40MINS WALKING OR 20MINS hiit?

Jeanaiah
Jeanaiah Posts: 15 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Which one is better for weight loss?🤔🤔 should i walk 40mins a day for 5 days a week or 20mins HIIT a day for 5days a week?

Replies

  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    20 mins of hiit - if you can do it every day.
    Walking is good but it is not intense. Not easy to increase calory burn. But may be easy to stick at.
    I would guess a few minutes of very vigorous exercise would burn more calories than 40 mins walking - the "easy" parts make the "hard" parts do-able !
    Calory intake is more important tho' .
  • diliveslife
    diliveslife Posts: 42 Member
    Why not keep your walking and add some toning like Pilates or Yoga. It's more gentle on your body while achieving a toned look - and muscle burns fat, plus it looks good! Have you tried bands? You can order some different sizes and do arms, back, even leg workouts using bands that help tone you, then keep a walk or walk/jog in there just for some good heart health and calorie burn. I walk my dog every AM for about 40 minutes but don't consider it anything in terms of helping achieve my body goal. I do SPIN every day and weights (or resistance bands) & pilates to help keep tone and muscular. Of course, the better my diet the better the results are.
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    edited May 2020
    "And no, you would not burn more calories in a few minutes of very vigorous exercise than in 40 minutes of walking. That's just nonsense. "

    Why say that ?
    Burpees , star jumps, squats for 12 mins spaced with short breaks - or 40 min walk ? ?

    I answered the OP's question. But how can anyone answer without more info ?

    "Forty minutes of walking probably burns more calories than 20 minutes of HIIT"
    - I find that hard to believe when walking is most likely 2.5mph. I find 4+mph v.fast.
    I have got to around 15 cals/min over 30 mins - incline walking with slower "rests" - which may go more ~ 20 mins.

    My opinion is that walking is very good exercise -the most under-rated - and everyone should walk more . However it isn't going to burn that many calories and it takes time. Lots.
    Compared to the sofa - it's even more fantastic !





  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,944 Member
    edited May 2020
    TO, you are already close to underweight. You want to have a certain body, which you won't achieve with burning more calories via cardio but with training your muscles. You are supposed to eat back those exercise calories anyway. So please stop trying to achieve something that will likely not happen and think of what you're doing. If you lose weight, and especially in a big deficit you lose muscles, which will make you more skinny-fat. Skinny-fat is a lack of muscles, not a certain bodyweight.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,944 Member
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    "And no, you would not burn more calories in a few minutes of very vigorous exercise than in 40 minutes of walking. That's just nonsense. "

    Why say that ?
    Burpees , star jumps, squats for 12 mins spaced with short breaks - or 40 min walk ? ?

    I answered the OP's question. But how can anyone answer without more info ?

    "Forty minutes of walking probably burns more calories than 20 minutes of HIIT"
    - I find that hard to believe when walking is most likely 2.5mph. I find 4+mph v.fast.
    I have got to around 15 cals/min over 30 mins - incline walking with slower "rests" - which may go more ~ 20 mins.

    My opinion is that walking is very good exercise -the most under-rated - and everyone should walk more . However it isn't going to burn that many calories and it takes time. Lots.
    Compared to the sofa - it's even more fantastic !

    First of all, I think you're talking about interval training, not HIIT. Or could you drive your heartrate to the maximum by doing squats, or something as complex as star jumps, and then still go on for a moment? Second, how much calories do you think such interval training really burns and what % would be working out and what % resting? Walking is roughly distance * weight * 0.3 (in imperial), and if you walk 3mph then you get 2 miles in 40 minutes.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Jeanaiah wrote: »
    Which one is better for weight loss?🤔🤔 should i walk 40mins a day for 5 days a week or 20mins HIIT a day for 5days a week?

    A caloric deficit is better for weight loss and that happens by watching what you eat. In terms of calorie burn neither 20 min of HIIT or 40 minutes of walkingwill burn significant amounts and if it's really HIIT you could/should not be doing it 5 x weekly. How about alternating? Walk one day (a recovery day) and do intervals the next?
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,944 Member
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    Jeanaiah wrote: »
    Which one is better for weight loss?🤔🤔 should i walk 40mins a day for 5 days a week or 20mins HIIT a day for 5days a week?

    A caloric deficit is better for weight loss and that happens by watching what you eat. In terms of calorie burn neither 20 min of HIIT or 40 minutes of walkingwill burn significant amounts and if it's really HIIT you could/should not be doing it 5 x weekly. How about alternating? Walk one day (a recovery day) and do intervals the next?

    Keep in mind, TO is already close to underweight and doesn't want to be skinny-fat.
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    Hi - " First of all, I think you're talking about interval training, not HIIT."
    Err . . you're probably right , I'm not sure !
    I just read about sprint ang high interval training - https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/article/what-is-hiit-training
    There seems to be a lot of difference in-between those 2 definitions !
    To answer the OP's question more info is needed eg walk speed and what hiit
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    edited May 2020
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    "And no, you would not burn more calories in a few minutes of very vigorous exercise than in 40 minutes of walking. That's just nonsense. "

    Why say that ?
    Burpees , star jumps, squats for 12 mins spaced with short breaks - or 40 min walk ? ?

    I answered the OP's question. But how can anyone answer without more info ?

    "Forty minutes of walking probably burns more calories than 20 minutes of HIIT"
    - I find that hard to believe when walking is most likely 2.5mph. I find 4+mph v.fast.
    I have got to around 15 cals/min over 30 mins - incline walking with slower "rests" - which may go more ~ 20 mins.

    My opinion is that walking is very good exercise -the most under-rated - and everyone should walk more . However it isn't going to burn that many calories and it takes time. Lots.
    Compared to the sofa - it's even more fantastic !




    You are welcome to your opinion no matter how incorrect it is. And you make lot's of assumptions to support your false view. Like the person walking is doing a 2.5mph pace.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    Hi - " First of all, I think you're talking about interval training, not HIIT."
    Err . . you're probably right , I'm not sure !
    I just read about sprint ang high interval training - https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/article/what-is-hiit-training
    There seems to be a lot of difference in-between those 2 definitions !
    To answer the OP's question more info is needed eg walk speed and what hiit

    Yet that hasn't stopped you from dispensing typical fitness blog type of advice up to this point.
  • MidlifeCrisisFitness
    MidlifeCrisisFitness Posts: 1,106 Member
    Both. They do different things for you.
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    edited May 2020
    Well , what do yo base this on - "Forty minutes of walking probably burns more calories than 20 minutes of HIIT in the first place, . . ."

    edit 2.5mph walk is my best guess to the OP's incorrectly framed question . What else do you do ?
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    Wow , your typing leaves me standing ! Thanks for all that work.
    If I read you right, the numbers you used give a very qualified 203 (+14to18) vs (158-212) , hiit wins.
    However, I think you are a very fit person who walks fast !
    Now , 3 different assumed walking speeds 2.5 , 3.2 and 3.8mph ?
    I got a bit left behind at concept2 but I accept all your reasoning.
    I fully get the fatigue penalty / daily life calorie expenditure - a new term but I get it.
    So the possible number win for hiit is really so constrained by unknowns that . . .
    Your answer is worthy of Azdak - which is kind of strange.
    I have read all Azdaks blogs and many of his comments. I joined MFP to keep up with his thoughts .
    I just got an old polar f11 hrm 2 weeks ago based on the first article you linked to , which states calorie counting from hr is guesswork , especially for none steady state (weights , hiit ?)
    I haven't read anything recent tho' - he said he was 62 maybe 10 yrs back - I hope he is well.
    I've got a few Q's so will ask in new thread and welcome your input.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    You're quoting me in these two posts, not Mmapags. Not his job to defend something I typed.
    It may not be my job but it would always be my honor mi amiga. Estamos de acuerdo mucho.
    With this post, we're giving advice to a relative exercise beginner.
    A key point. HIIT is an advanced strategy for those already fit and for improving Vo2 Max performance. It is an inappropriate strategy for a relative beginner. And also the point that HIIT modalities would carry a much higher risk of injury is an important factor.

    One factor that wasn't mentioned in your quite insightful analysis (or I missed it) is the fact that HIIT shouldn't be done more than 2 to 3 times per week due to the high central nervous system impact and recovery requirement. One can walk for 40 minutes 7 days per week if they choose due to minimal recovery requirement. So with the individual incident burn being close to equal and using 5 days per week as the OP stated, there is 40% higher calorie burn in a week. Not an insignificant factor.

    For the 2nd time in about a month or so, I am compelled to say:
    pc95t0l3itcf.png
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    DO THE WALKING! - I can't edit my earlier reply.
    I never realised how close the numbers likely are - and nearly impossible to know for hiit.
    It was hard to accept that busting a gut doesn't really win out against such a "low-intensity" activity as walking in 40/20 ratio.
    The major point I now see is how "easy" or do-able walking is, compared to the torture of working at/near max and how it affects rest of day.
    I walk on 18% inclined treadmilland push hard to reach or better previous for eg 32 mins. HR 96% max ave 84.
    Yesterday I kept HR down , 88%max ave 82% -max only brief, my error , did 60mins easy!
    The difference was night and day -much more than the no's suggest - I wasn't even looking at timer to hit stop !
    746 vs 418 cals on monitor .
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,944 Member
    I think you mihgt
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    DO THE WALKING! - I can't edit my earlier reply.
    I never realised how close the numbers likely are - and nearly impossible to know for hiit.
    It was hard to accept that busting a gut doesn't really win out against such a "low-intensity" activity as walking in 40/20 ratio.
    The major point I now see is how "easy" or do-able walking is, compared to the torture of working at/near max and how it affects rest of day.
    I walk on 18% inclined treadmilland push hard to reach or better previous for eg 32 mins. HR 96% max ave 84.
    Yesterday I kept HR down , 88%max ave 82% -max only brief, my error , did 60mins easy!
    The difference was night and day -much more than the no's suggest - I wasn't even looking at timer to hit stop !
    746 vs 418 cals on monitor .

    How do you get 746 or 418 calories from walking? How was it measured, and what kind of input data was used (weight? gender?) This seems very, very unlikely for an hour of walking unless you're morbidly obese, very young and male.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,944 Member
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    DO THE WALKING! - I can't edit my earlier reply.
    I never realised how close the numbers likely are - and nearly impossible to know for hiit.
    It was hard to accept that busting a gut doesn't really win out against such a "low-intensity" activity as walking in 40/20 ratio.
    The major point I now see is how "easy" or do-able walking is, compared to the torture of working at/near max and how it affects rest of day.
    I walk on 18% inclined treadmilland push hard to reach or better previous for eg 32 mins. HR 96% max ave 84.
    Yesterday I kept HR down , 88%max ave 82% -max only brief, my error , did 60mins easy!
    The difference was night and day -much more than the no's suggest - I wasn't even looking at timer to hit stop !
    746 vs 418 cals on monitor .

    To put some perspective into this: I walked 15km outside today. I'd not give myself much more than 400 calories for that. The data is based on tracking calories and workouts, including walking for 6 years. Now what does that tell you? Nothing, because you don't know my gender, age or weight.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,280 Member
    edited May 2020
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    DO THE WALKING! - I can't edit my earlier reply.
    I never realised how close the numbers likely are - and nearly impossible to know for hiit.
    It was hard to accept that busting a gut doesn't really win out against such a "low-intensity" activity as walking in 40/20 ratio.
    The major point I now see is how "easy" or do-able walking is, compared to the torture of working at/near max and how it affects rest of day.
    I walk on 18% inclined treadmilland push hard to reach or better previous for eg 32 mins. HR 96% max ave 84.
    Yesterday I kept HR down , 88%max ave 82% -max only brief, my error , did 60mins easy!
    The difference was night and day -much more than the no's suggest - I wasn't even looking at timer to hit stop !
    746 vs 418 cals on monitor .

    Like @yirara, I'd question the 748 calories (lots of variables involved there, including bodyweight).

    But I think that misses the big picture: Yes, what you wrote, that's the point. High intensity is exhausting, so (1) extra self-limiting as to duration, and (2) much harder to fit into an overall day, and still stay energetic afterward for a busy, calorie-burning daily life.

    That's exactly what most of us were trying to say about moderate exercise and calorie burn, especially for relative exercise beginners. Coincidentally, it's also better for fitness to start by building a good aerobic base and some endurance, before adding intensity . . . even then, in doses more like a spice or condiment, than like a main meal. :)

    As an aside, I think your HRM is probably also misleading you in some way(s).

    For one, if you're relatively less fit, a HRM is extremely likely to overestimate your exercise calories, if that's where you're getting estimates. It's the movement that burns calories, not how difficult the movement feels. An ultra-fit person your size would have a lower heart rate doing the exact same exercise at the exact same objective intensity (like incline + pace). It's likely that the HRM would estimate commensurately lower calorie burn for that person. Which calorie estimate is right? No way to tell, without learning what assumptions are in the proprietary algorithms the HRM uses to make calorie estimates. It's possible that both are wrong, in different directions.

    Fundamentally (oversimplifying), HRMs estimate calories by assuming oxygen consumption correlates with calorie burn, and heart rate correlates with oxygen demand. As you get fitter, your body gets better at delivering oxygen. It takes fewer/less-frequent heartbeats to deliver the same amount of oxygen. For any given exercise, your heart rate is therefore going to be lower with better fitness (in normal humans ;) ).

    For two, it's fairly unlikely that you averaged 84% of your true HRmax for an hour, as someone who's admitted to being not extremely fit yet. Most devices, unless you tell them a tested HRmax (a piece of data most people don't have), will use an age estimate, such as 220-age. Those age-based formulas are inaccurate for a good-sized percentage of people. (It's mainly genetics.) You may be one of them. (I am. Age-estimated by 220-age would be 156. Actual tested HRmax is about 180. If I let my device estimate calories based on 156, it would be crazy-inaccurate.) There's no great way to know what your actual HRmax is. After base fitness is in place, there are sub-maximal self-tests that can be done, or you can go to a sports lab for testing. Neither is a super good thing to do before having base fitness and endurance. And a medical stress test isn't equivalent: They tend to stop the test when they get the data they need, well short of true max.

    But I'm glad to hear that you were open-minded enough to give an alternative a try, and let us know that you're understanding what we were trying to say. :drinker:
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,280 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    I think you mihgt
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    DO THE WALKING! - I can't edit my earlier reply.
    I never realised how close the numbers likely are - and nearly impossible to know for hiit.
    It was hard to accept that busting a gut doesn't really win out against such a "low-intensity" activity as walking in 40/20 ratio.
    The major point I now see is how "easy" or do-able walking is, compared to the torture of working at/near max and how it affects rest of day.
    I walk on 18% inclined treadmilland push hard to reach or better previous for eg 32 mins. HR 96% max ave 84.
    Yesterday I kept HR down , 88%max ave 82% -max only brief, my error , did 60mins easy!
    The difference was night and day -much more than the no's suggest - I wasn't even looking at timer to hit stop !
    746 vs 418 cals on monitor .

    How do you get 746 or 418 calories from walking? How was it measured, and what kind of input data was used (weight? gender?) This seems very, very unlikely for an hour of walking unless you're morbidly obese, very young and male.

    I think the big-picture point here is not the numbers (which are at least as likely to have been incorrect for the non-power-metered HIIT previously mentioned).

    I think the big picture point is that it's possible to walk for 60 minutes without being wiped out, and that that almost certainly burns more calories than 20 minutes of HIIT that leaves a person wiped out. And that's just the calorie benefit from the exercise activity, let alone the potential for fatigue from HIIT bleeding calorie burn out of the rest of the day's activities.
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    edited May 2020
    Been walking 6mths ~2 a wk - now at 18% incline and 3.8mph with a 10kg vest for 30-32mins - it's hard.
    Using Polar f11 with chest strap ,refered to in the Azdak post because can input vo2 numbers- but I have not included the 10kg vest in my watch weight. Watch does fitness test for vo2 based on resting 5 mins.
    Think my vo2 is in 40's using - 4mph 15% 36mins

    My treadmill has polar hr, no weight or age input and I've jacked it up so 12% is now 18% -gives lowest cals
    I doubt it uses HR. to calc. cals.
    Polar f11 173 max HR (seen 173). Male age 61 47-49 RHR not incl. 10kg vest Polar gives middle figures
    Online eg https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs get higher readings incl.the 10kg -two sites vary 10% ??
    HR steady on TM and 2 hrms
    I got ~500 on treadmill , 746 on polar f11 for 60min - not used online because of variations
    Previous got 340 / 420 / 500 -550 online
    I'm trying to get fit and lose a little weight off my middle - bmi 27
    2 years ago 82kg now 79-80 varies even more . Good job I'm not counting/tracking calories !

    I did 10 mins 3.8mph @18% before slowing down in 0.1's later I dropped incline in 0.5% 's ended at 3.4 and 6%
    I'm usually too wiped out to take more notes and am waiting for a bluetooth chest sensor to use with an app.
    I've got over 14 cals min. figures on treadmill yet a hard 10 min with kettlebells only 9cal/min from polar hrm
    I know earlier I did argue calories but that was the relative calories - to know actual exact numbers is very hard.
    I don't know if polar use any sort of fat zone difference to cals burned ,don't care
    The incline transforms it - a small mph change is big,big diference- never been over 4.3mph
    If I put 3hr @5km/hr on that online calc get 850cals . . 4mph gives 956 !

Categories