True HIIT

sofrances

Whenever I mention HIIT people say "what you're doing probably isn't really HIIT. When I say its a Joe Wicks video, this confirms their opinion.

Can anyone recommend a video or set of instructions for "real HIIT"?

AnnPT77

Why do you want to do "true HIIT"?

The original definitions were about semi-pure cardio exercise (most research done on cycling ergometer, but extended to reasonably close cycling, running, rowing sorts of things) done with varying length intervals of something at/near true max effort (anaerobic) ideally based on tested max capabilities, alternated with lower effort (maybe 50%) easier intervals. It's ridiculously exhausting, but it delivers certain useful training effects. (The one maybe more people care most about is VO2max sharpening as competition prep, probably, though there are other theoretical benefits.) It's miserable, realistically.

Some research (again, mostly cycling erg) was done on various timing schemes, showing interesting benefits.

Then, based on the interesting benefits, many fitness marketers/promoters started labeling anything done in intense intervals as HIIT, including many things that are not even remotely close to pure cardio. Often these days it seems to be various kinds of bodyweight/calisthentics/"functional fitness" stuff, going really hard in the "on" intervals, and having rests or low-level cardio in between. Many of these are things that would've previously been called "interval training", which is good and useful thing, but probably really not the same thing, in its physiological effects. They are not bad forms of exercise at all, they just aren't physiologically the same thing as the original definition.

"True HIIT" or really any kind of truly high intensity cardiovascular work is disproportionately fatiguing, for its calorie-burning potential. If truly high intensity by the original definitions, duration is self-limiting. In other words, it has high calorie burn per minute, but a person can't by definition do it for large numbers of minutes, no matter how fit they are (partly because "max effort" is a moving target, given fitness increase). In addition, the same fatigue effects cause a higher recovery need, so it's not a "do every day" thing. From a training standpoint, daily practice is not really beneficial, and it seriously risks crash and burn. Among elites for training purposes, it's more like an exercise condiment, not an exercise main dish.

The much vaunted EPOC is estimated as a percentage of the calorie burn from the exercise, so that becomes limited, too (and despite being "twice as much as for moderate steady state", it's numerically underwhelming, if you do the math).

On top of that, because it's very fatiguing, it has a higher probability of bleeding calories out of our daily life (NEAT) calorie burn. Simplistically, if we're exhausted, we rest more and do less for the rest of the day, burning fewer calories in daily stuff.

Even for the exercise time period, the actual calorie burn comes partly from the intense bits (higher per minute calorie burn) and the very much less intense stretches in between (lower per minute), in a time-weighted average of the two modes. In semi-pure cardio activities, it's usually possible to spend the same or a not very much longer total time period doing somewhat challenging intensity steady-state work, and burning the same total number of calories (moderately high calorie burn per minute, continuously) while avoiding the major fatigue penalty.

Somehow, the interesting research benefits of the earlier (anaerobic cardio intervals to exhaustion) HIIT became magically associated with the newer HIIT-named formats, with limited research support for that extension to very different types of activity. IMO, that's why people in the original cardiovascular sports tend to be snarky about the "new HIIT". It's sort of the equivalent of saying that it was proven that Einstein was a genius, so everyone with the same surname is a genius.

Repeating myself: Why do you want to do "true HIIT"? What's your fitness, metabolic, caloric, or other objective? (Don't fall for marketing hype, and don't do "true HIIT" without a clear-eyed reason.) Really, it's miserable. And the calorie-burn potential is overrated IMO, if that's your main goal.

FWIW, one classic protocol is Tabata IE1. For the "truest" version: Get a VO2max test at a sports lab. Get a cycle ergometer. First you warm up. Then you do a mere 4 minutes, consisting of 8 rounds of (20 seconds at around 170% of VO2max then 10 seconds of rest). (Sounds easy, doesn't it? Bwahhahaaah!) Finally, cool down, even though you won't want to. That would be "true HIIT". Only 4 minutes, plus time for the WU/CD: So time efficient. 😆

SnifterPug

Tabata is brutal. I have done it on a rowing machine. Not as scientifically as AnnPT77 has described, but basically working FLAT OUT for 20 seconds, wishing I was dead for 10 seconds, rinse, repeat.

AnnPT77

SnifterPug wrote: »

Tabata is brutal. I have done it on a rowing machine. Not as scientifically as AnnPT77 has described, but basically working FLAT OUT for 20 seconds, wishing I was dead for 10 seconds, rinse, repeat.

Yes. Brutal. Very unpleasant.

I don't have a tested VO2max (but used that because he wanted "true HIIT" and that would be truest). I've done the Tabata IE1 protocol on a rowing ergometer (Concept 2), guided by pace/intensity goals set based on HR response curves from a previous maximal HR step test at increasing paces - not as pure as using VO2max.

In practice, that amounts to going for max intensity in the moment, for the hard intervals, then confirming after that it was reasonably sufficient. (Yes, a rowing ergometer is a rowing machine, but not all possible things called "rowing machines" would qualify as an "ergometer" - there's some whacky stuff out there under that name. 😆 I'm trying to be as accurate and specific in answering OP's question as I can manage to be, which is admittedly imperfect. I'm not a degreed physiology or sports science person. I'm a coaching trained - formerly coaching-certified, but lapsed - rower.)

Without intending to say that I doubt anything you said (I don't), but based on having watched a bunch of people I know well personally do "max effort rowing", I think a fair fraction of people believe they are at their max effort (in a scenario like this, not necessarily all possible scenarios) when they are . . . not fully aggressive enough, let's say. Thus objective benchmarks are useful and important for "trueness".

I believe the original IE1 research was done on something like elite/high-level speed skaters. I should've said, in my PP, that there's a chance that protocols like this could potentially be DANGEROUS for a not-very-trained person to even attempt.

Whether a relatively untrained person can even do some protocols like this is questionable to me, especially if they're not trained in either the specific activity used, or something with close physiological demands. This is not a statement about lofty elitism: IMU, some of the research subjects have failed out of the studies by being unable to complete, and they weren't mostly regular everyday folks, I think. Also, depending on the specific activity, there can be other performance limitations. While rowing ergometer is sometimes used in these protocols, that's not a cycle ergometer either. Most relative beginner rowers are not going to be able, for technique reasons, to reach the benchmark intensity levels on a rowing machine.

sijomial

I'm not a fan of Tabata intevals as I feel the very short recovery intervals compromise your high intensity intervals and that's really where the magic happens in boosting your ability to sustain and repeat extreme effort bursts,

Here's an example from the Wattbike Hub app (Wattbike is a high end indoor bike trainer) but you could argue even this is slightly easy for the high intensity efforts at 145% of FTP (max sustainable power) rather than maximal effort.


The orange power peaks are 20 seconds and the blue short recovery intervals are 35 seconds. The longer recovery intervals are 3mins to allow you to recover more and repeat the 5 burst sequences. 24 mins in total but a proper warm up really is mandatory so add 10 minutes for that and probably a cool down too.

In reality you struggle to maintain peak power beyond 15secs and are trying desperately to hang on for the 20secs.
Then you recover quite well after the first one but that recovery gets harder with each interval and maintaining the peak power gets harder and harder and your recovery gets worse and worse.

It's not fun!
It's also not a big calorie burner, as I calculate my calories from power I know a moderate intensity steady state effort will burn more and not be at all fatiguing - it's only people who use HRMs for calorie estimates and don't understand their limitations that think HIIT style workouts burn a lot of calories.

To back up what @AnnPT77 says - you really need to think first if it is wise for you do this kind of workout and if you think you can have a think about what you are seeking to get from it. When you see an elite athlete collapsing off their rowing machine or bike and/or puking you can see why YouTube trainers don't try to get regular people exercising for health doing proper HIIT but use the term for marketing purposes.

sgt1372

A true TABATA routine only takes about 4 minutes: 8 -20 sec intervals of MAX output w/7 10 sec rest periods in between

It was design primarily to measures VO2 max. I do it occasionally on my rower just to see how fast/hard I can go, but it is truly exhausting, if you put everything in it, and it rakes me at least 30 mins to recover.

Not something you'd want 2 incorporate into a regular training routine

sijomial

Another example.
Warm up assumed before starting the 12 min program which is 1 min build phase and then 10secs maximal sprint, 20secs recovery.

heybales

What do you want the so-called HIIT or real HIIT to accomplish?

Why did you start doing it?
Study showing increased fat loss for time spent?
Study showing increased VO2max from time spent?
Article about it being short workout for benefits?

As commented above - it's purpose for cardio is pretty specific - and frankly calorie burn isn't one of those things.
For what different interval training may do in brief overview, and reading about HIIT & SIT:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/IntervalTraining

The Tabata protocol as a form of interval training (I'd even suggest at the study stated 170% VO2max it's not HIIT but SIT but going all out is easier than knowing your figures) was proclaimed for accomplishing many things and I don't recall calorie burn being one of them originally.

I guess I'll throw up my HIIT and then SIT workout.
HIIT was 15:45 sec hard/easy, SIT was 1:1 min.




That program you are doing is fine - and it's probably something that is by it's very nature done as intervals no matter what. You could not do it non-interval in other words.

MikePfirrman

I have tons of examples of what my HIIT workouts look like. I try to get to 85% to 90% of max as fast as possible.

Actually, the one I did today was a lot higher max HR (I think 93%), but it wasn't HIIT -- it was more AT work. 5 minutes X 6 hard. Usually, I consider HIIT around 2 minute intervals (or less). I probably have some better examples not loaded onto my computer yet. The early part of this workout is HIIT. The last few aren't.



This is a bit of a better example. It was one minute easy, one moderate, one all out.

sofrances

The reason I originally wanted to do it was because I saw a documentary suggesting it had an extremely good effect on your health, for a short amount of time expended.

I realise "health" is pretty broad. I guess I mean "avoidance or postponement of death or disability"

robertw486

sofrances wrote: »

Whenever I mention HIIT people say "what you're doing probably isn't really HIIT. When I say its a Joe Wicks video, this confirms their opinion.

Can anyone recommend a video or set of instructions for "real HIIT"?

What is or isn't "real HIIT" seems to become a debate in itself many times. I tried starting a thread and answers varied all over.

But my 2 cents regardless.

I've done Tabata IE1 on my elliptical for a week per the original method. It wasn't fun, but wasn't horrible either. I like hard pushes, so that lessened the "horrible" for me personally. Without a power measure, you really can't be sure you are doing it properly, so I used the machine I had available that had a power measure. I think I would much prefer doing it on a bike.

For health impacts, I personally think a combination of lower intensities with some higher intensity intervals here and there would help the average amateur athlete more. Even most accomplished athletes probably don't have any real "need" to do HIIT, unless training for a specific goal that would require them to raise VO2max higher. I did it mostly out of pure curiosity, with no real need to do it.

Trying it changed my view on some of it due to my previous misconceptions, as well as showed me that many others might have those misconceptions. That protocol requires 170% of VO2max as output, but believe it or not, even for this far from accomplished athlete, that is not "full out effort". It would be easy to do it wrong and gas out too soon without some testing and figuring out required power.


I considered doing it for a longer period, maybe a couple months. And I feel that I could. But to be honest, it would just be boring for me. I'd much rather get on my bike, go for a run, or find another method to exercise. And all of them give the option of pushing harder for intervals and getting some of that same training impact. And for me, it's just a lot more fun doing it that way.

SnifterPug

@AnnPT77 - totally agree with your comments. Particularly that "FLAT OUT" isn't exactly specific. I'm pretty sure that my Tabata was roughly as intended since it was done on a Concept 2 at the gym, using a Myzone HR monitor which told me I was going well above 90% of max HR for the work intervals. But as everyone who has tried it seems to agree, it is tough and not something most people would want to do regularly, and especially not something somebody who does not have some idea of what they are doing ought to engage in. (Wow - that was a hideous sentence.) Personally, I prefer longer work and rest intervals. Doing 3 mins on 1 min off on the heavy bag is the most productive (and fun) for me. Plus I can keep a good eye on heart rate recovery with a full minute rest.

sijomial

sofrances wrote: »

The reason I originally wanted to do it was because I saw a documentary suggesting it had an extremely good effect on your health, for a short amount of time expended.

I realise "health" is pretty broad. I guess I mean "avoidance or postponement of death or disability"

Joe Friel in the book "Fast After 50" comprehensively covers the health and anti-aging benefits of including some high intensity exercise. Emphasis on the some. There's a marked difference in older athletes between those that avoid high intensity and those that include it.

I think it's a great idea for (suitable) people to include elements of high cardio intensity into their regime. But that doesn't have to be HIIT, doesn't have to be regimented intervals, doesn't have to be in a gym....
Personally the majority of my intense interval training indoors is tailored to support my particular goals for outdoor cycling:
Ten minute hard intervals to mimic a tough climb with recovery to Z2.
Shorter intervals and recovery to Z3 to mimic short but hard climbs and keeping a high average speed.
Under/over intervals of varied durations to improve my FTP.

PS - I've seen a documentary on HIIT and as usual it was presented with a bias. Testing fitness improvements over a few weeks of novel exercise is interesting but didn't touch on what happens next over months and years compared to different exercise modalities. What seems to happen is that HIIT produces remarkable progress for a few weeks and then the progress slows dramatically while other modalities start slower but catch up as the weeks go by with a cross over point typically slightly longer than you would design a HIIT study if you wanted to show how great it is. (Yes I'm a cynic!)

AnnPT77

sofrances wrote: »

The reason I originally wanted to do it was because I saw a documentary suggesting it had an extremely good effect on your health, for a short amount of time expended.

I realise "health" is pretty broad. I guess I mean "avoidance or postponement of death or disability"

I think the general advice above is good, to include a mix of cardiovascular intensities if your goal is general health. "True HIIT" is optional, but it could be used, if one enjoys it or it supports specific goals. (I admit, besides being exhausting and kind of miserable, it's oddly exhilarating, too.)

If you're enjoying your Joe Wicks videos, keep doing them. It doesn't matter whether they're "true HIIT" or not.

I hope that some of the above clarified what some of us mean when we say "not true HIIT". It's not a backhanded
way of saying "that's bad exercise". It's just a way of saying "it's something different from the original definitions of HIIT as a type of cardiovascular exercise". The implication is that it will have somewhat different benefits and risks, vs. the earlier definitions of HIIT. Since so many things are called HIIT these days, more information is needed to evaluate benefits and risks, vs. someone just saying "I do HIIT".

I've never done a Joe Wicks workout, but from what I see on the web, they're circuits of bodyweight or calisthenics type exercises, done rapidly. I would expect them to have some cardiovascular benefits (i.e., they would elevate heart rate through oxygen demand), but they may or may not reach the output levels involved in the earlier definitions of HIIT. (In calisthenics/bodyweight exercises, some heart rate increases are likely to come from effects other than oxygen demand, so purely looking at heart rate may not answer that question.) So, some cardiovascular benefits from the workouts, some other benefits in other dimensions of fitness.

In that sense, they may be very time-efficient, by combining some cardio benefits with some other benefits. (I'm not trying to be coy about other benefits; it's just that I don't know enough about the specific exercises he does to speculate whether the focus is strength, mobility, flexibility, etc.)

If your goal is health, then doing a nice mix of cardiovascular and strength exercise is a good plan, and I'd argue that doing something we individually find generally enjoyable is a good plan, too. If we enjoy it, we'll keep doing it because we want to. If it's tedious, we'll tend to procrastinate and put it off with the most minimal execuse to do so.

If we want to go beyond that, that's where thinking though our specific goals comes in, so we can seek out exercises or training plans aimed at those goals. By specific goals, I mean anything from "become a faster runner" to "develop more muscle mass", or even more granular like "improve VO2max" or "deadlift X weight". It can even be "burn the most calories I can in X amount of time".

I don't personally enjoy fast calisthenics/bodyweight circuits, and generally don't prefer video workouts, so that's not really for me. I'm not particularly interested in rowing competitively any more, but am still interested in improving my rowing efficiency and technique, plus reasonable function maintain strength, balance and mobility as I age (I'm already 64), so that's how I focus my workouts.

If your routine is delivering what you want in the way of results, and you're enjoying it, that's what counts.

ninerbuff

I do interval training every other day 3 times a week. My intervals are sprinting for 30 seconds for as fast as I can go, then I'll fast walk till I can do another set. I don't use time, I use perception, but still complete all my sets regardless. Some days are obviously better than others. But again, I don't do this more than 3 times a week.

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

sofrances

Thanks everyone. You've given me a lot to think about. I'll probably stick to the Jo Wicks for now.

NorthCascades

sofrances wrote: »

The reason I originally wanted to do it was because I saw a documentary suggesting it had an extremely good effect on your health, for a short amount of time expended.

I realise "health" is pretty broad. I guess I mean "avoidance or postponement of death or disability"

On your fitness not your health, anaerobic capacity is something that doesn't affect day to day living. And that effect is very short lived unless you keep the extreme intensity up. Which generally isn't sustainable. That's why athletes have this built into training plans or prescribed by coaches leading up to the most important races, and after building a substantial base.

Real HIIT is very taxing and needs more recovery time, which unless you're already in great shape is counterproductive. Research shows that doing real HIIT regularly produces a negative affect, which is a fancy way of saying it makes people less happy. Maybe that's because people hate doing it and dread these workouts, they're an unpleasant chore hanging over your head.

The adaptations you get out of it are things like increased plasma volume, which goes away about a week after you stop.

There's a lot of hype around this because shysters decided calling anything HIIT will get them more customers.

cgvet37

I do conditioning circuits on my non lifting days. Which is consists of tire flip, farmer carry, and slam ball. Three weeks in and my aerobic capacity has increased significantly. It has also been a huge help with my weight loss. As I grow my home gym, my circuits will change.