HIIT Workouts

2

Replies

  • tyegarcia
    tyegarcia Posts: 14 Member
    my go to HIIT

    30 seconds of battle ropes
    20 burpees - you can add pull ups or hanging crunches to these

    4 rounds
    60 seconds of rest between each round
  • Rammer123
    Rammer123 Posts: 679 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    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.

    It's tough to really say for sure. From my experience doing HIIT I can genuinely feel myself expending more energy to just maintain my body temperature after doing HIIT. I am breathing much heavier than normally for at least 30 minutes afterwards and generally it's pretty difficult to stop sweating even after a shower. Cold shower for a couple minutes at the end usually does the trick but in the summer time its like it never stops.

    For me, if I was to do 30 minutes of moderate steady state cardio, and 30 minutes of HIIT (not sure i'd be able to make it this long without like at least 1:3 work to rest) I would say for me, I think I would burn more calories by doing the HIIT.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    edited July 2019
    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

    If you're implying that your ancestors were from Africa, I would like to point out the sheer dominance that East African runners have in the marathon and other long distance running events. Never mind that I highly suspect that one's genetics play a very very small role in their ability to burn calories with very rare exceptions related to genetic disorders.

    My ancestors were also not doing much if anything in cold climates. I still am able to burn more calories doing steady state or near steady state on a bike than I am HIIT on a bike.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,027 Member
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    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.
    This.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • naomi8888
    naomi8888 Posts: 519 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    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.
    This.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    Love this! We do tabata as part of Les Mills Grit - it's a killer in a great way :)
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 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.

    A human can run a marathon faster than a horse can. That's a big part of why early humans didn't go extinct, we could run prey down.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,986 Member
    NorthCascades 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.

    A human can run a marathon faster than a horse can. That's a big part of why early humans didn't go extinct, we could run prey down.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    edited July 2019
    yirara wrote: »
    NorthCascades 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.

    A human can run a marathon faster than a horse can. That's a big part of why early humans didn't go extinct, we could run prey down.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

    Compare the winning times (especially the more recent ones) of that race to those of the London Marathon (which is a longer distance) or the Berlin Marathon.
  • naomi8888
    naomi8888 Posts: 519 Member
    Strongfitmama100412 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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.
    If you're doing 5 rounds........................it ain't Tabata. Tabata protocol is only 4 minutes long period. And all out is 100%. If you can do 5 rounds.............it's not all out.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    HIIT training-HIGH INTESITY INVERVAL TRAINING yes I am doing it right. I'm breathless and my class is breathless in the 20 seconds. Do burpees with knee tucks for 20 seconds, 10 second recovery 8 times and tell me its not high intensity.

    or sprint on the treadmill for 60 seconds at a 8, 9 or 10 speed and tell me that's not high intensity.

    If you cant talk its high intensity. If you doing intervals, 30 sec on 30 sec off or 20 sec on 10 sec off or a 1 min on 1 min off. those are intervals.

    Isn't this what ninerbuff is saying? What you listed adds up to four minutes. I do these classes (like Les Mills Grit) and at the end of the day it's up to the individual to push themselves. Some do half a$$ed burpees and tiny jumps and aren't really pushing to their max.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Strongfitmama100412 wrote: »
    or sprint on the treadmill for 60 seconds at a 8, 9 or 10 speed and tell me that's not high intensity.

    If you cant talk its high intensity. If you doing intervals, 30 sec on 30 sec off or 20 sec on 10 sec off or a 1 min on 1 min off. those are intervals.

    fwiw I can run a 10K in about 49 minutes, and there's no way I'm talking for most of that. It's high intensity, but it's steady state.

    A HIIT running session for me would be a 15 minute warm up, sprint intervals for 50 metres each with probably 200 metre rest intervals followed by another 10 minutes cool down. IT would need to be done on a track as a treadmill isn't responsive enough to the required changes in pace.

    I'm comfortable using a treadmill for cruise intervals of 400 metres, but anything less than that it takes too long to stabilise the speed.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    naomi8888 wrote: »
    Strongfitmama100412 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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.
    If you're doing 5 rounds........................it ain't Tabata. Tabata protocol is only 4 minutes long period. And all out is 100%. If you can do 5 rounds.............it's not all out.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    HIIT training-HIGH INTESITY INVERVAL TRAINING yes I am doing it right. I'm breathless and my class is breathless in the 20 seconds. Do burpees with knee tucks for 20 seconds, 10 second recovery 8 times and tell me its not high intensity.

    or sprint on the treadmill for 60 seconds at a 8, 9 or 10 speed and tell me that's not high intensity.

    If you cant talk its high intensity. If you doing intervals, 30 sec on 30 sec off or 20 sec on 10 sec off or a 1 min on 1 min off. those are intervals.

    Isn't this what ninerbuff is saying? What you listed adds up to four minutes. I do these classes (like Les Mills Grit) and at the end of the day it's up to the individual to push themselves. Some do half a$$ed burpees and tiny jumps and aren't really pushing to their max.

    The type of activities being described really arent going to get HR into the range that it would need to be to deliver the VO2Max improvements that true HIIT would deliver. They're really pretty mild from an HR perspective.
  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    edited July 2019
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

    Not that Wikipedia is all that as the end all be all authority, but I found this part useful (and applicable to what some of you are asking about what defines HIIT).

    Tabata regimen[edit]
    A version of HIIT was based on a 1996 study[10] by Professor Izumi Tabata (田畑泉) et al. initially involving Olympic speedskaters. The study used 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest, repeated continuously for 4 minutes (8 cycles). The exercise was performed on a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. Tabata called this the IE1 protocol.[11] In the original study, athletes using this method trained 4 times per week, plus another day of steady-state training, for 6 weeks and obtained gains similar to a group of athletes who did steady state training (70% VO2max) 5 times per week. The steady state group had a higher VO2max at the end (from 52 to 57 mL/(kg•min)), but the Tabata group had started lower and gained more overall (from 48 to 55 mL/(kg•min)). Also, only the Tabata group had gained anaerobic capacity benefits. In the original study from 1996, participants were disqualified if they could not keep a steady cycling pace of 85RPM for the full 20 seconds of work.[relevant? – discuss]
    In popular culture, "Tabata training" has now come to refer to a wide variety of HIIT protocols and exercise regimens [12] that may or may not have similar benefits to those found in Tabata's original study.

    I do this one rowing workout. Not all the time because it's too strenuous for me personally, but it's helpful to build Wattage. It's a pretty well known Ed McNeely workout.

    You basically find out what our max Wattage is on the rower (there's a Wattage reading toggle on the C2). Then you write that down. The workout is 10 second sprints, one minute off. Whenever your Wattage falls below 80% of your max, the workout is done. You shoot for 20 reps.

    Similar to the study listed in Wikipedia. By most standards, if it's true HIIT, there's a measurable metric that can be accounted for. Once you stop hitting that metric/measure standard, you're not really doing HIIT, you're just simply elevating your HR. That's why things like Sprinting, Cycling (using Power meters), Rowers and other equipment where you can quantifiably measure output are useful in HIIT. Things like Mountain Climbers or Burpees tend to be much more subjective to the person doing them.

    Now, let's say you use a Plyo Box. How many times you can jump up a certain height on a Plyo box in 20 seconds would be a nice measure. Dangerous if not matted, but a nice measure never the less. Once you can't do it a certain amount of times, why are you doing it?

    Saying if someone does more than 4 minutes, it can't be HIIT is silly, though. I know guys that are in three times the shape I'm in that easily can do more than 4 minutes of HIIT. Now, granted, they are also doing 150K meters a week on the rower, so massive amounts of slower endurance work. But you can't really say, by definition, that someone can't be doing HIIT if it lasts over 4 minutes. That's just not true.

    This guy's in his 60s. He's a World Champion Indoor Rower. His intervals are insane and well beyond 4 minutes. Most guys on college crew teams would be hard pressed to do his workouts.

    https://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=169648
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    MikePfirrman wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

    Not that Wikipedia is all that as the end all be all authority, but I found this part useful (and applicable to what some of you are asking about what defines HIIT).

    Tabata regimen[edit]
    A version of HIIT was based on a 1996 study[10] by Professor Izumi Tabata (田畑泉) et al. initially involving Olympic speedskaters. The study used 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest, repeated continuously for 4 minutes (8 cycles). The exercise was performed on a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. Tabata called this the IE1 protocol.[11] In the original study, athletes using this method trained 4 times per week, plus another day of steady-state training, for 6 weeks and obtained gains similar to a group of athletes who did steady state training (70% VO2max) 5 times per week. The steady state group had a higher VO2max at the end (from 52 to 57 mL/(kg•min)), but the Tabata group had started lower and gained more overall (from 48 to 55 mL/(kg•min)). Also, only the Tabata group had gained anaerobic capacity benefits. In the original study from 1996, participants were disqualified if they could not keep a steady cycling pace of 85RPM for the full 20 seconds of work.[relevant? – discuss]
    In popular culture, "Tabata training" has now come to refer to a wide variety of HIIT protocols and exercise regimens [12] that may or may not have similar benefits to those found in Tabata's original study.

    I do this one rowing workout. Not all the time because it's too strenuous for me personally, but it's helpful to build Wattage. It's a pretty well known Ed McNeely workout.

    You basically find out what our max Wattage is on the rower (there's a Wattage reading toggle on the C2). Then you write that down. The workout is 10 second sprints, one minute off. Whenever your Wattage falls below 80% of your max, the workout is done. You shoot for 20 reps.

    Similar to the study listed in Wikipedia. By most standards, if it's true HIIT, there's a measurable metric that can be accounted for. Once you stop hitting that metric/measure standard, you're not really doing HIIT, you're just simply elevating your HR. That's why things like Sprinting, Cycling (using Power meters), Rowers and other equipment where you can quantifiably measure output are useful in HIIT. Things like Mountain Climbers or Burpees tend to be much more subjective to the person doing them.

    Now, let's say you use a Plyo Box. How many times you can jump up a certain height on a Plyo box in 20 seconds would be a nice measure. Dangerous if not matted, but a nice measure never the less. Once you can't do it a certain amount of times, why are you doing it?

    Saying if someone does more than 4 minutes, it can't be HIIT is silly, though. I know guys that are in three times the shape I'm in that easily can do more than 4 minutes of HIIT. Now, granted, they are also doing 150K meters a week on the rower, so massive amounts of slower endurance work. But you can't really say, by definition, that someone can't be doing HIIT if it lasts over 4 minutes. That's just not true.

    I don't think niner was saying it's not HIIT if it's over 4 minutes. He was saying it's no the Tabata protocol. Possibly he'll clarify. Buyt that's how I read his comment above.
  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    MikePfirrman wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

    Not that Wikipedia is all that as the end all be all authority, but I found this part useful (and applicable to what some of you are asking about what defines HIIT).

    Tabata regimen[edit]
    A version of HIIT was based on a 1996 study[10] by Professor Izumi Tabata (田畑泉) et al. initially involving Olympic speedskaters. The study used 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest, repeated continuously for 4 minutes (8 cycles). The exercise was performed on a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. Tabata called this the IE1 protocol.[11] In the original study, athletes using this method trained 4 times per week, plus another day of steady-state training, for 6 weeks and obtained gains similar to a group of athletes who did steady state training (70% VO2max) 5 times per week. The steady state group had a higher VO2max at the end (from 52 to 57 mL/(kg•min)), but the Tabata group had started lower and gained more overall (from 48 to 55 mL/(kg•min)). Also, only the Tabata group had gained anaerobic capacity benefits. In the original study from 1996, participants were disqualified if they could not keep a steady cycling pace of 85RPM for the full 20 seconds of work.[relevant? – discuss]
    In popular culture, "Tabata training" has now come to refer to a wide variety of HIIT protocols and exercise regimens [12] that may or may not have similar benefits to those found in Tabata's original study.

    I do this one rowing workout. Not all the time because it's too strenuous for me personally, but it's helpful to build Wattage. It's a pretty well known Ed McNeely workout.

    You basically find out what our max Wattage is on the rower (there's a Wattage reading toggle on the C2). Then you write that down. The workout is 10 second sprints, one minute off. Whenever your Wattage falls below 80% of your max, the workout is done. You shoot for 20 reps.

    Similar to the study listed in Wikipedia. By most standards, if it's true HIIT, there's a measurable metric that can be accounted for. Once you stop hitting that metric/measure standard, you're not really doing HIIT, you're just simply elevating your HR. That's why things like Sprinting, Cycling (using Power meters), Rowers and other equipment where you can quantifiably measure output are useful in HIIT. Things like Mountain Climbers or Burpees tend to be much more subjective to the person doing them.

    Now, let's say you use a Plyo Box. How many times you can jump up a certain height on a Plyo box in 20 seconds would be a nice measure. Dangerous if not matted, but a nice measure never the less. Once you can't do it a certain amount of times, why are you doing it?

    Saying if someone does more than 4 minutes, it can't be HIIT is silly, though. I know guys that are in three times the shape I'm in that easily can do more than 4 minutes of HIIT. Now, granted, they are also doing 150K meters a week on the rower, so massive amounts of slower endurance work. But you can't really say, by definition, that someone can't be doing HIIT if it lasts over 4 minutes. That's just not true.

    I don't think niner was saying it's not HIIT if it's over 4 minutes. He was saying it's no the Tabata protocol. Possibly he'll clarify. Buyt that's how I read his comment above.

    You might be right but Tabata is just a form of HIIT. I've seen Tabata where you rest one minute after a four minute block and continue doing four minute blocks. Is that Tabata then? If someone still has the same intensity, I'd say yes, it is. I think what he was saying is after four minutes, you should be done if you do it right. Not necessarily.

    Personally, I might be done, but not world class athletes.
  • MT1134
    MT1134 Posts: 173 Member
    MikePfirrman wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

    Not that Wikipedia is all that as the end all be all authority, but I found this part useful (and applicable to what some of you are asking about what defines HIIT).

    Tabata regimen[edit]
    A version of HIIT was based on a 1996 study[10] by Professor Izumi Tabata (田畑泉) et al. initially involving Olympic speedskaters. The study used 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest, repeated continuously for 4 minutes (8 cycles). The exercise was performed on a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. Tabata called this the IE1 protocol.[11] In the original study, athletes using this method trained 4 times per week, plus another day of steady-state training, for 6 weeks and obtained gains similar to a group of athletes who did steady state training (70% VO2max) 5 times per week. The steady state group had a higher VO2max at the end (from 52 to 57 mL/(kg•min)), but the Tabata group had started lower and gained more overall (from 48 to 55 mL/(kg•min)). Also, only the Tabata group had gained anaerobic capacity benefits. In the original study from 1996, participants were disqualified if they could not keep a steady cycling pace of 85RPM for the full 20 seconds of work.[relevant? – discuss]
    In popular culture, "Tabata training" has now come to refer to a wide variety of HIIT protocols and exercise regimens [12] that may or may not have similar benefits to those found in Tabata's original study.

    I do this one rowing workout. Not all the time because it's too strenuous for me personally, but it's helpful to build Wattage. It's a pretty well known Ed McNeely workout.

    You basically find out what our max Wattage is on the rower (there's a Wattage reading toggle on the C2). Then you write that down. The workout is 10 second sprints, one minute off. Whenever your Wattage falls below 80% of your max, the workout is done. You shoot for 20 reps.

    Similar to the study listed in Wikipedia. By most standards, if it's true HIIT, there's a measurable metric that can be accounted for. Once you stop hitting that metric/measure standard, you're not really doing HIIT, you're just simply elevating your HR. That's why things like Sprinting, Cycling (using Power meters), Rowers and other equipment where you can quantifiably measure output are useful in HIIT. Things like Mountain Climbers or Burpees tend to be much more subjective to the person doing them.

    Now, let's say you use a Plyo Box. How many times you can jump up a certain height on a Plyo box in 20 seconds would be a nice measure. Dangerous if not matted, but a nice measure never the less. Once you can't do it a certain amount of times, why are you doing it?

    Saying if someone does more than 4 minutes, it can't be HIIT is silly, though. I know guys that are in three times the shape I'm in that easily can do more than 4 minutes of HIIT. Now, granted, they are also doing 150K meters a week on the rower, so massive amounts of slower endurance work. But you can't really say, by definition, that someone can't be doing HIIT if it lasts over 4 minutes. That's just not true.

    This guy's in his 60s. He's a World Champion Indoor Rower. His intervals are insane and well beyond 4 minutes. Most guys on college crew teams would be hard pressed to do his workouts.

    https://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=169648

    I like where you're going with this. The sustainable and repeatable model (in regards to cutting the exercise once the measured power metric has dropped) is exactly how I train my athletes.

    I still think HIIT is unclear in definition just because it can be widely used.

    *Also, I see the Tabata study and recognize it for what it is but I'm still confused on if we're claiming "Tabata" to be the pioneer of HIIT training or if we're only talking about his method and observation? There seems to be a difference of opinion when it comes to hit as a method and hit as a principle.

    If Tabata is in fact the original HIIT training pioneer then yea it's safe to say that unless we're doing exactly as he prescribed for the Tabata protocol then we're all doing HIIT wrong. However, it's been widely regarded that HIIT (exactly as written is High Intensity Interval Training) can apply to different intensities, time domains, modalities, and rest times between intervals.

    *I'm not saying I'm an advocate or practitioner of the examples to come. I'm only saying how it can be used/perceived depending on who's doing it and what the actual method of measurement is.

    If based on rate of perceived exertion (RPE)
    *1600m resets. (All arbitrary numbers)
    1)Run 1600m
    2)Rest 10 minutes
    3)Repeat x 3
    Measured by distance from a coaches perspective but ran as fast as possible by the athlete, in turn being HIIT.

    If based on power wattage.
    *Tabata protocol
    (No need to explain again.)

    The debate is over perceived effort, power wattage, distance, heart rate, rest times, and so on. I'm just trying to get a definition so that I can better understand the research and points being made.
  • Cahgetsfit
    Cahgetsfit Posts: 1,912 Member
    edited July 2019
    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.

    exactly this.

    I just scrolled through the rest of the feed as lots of arguments from what I can see.

    So - my go to HIIT is to put the treadmill on an incline - usually 10, jack the speed up to about 13ish. Run my heart out for 30 seconds. Rest for 1 minute. Repeat until I die. Which is usually about 5-6 sets. Like heart will literally burst and legs are wobbly and the last 30 seconds feels like a lifetime and I have to hold onto the screen bit of the treadmill while my legs run.

    When I do it more often (I don't do this often) I find that I can push out more sets - like slowly increase to a couple more sets. I don't think I ever made it to 10. Perhaps 8 was my max IF I am doing it like twice a week. Which is rare.

    YOu can do a similar thing on the bike. Go flat out for 30 secs and "rest" for 1 minute pedaling lightly. Rinse and repeat. I've never done it on the bike but my friend does it.


    Now, the other stuff and suggestions I glanced over in this post have been for circuits.

    Circuits are great too - and more variety and maybe a bit less dying.

    Just do what you enjoy.

    EDIT - I actually did this on Monday because I only had 30 mins total (including changing etc) to do my gym session in. Pumped out 5 sets. I then attempted to do a bit of shoulders workout because I still had 10 minutes left. Didn't work very well at all. My weights were all in the pink dumbbell end of the rack and I wasn't able to do more than 2 supersets. I was completely effed from the running.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,616 Member
    I think the point is that the classic Tabata protocol is HIIT, but not all HIIT is Tabata. That doesn't make it "not as good" in the abstract.

    Similarly, not all intense intervals are HIIT, but that doesn't discount their value.

    It's just about not over-broadening terminology until meaning becomes diluted; and to be careful that if we're going attribute specific benefits to something, that there's research linking those specific benefits to that specific thing (or something very close), not just to something someone's calling by the same name.
  • kimber0607
    kimber0607 Posts: 994 Member
    I'm loving this work out at the moment
    My plan is to work out 5x per week and 2 rest days
    I usually work out 1 hour 15min...and am huffing and puffing and dripping in sweat..but in a good way :)
    I would actually do this work out daily but I dont want to over exert myself and risk injury etc...seem reasonable?

    Im using youtube..loving Astrid swam and the 30 min popsugar videos
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fckvlw9BsBg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mioINZIzgbY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S92-wZ_tfMTIA!
    Kim
This discussion has been closed.

Categories