HIIT Workouts

PiscesIntuition
PiscesIntuition Posts: 1,372 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
What is your favorite HIIT workout that is sure to burn 500 calories (and some while resting)?

I like high knees, skaters, squats, jumping jacks, lateral movements and more.

What’s your fave HIIT?
Link it or describe it.
How many reps, how many sets?
What is the rest time between sets?
«13

Replies

  • belladawn2671
    belladawn2671 Posts: 3 Member
    Can i please ask what is a manmaker and box jump? Thanks for the great post and info!!
  • Strongfitmama100412
    Strongfitmama100412 Posts: 90 Member
    belladawn2671 wrote: »
    Can i please ask what is a manmaker and box jump? Thanks for the great post and info!!
    Kind of like a burpee but you add weights and do renagade rows and an overhead press
    https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=man+maker+exercise&fr=iphone&.tsrc=apple&pcarrier=Verizon&pmcc=311&pmnc=480

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=AwrDQ3JoISJdWRoABX.3mWRH;_ylu=X3oDMTEwcmUwdGo0BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDQjY3NDQEZ3BvcwMx?p=box+jumps&vid=f017712b33f312531a163ce33962df71&turl=https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OVP._zStEmxeol1eYSV286iPogHgFo&pid=Api&h=150&w=250&c=7&rs=1&rurl=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxldG9FX4j4&tit=How+To:+Box+Jump&c=0&h=150&w=250&l=163&sigr=11badhqpj&sigt=10ghr7c61&sigi=12qo2gf2i&age=1357410421&fr2=p:s,v:v&fr=iphone&tt=b

    Box jumps i do on a step with risers
  • PiscesIntuition
    PiscesIntuition Posts: 1,372 Member
    Strongfitmama100412 wrote: »
    Its the best way to train in my opinion. Ive been working out since junior high, been lifting since high school, been a certified fitness/spinning instructor for 15 years, now at 44 im in the best shape ive ever been. I owe it all to hiit training and heavy lifting. More specifically tabata style of hiit training protocol.
    20 second all out (in this 20 seconds you should go as hard as you can. Breathless). 10 seconds recovery repeat 8 times to equal 4 minutes. I do about 5-6 rounds. (20-24 min). Then I add heavy lifting with it. One hour=500-600 calories.
    I have been teaching this way for 7 years now.
    Some of my favorite moves:
    Burpees
    Mountain climbers
    High knees
    Butt kicks
    Manmakers
    Jacks
    Skaters
    Long jumps
    Squat jumps
    Star jumps
    Frog jumps
    180 jumps
    Lateral jumps
    Lateral jumps to a burpee
    Battle ropes
    Box jumps


    I use hiit training with the treadmill too. 30 sec sprint intervals i put into my running to increase my speed. I have never been a runner but i think of all my years of hiit training paid off. I ran my second 5k in 29 minutes.

    If you look up tabata on itunes you can download songs. They count down for you etc.
    My favorite are

    “total body tabata”
    “Turbo tabata trainer”

    There are also a few podcasts that have tabatas.

    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tabata-time-coached-tabata-interval-mix/id300391393?i=1000110433488

    (This actually tells you what to do)




    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/125-bpm-tribal-tabata/id124686671?i=1000359093846

    Good luck and enjoy!! Ive been training this way after my first son was born (8.5) years ago. I didn't have hours in the gym anymore. I needed effective and fast way of training. 3 kids later, i weigh less than i did before my wedding. Also from all the research, podcasts, and courses I have to take to keep my certification current this is the way to go. Long drawn out cardio is not longer the way to go.
    m

    Yes! THIS is what I’m talking about! Thank you for sharing what you do and what’s worked for you!

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited July 2019
    This content has been removed.
  • phred_52
    phred_52 Posts: 189 Member
    edited July 2019
    I see and read that cycling don't seem to be on list for HIIT. That's nutty to me. Oh Well. I just used 1hr of bike in gym as my example...i'm 57, using 220 -57, max HR is 163.

    (1)..79% = 130bpm ....(2) 85% = 140bpm....(3) 93% =153bpm

    In that 1 hr I'm pretty much constant at 75% to 79%. I'll get to 85% 2-3 times briefly in 1hr, and I'll really turn up tension and crank pedals for 30-60 seconds, hitting 150-155bpm.

    If that is not HIIT well....maybe I should give it up :) ...Or those in the know that came up with this, at least the High Intesity first part are totally clueless :). If above is not HIIT, well....nm
  • MT1134
    MT1134 Posts: 173 Member
    I see a lot of different ideas being thrown around as to what HIIT is and what HIIT is not. Can we get some hard numbers here as to what HIIT is please?

    I'm not being facetious, I'm honestly trying to understand where people are coming from.

    I'm falling behind in the turn of conversation here. Everyone has a different idea of what HIIT is versus what circuit training is but are we using perceived effort/exertion, heart rate over duration? What's the standard?
  • symonhughes88
    symonhughes88 Posts: 9 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    A true HIIT workout is cardio of such extreme intensity that the duration must be short and a good proportion of that duration will be recovery time - you will not be burning 500cals or anywhere close.

    I think you mean circuit training as you mention reps and sets?
    In which case using cable machines would be my current favourite, minimal rest and alternating push/pull, variable reps but mostly 10 - 15 depending on exercise, variable sets (more based on total duration) - but it's still unlikely to burn 500 cals!

    EPOC is that's what you mean by burning some while resting is vastly over-estimated in terms of significance, it's trivial.

    Perfect, not many people see HIIT that was, top man.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,941 Member
    edited July 2019
    phred_52 wrote: »
    I see and read that cycling don't seem to be on list for HIIT. That's nutty to me. Oh Well. I just used 1hr of bike in gym as my example...i'm 57, using 220 -57, max HR is 163.

    (1)..79% = 130bpm ....(2) 85% = 140bpm....(3) 93% =153bpm

    In that 1 hr I'm pretty much constant at 75% to 79%. I'll get to 85% 2-3 times briefly in 1hr, and I'll really turn up tension and crank pedals for 30-60 seconds, hitting 150-155bpm.

    If that is not HIIT well....maybe I should give it up :) ...Or those in the know that came up with this, at least the High Intesity first part are totally clueless :). If above is not HIIT, well....nm

    How do you know what your maximum heart rate is on which you base those percentages? If you have not done proper maxHR attempts you might be way off with this equation. Again, true HIIT is not something you could do for an hour but just a very, very short time.

    Btw, based on that equation all my runs are HIIT as my maxHR should be 175. I usually run with an HR of 168-174 and can keep it up for 90 minutes. Whoa! I'm great! :D
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,941 Member
    Hmm.. just wanted to report spam, and an unsafe website, and it's gone already.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    PiscesIntuition wrote: »
    Oh my!

    We all agree that increasing heart rate over a short period of time is what gets faster results. Whether it’s circuit training or HIIT.

    If you think about what our ancestors did, you will better understand how short bursts over a short period of time would have been better than long cardio. Long cardio would be like running from an animal or enemy for an hour.

    I believe they both have their place when it comes to fat loss and muscle building.

    Our hunter/gatherer ancestors would have done far more long bouts of cardio than anything resembling HIIT...mostly a lot of walking. This is observable with modern hunter/gatherer tribes that still exist.

    Personally, I think HIIT has become an over-hyped marketing ploy. Most of what is claimed to be HIIT isn't even really HIIT. I think interval training has it's place...but so does LISS and other training forms. I tend to do interval training when I'm short on time...but nothing is more enjoyable to me than being out on a road ride for a couple of hours.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,941 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    PiscesIntuition wrote: »
    Oh my!

    We all agree that increasing heart rate over a short period of time is what gets faster results. Whether it’s circuit training or HIIT.

    If you think about what our ancestors did, you will better understand how short bursts over a short period of time would have been better than long cardio. Long cardio would be like running from an animal or enemy for an hour.

    I believe they both have their place when it comes to fat loss and muscle building.

    I'm not certain we do all agree on any such thing, at least not if we're using the terminology in the same way ("short period of time", "faster results", and - for sure "HIIT"). Increasing heart rate is useful, but how much to increase it, and over what period of time, for which results . . . that's different.

    First, let's back up to the "HIIT" term (which I realize the post I'm replying to is trying to set aside as a distraction, but I think it's possibly more useful to try to understand it so we can talk about it sensibly.)

    The Wikipedia article on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training) isn't terrible, IMO, with respect to the classical definition of "HIIT": A cardiovascular exercise alternating intervals at anerobic-intensity levels with intervals at lower intensity. The exercises used in the relevant research were things like stationary bike (most common), rowing machine, running, stairs/hills. By and large, what was tested were workouts most of us would consider quite short, and part of that shortness comes from the fact that those intensities can only be repeated a limited number of times before the definitionally-necessary level of performance becomes unachievable. (As an aside, those performance limits may change with growing fitness, but the implication is that the fitter person needs to work objectively harder to achieve the anaerobic state that defines the the classic HIIT intensity, so duration is still limited as the subject's capabilities improve.)

    While many of the research protocols use some kind of HR% descriptively, I think it's more useful for practitioners to think of those as after-the-fact assessments (not benchmarks the practitioner uses her/himself in real time to decide whether the interval is intense enough (for the reasons @sijomial mentions); and to remember that in the research setting, they're almost certainly relying on tested/verified max heart rates, not age-estimated max heart rates (which latter are inaccurate enough to be seriously misleading for a suprisingly large segment of the population).

    "New HIIT" (my term) takes some of the general ideas about pacing from those earlier studies, and applies them to different exercise activities (often forms of circuit training (high-rep resistance work), calisthenics or activities like battle ropes, tire flips, etc.) Are these "good" exercises? Sure. Can it be useful to do them in an intense interval pacing format? Sure. Does doing so have all and exactly the same benefits as the HIIT on which the earlier research was done? Hmmm. For sure, the reasons for elevated heart rate in these "new" exercises (i.e., the stresses to which we're asking the body to adapt) can differ from those of the exercises in which the earlier research was done, among other issues.

    So, old HIIT or new HIIT has benefits, no question about that. It's short, and intense. It is "time efficient" for weight loss in the sense that it burns more calories per minute of intense exercise than the same minutes of moderate or low intensity of that same activity.

    Does it burn more calories for the whole exercise time period, as compared with moderate intensity? That depends on how intense the intense intervals are, how moderate the recovery intervals are, and the length of each of those.

    One is burning higher calories during the intense interval, and lower in the recovery interval, so loosely the calorie burn is the duration-weighted average of the two activities. (Example, unrealistic invented numbers just to make the concept clearer: If my intervals add up to 20 minutes at high intensity that burn 5 calories per minute, and 10 minutes at recovery intensity that burn 2 calories, my total burn is ((20 x 5) + (10 x 2) = 120 calories). If the contrasting moderate-intensity steady state activity burns 3 calories a minute, the HIIT burns more calories; if the moderate-intensity steady state activity burns 4 calories a minute, they're equal. And so forth.))

    Does the HIIT burn more calories overall? That depends on duration. HIIT duration is somewhat self-limited by fatigue/exhaustion, as described above. I won't argue that moderate-intensity steady state is unlimited, but by definition "steady state" is something one can continue for quite a long time. So, time one wants to devote is a variable in considering what burns the most calories overall. If I have an hour available that I want to devote to exercise, there's no great reason to do something that's so intense I can only do it for 40 minutes. (Not to mention that, for example, I don't want my on-water rowing to be over lots faster, because why would I shorten fun if I have the time available? So I sometimes do somewhat-intense intervals on the water, but rarely max-intensity intervals (I save those for the more-boring rowing machine ;) ).

    Also relevant to those other terms, "short period of time" and "faster results": True high-intensity intervals (old or new HIIT, either one) require a longer recovery period in order to wire in some of the benefits. Obviously, how long varies, but recovery is a factor. If I can do moderate intensity steady state for half an hour every day (and want to), but can only do HIIT for half an hour every other day to get adequate recovery, there's a decent chance I'll burn more calories per week doing entirely moderate intensity exercise, if calories are the objective.

    If fitness is the objective, it matters exactly what the fitness objective is. Intensity develops some capabilities most efficiently (such as VO2max), longer steady state develops others (such as endurance). (If well-rounded fitness is the objective, I'd personally argue that a mix of HIIT and steady state are the best bet.) Virtually any safe exercise that elevates heart rate, even elevating it rather modestly, has some benefits: We don't necessarily need a big increase over a short period in order to see a benefit.

    What about the EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, a.k.a. afterburn)? Research suggests a higher EPOC in percentage terms for HIIT (research on the classic form) vs. steady-state exercise of the same type. That's cool, but it's important to think through the arithmetic: A common number is 14% EPOC for HIIT, 7% for steady state. Wow, twice as much!

    Or maybe not so wow. Let's say we're comparing HIIT and steady state sessions that each burned 500 calories, which most of us would consider a pretty decent session for calorie burn. The EPOC from HIIT is 70 whopping calories (0.14 x 500). The EPOC from steady state is 35 calories (0.07 x 500). Still twice as much from HIIT . . . but jeez, 35 calories. That kind of number is pretty much lost in the daily noise of unavoidable errors in food and exercise estimating while calorie counting. (More on this at https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html/)

    So, HIIT (old or new) has advantages. Intensity, in general, has advantages. It also has potential limitations:

    Intense exercise is typically more fatiguing per minute, because intensity has that physical effect. If that fatigue is enough to carry over into daily life, such that the person drags through the day doing less physically at work and home, then it's pretty easy to wipe out calorie advantages from the shorter HIIT (or sustained but short high intensity, maybe call it High Intensity Steady State (HISS)) workout. (The fact that it's shorter is still a good thing, for busy people who don't really enjoy exercise, of course.)

    HIIT or other rapid pacing, especially in the "new HIIT" modalities (calisthenics, light-weight high-rep circuits, etc.) has greater potential for injury, especially in beginners, because of less opportunity to focus on maintaining proper form, and that risk becomes more acute as the workout continues and fatigue kicks in.

    HIIT or extra-intense exercise in general can be discouraging for some beginners, possibly leading to quicker burnout and even giving up on exercise. Some people enjoy intensity, but the research suggests that many do not. For the latter, HIIT reinforces the idea that exercise has to be miserable and fatiguing to be effective - sort of a punishment for getting unfit or fat in the first place. (Ugh.) I'd argue that most exercise beginners are better served by a slow ramp-up of exercise that is (for them) relatively pleasurable, is energizing rather than fatiguing for the rest of their day, and that makes the risk of injury pretty moderate until good form is solidly established in muscle memory.

    Lots of different exercise pacing strategies (HIIT, lower-intensity intervals, LISS, MISS, continuous high intensity, etc.) have value, whether for fitness or weight loss, and which is "best" varies. The time we have available matters, how much we enjoy the activity matters, personal enjoyment of things like sweating and panting matter, what our fitness or health goals are matters, and more.

    I feel like HIIT gets a bunch of quasi-religious boosterism lately. I also feel like the term just gets broader all the time, as if being called HIIT makes any given activity/pacing way cooler than if we called it something else. But it's all good, in various ways, even under less thrilling names. ;)

    Edited: typos

    I love you! Fantastic summary :smiley:

    With regards to running and HIIT: I earned about 366kcal by running 4 miles today. Not too shabby. I kind of doubt that I would have burned more by doing a HIIT session, and wonder if it would have been so much shorter as warm up needs to be included as well of course. And I'd possibly not feel as relaxed as I do now.

Categories