. I think I could hit 200%, but not for long. It would probably be easier to ramp up resistance on the fly and get leg speed up first.
But doing it was an eye opener for me. Not as intense as I thought it might be but certainly not easy by any stretch. I've seen comparisons made by some to wind sprints. In reality more like wind sprints uphill with extra weight on your body IMO. I don't think I could sprint hard enough to average 170% VO2 max, at least not on the flat.NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it works like lifting. Most HIIT workouts involve a lot of rapid movements with low peak force. Think 90 rpm on a bike.
I think I'd have to agree with @heybales with it being much harder than most aerobic stuff, but not as bad as lifting. I've had some "wobbly leg" after doing Tabata on the elliptical, probably mostly generated by the acceleration events. Not as bad as pushing the leg press sled for low reps maxes, but enough to have to walk it off a little.
I've either missed or otherwise never found the specifics of how they used the biking ergometers in the Tabata study. RPM was set, but there is no mention of how they increased resistance, or if they started with a set resistance and had to reach the 90 RPM/85 min RPM. On the elliptical I had no choice, as I couldn't accelerate and shift resistance at the same time.
The last time I did the week of Tabata, I had to average a reverse calculated 500 watts for the 20 second intervals, based on machine calculations (which at known not exact). But that is an AVERAGE wattage, with set resistance, and I had to power through starting from 0 RPM.
Since you have meters IIRC, you could do it on the bike in a set gear. I think I could do higher averages on a bike simply because the rotation is circular rather than the ellipse of my machine, and the freewheel factor would certainly make it safer. But my main point is that 20 seconds is a fairly short period to maintain that average for me. Though once again obvious error involved using Strava, but per Strava numbers I can hit 450 range for minutes without near the muscle effort that the Tabata involved.
And now I'm just wanting some power meters more! I think actually for max effort a recumbent type wattbike in a gym would be the real killer to use. You could get more leg force involved in the acceleration, and you can't fall off at any point... well at least not fall far.
1 -
MilesAddie wrote: »Thought I would throw this out there in case anyone is interested, you can download 'Tabata songs' online. 8 rounds of 20 seconds of work / 10 seconds rest. Its much easier for me to listen to the cues than to look at a clock or stopwatch, which tends to cut my work down.
They have them set to all music genres, as well as remixes of some popular songs as well...
Great point. I ended up getting a Tabata timer app for the same reason. The workload didn't lend itself towards casually watching a timer or watch, especially when I had to watch the power metrics on the machine to make sure I hit my power range required.
Our elliptical also takes several seconds to pause after you stop. So I thought big deal, just recalculate simple math on the fly. Simple math got really hard after about 4 intervals.
1 -
@gracekennedy1958 How did it work for you??0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions