HIIT Workouts
PiscesIntuition
Posts: 1,372 Member
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?
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?
3
Replies
-
HIIT planks are the *kitten*!7
-
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.19 -
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.
I always see programs advertising ridiculously high calorie burns - 1,000 calories an hour and the like. I doubt many people could reach those sorts of numbers.5 -
Intensity is rare. Most people talking about 2 hour workouts are actually doing 15 minutes, but taking 2 hours to do it.10
-
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.
18 -
Can i please ask what is a manmaker and box jump? Thanks for the great post and info!!0
-
belladawn2671 wrote: »Can i please ask what is a manmaker and box jump? Thanks for the great post and info!!
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 risers0 -
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.
Yes! THIS is what I’m talking about! Thank you for sharing what you do and what’s worked for you!
1 -
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.
I'm not knocking you or your experiences but I think it's important that we lay out the terms and definitions before we start saying what's better than something else.
HIIT training has it's place like all things but to say that long steady state cardio is dead and HIIT has replaced it is completely inaccurate and misleading.
To be fair to your point, HIIT training has been used by endurance athletes with great success in completing their events but that didn't exclude using training methods that are specifically aimed at their sport. They still have to train with specifics to their sport.
*Law of specificity*
No amount of back to back Tabata intervals would change that.
Now in regards to burning calories and saving time in the gym, HIIT training works well but let's not act like it's a one size fits all solution.
I don't want to come off as combative to you or your experiences, I'm just trying to give a wider perspective.11 -
First of all im talking about the average person who wants to lose weight. Im not talking about an athlete like a swimmer, runner, etc. that needs to perfect his/her sport.
And yes i can burn way more calories and see faster results with doing hiit training, then when you add weight training all the magic happens.
(Short but extremely hard/breathless) pushing to the max than doing an hour on the treadmill or an hour walking. These workouts should only be done 2x a week if they are done properly. And yes the days of going hours on a cardio machine are not just effective as hiit training. Your pushing your body. Your heartrate is coming up.
But I still do it because I enjoy it. Working out is for my sanity. I still workout an hour a day every day even though research says you only need 20-30min 4 days a week.
I love to run, spin, lift weights, do yoga and hiit train.
Listen the bottom line you have to find out what you like and you enjoy. If running or walking on a treadmill is what you like then great. As long as your moving is what I tell me clients.
12 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think it's kind of sad that people do cardio they enjoy so little that they want it to be really short, or that they don't have time in their lives to do fun, active things that take longer (biking, swimming, skating, kayaking, outdoor running, rowing, etc.) Just my opinion, of course.
I also think it's interesting that much of the early research on HIIT benefits (like the original Tabata studies) was done with intense (max effort) cardio intervals (exercise bike, rowing machine, that sort of thing), and that people are now doing almost anything (calisthenics, "functional fitness", circuits) in a similar time-interval format and claiming it has the same benefits seen in that early research. I get that heart rate may increase to similar levels doing those "new HIIT" things as during max-effort pure cardio, but some of that HR increase is related to pressure and strain, not purely oxygen consumption. Makes me wonder.
Don't get me wrong, everyone can and should do the forms of exercise s/he finds most enjoyable, beneficial, and easy to fit into a happy and balanced life. And I'm quite confident that this new-style HIIT has benefits, of course.
But I wonder if there's a little bit of trendy up-sell around "HIIT" these days. For sure, I don't see why it's useful to deprecate the other exercise modalities - saying they're useless or not fun - in order to sell the HIIT.
12 -
A true Tabata HIIT routine is only 2-3 mins long and will so exhaust you that you can't do anything else for at least 15-30 mins.
Anything else is just "exercise" of varying intensity but it's not truly HIIT.11 -
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
0 -
Strongfitmama100412 wrote: »First of all im talking about the average person who wants to lose weight. Im not talking about an athlete like a swimmer, runner, etc. that needs to perfect his/her sport.
And yes i can burn way more calories and see faster results with doing hiit training, then when you add weight training all the magic happens.
(Short but extremely hard/breathless) pushing to the max than doing an hour on the treadmill or an hour walking. These workouts should only be done 2x a week if they are done properly. And yes the days of going hours on a cardio machine are not just effective as hiit training. Your pushing your body. Your heartrate is coming up.
But I still do it because I enjoy it. Working out is for my sanity. I still workout an hour a day every day even though research says you only need 20-30min 4 days a week.
I love to run, spin, lift weights, do yoga and hiit train.
Listen the bottom line you have to find out what you like and you enjoy. If running or walking on a treadmill is what you like then great. As long as your moving is what I tell me clients.
The problem is that what you're talking about isn't HIIT as defined by the various articles that people are referencing when talking about things like how one can increase cardiovascular fitness faster with high intensity intervals than with moderate intensity steady state exercise (more specifically 60 min at 70% vo2 max).
What you're doing would not be considered HIIT, for the purposes of what they study and what you're inadvertently referencing, by the people who researched what you're claiming to be true.6 -
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
Sorry but you are wrong - that absolutely is not HIIT. You have fallen for the misinformation being promoted by the fitness industry that feels the need to sex things up to sell their classes or programs.
(Often accompanied by exaggerated calorie burn numbers derived by guesswork, pure marketing nonsense or ignorance.)
An hour is far, far too long duration.
You don't do HIIT intervals by heartrate (HR lags behind effort).
This shows by how much from one of my interval training sessions.
Is it high intensity, maybe (you haven't tested your max HR so your percentages are estimates).
Are there some intervals, yes - but no it's not HIIT.
Unless you are dying after 15 seconds of a maximal effort sprint it's not HIIT intensity. Getting tired because you are operating at a high HR for a while doesn't define HIIT.
That doesn't make it bad training of course, doesn't make it easy it's just being called something it's not. It's "just" interval training which has an enormous scope and can be extremely valuable part of training. Just like my graphic just shows an interval training session.
You are right though that an exercise bike session is a good medium for a HIIT workout as you can go from recovery to maximal effort instantly.
8 -
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?0 -
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.3 -
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!1 -
Hmm.. just wanted to report spam, and an unsafe website, and it's gone already.0
-
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.
9 -
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.
There are so many ideas about humans being stalking animals and what kept humans alive was the ability to stalk prey for hours on end until the animal would be too tired. Our ability to metabolize fat easily (relative) and sustain decent energy output for long periods of time would have been useful for us.
We ain't out sprinting anything, we are pretty slow compared to 95% of other animals.
I think you're off with the ancestor thing. I always try and do the ancestor thing too in my head cause it seems like a logical thing to want to lean on. But our ancestors also died significantly earlier in life than we did lol so sometimes I try and push myself away from that.5 -
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 see what you're saying but we're shifting paradigms by that logic.
You mentioned using HIIT to get faster results in regards to building muscle and burning fat but then you also speak about our ancestors and how HIIT training is beneficial to us in the same way it would have been for them.
If I had to actively hunt my food, worry about long periods of starvation, and stay warm in the freezing winters it sounds like being fat would actually be beneficial to my survival.
As you mentioned, HIIT does have its place just like long steady "cardio" but if we're looking at HIIT as the main reason we were able to evade our enemies and hunt our food for hours then I would have to question exactly what HIIT is (again)?
The common acceptance is 1) Get your heart rate up really fast, 2) Spend more time recovering from that hard exertion than you did actually exerting yourself, and 3) Work hard enough to become "breathless".
That sounds contradictory to maintaining motion for hours at a time.
Not only that but traditional HIIT training is no where near as beneficial to long term sustained heart health as long steady state cardio. I wouldn't ask the elderly or those who have suffered cardiological problems to use HIIT but there's not a person in the world who wouldn't benefit from even 30 minutes of walking over HIIT.5 -
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: typos10 -
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.
No, we don't all agree on that. It depends on your goals as has been already pointed out by multiple posters. Increasing heart rate over a short period of time will increase your V02 max if that is what you want. Great for endurance athletes or certain sports.
For fat loss, diet is going to be primary and the calorie burns for HIIT or interval training, 500 as stated in your original post are highly unlikely. In the case of true HIIT, they are downright impossible. Steady state is going to can give better overall burns but takes more time. And EPOC is not nearly as high as you seem to imply.
For muscle building HIIT is probably one of the worst strategies. Interval training slightly better but not optimum. Interval training is at best a compromise strategy that gives one a little cardio and a little muscle work all in one. I can see the application for someone with limited time. But it is not optimal for either.
Lastly, as has been pointed out, our ancestors did not do a lot a sprinting. They did some but not a lot. They did do a lot of walking. A lot. It was their primary way of getting from place to place as well as tracking , foraging and stalking prey.
So, different strategies for different goals.
If I want to bike race, run 10Ks or marathons, play soccer or hockey, I'm going to do primarily medium intensity steady state, with some HIIT during competition prep and some off season weight training.
If I want to lose fat, I'm going to control calories, increase my N.E.A.T. and LISS and some resistance training to preserve muscle mass while in deficit.
If I want to build muscle, I'm going to do progressive resistance weight training.
9 -
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.3 -
Most of my ancestors did short activities; stop-and-go “activity”. They were not running for hours for food. “Stalking” animals requires being still.
My ancestors also likely did not deal with freezing temperatures (and needing body fat to handle it).
https://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2018/04/06/short-bursts-exercise-may-prevent-death.aspx
https://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2011/06/09/move-like-a-huntergatherer-live-longer.aspx
https://articles.mercola.com/peak-fitness.aspx
12 -
I would hardly consider Mercola a credible site for anthropology and archeology. Just sayin...
@Nony_Mouse, I'm sure you would have some valuable input here being that you are an actual archeologist.6 -
PiscesIntuition wrote: »Most of my ancestors did short activities; stop-and-go “activity”. They were not running for hours for food. “Stalking” animals requires being still.
My ancestors also likely did not deal with freezing temperatures (and needing body fat to handle it).
https://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2018/04/06/short-bursts-exercise-may-prevent-death.aspx
https://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2011/06/09/move-like-a-huntergatherer-live-longer.aspx
https://articles.mercola.com/peak-fitness.aspx
I didn't say running for hours for food...they would have walked a ton...walking would have been their primary movement. Hunter/gatherers were transient and didn't remain in one place for extended periods of time.5 -
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
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.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions