HIIT Vs Steady State???

DJ7203

Yes I know there are studies upon studies out there based on this topic. But, I want to know from you personally. For those of you who have done both, which was more effective in shedding that extra fat?

SezxyStef

exercise is for health and fitness...

to shed fat you need to eat in a calorie deficit.

DJ7203

exercise is for health and fitness...

to shed fat you need to eat in a calorie deficit.

So exercise doesn't help to lose weight along with a calorie deficit?

lemonsnowdrop

exercise is for health and fitness...

to shed fat you need to eat in a calorie deficit.

So exercise doesn't help to lose weight along with a calorie deficit?

It increases your deficit, therefore allowing you more calories. If you don't eat those calories back, then you will lose more weight, but your health will probably suffer if you don't eat enough.

Exercise improves your health, calorie deficit reduces fat.

MeanderingMammal

For those of you who have done both, which was more effective in shedding that extra fat?

Moderate intensity steady state builds endurance
High intensity steady state, in the vicinity of the aerobic to anaerobic threshold improves exercise efficiency, your ability to convert fuel to movement
High intensity intervals imrprove oxygen uptake, so raise your VO2Max, which has an effect of increasing your base metabolic rate.

They work together to imrpvoe your fitness, one in isolation will have a very limited effect.

Over the last year I saw most benefit in terms of fat reduction through doing 3 moderate intensity steady state, one high intensity steady state and one high intensity interval session per week. That saw a reduction of my bodyfat percentage by a third.

DJ7203

For those of you who have done both, which was more effective in shedding that extra fat?

Moderate intensity steady state builds endurance
High intensity steady state, in the vicinity of the aerobic to anaerobic threshold improves exercise efficiency, your ability to convert fuel to movement
High intensity intervals imrprove oxygen uptake, so raise your VO2Max, which has an effect of increasing your base metabolic rate.

They work together to imrpvoe your fitness, one in isolation will have a very limited effect.

Over the last year I saw most benefit in terms of fat reduction through doing 3 moderate intensity steady state, one high intensity steady state and one high intensity interval session per week. That saw a reduction of my bodyfat percentage by a third.

This sounds like the best way to go about it. Thanks

bpotts44

Yes I know there are studies upon studies out there based on this topic. But, I want to know from you personally. For those of you who have done both, which was more effective in shedding that extra fat?

Steady state done ineffectively or too much will raise cortisol and make it harder to lose weight. For weight loss keep you steady state cardio down and do more HIIT.

bpotts44

For those of you who have done both, which was more effective in shedding that extra fat?

Moderate intensity steady state builds endurance
High intensity steady state, in the vicinity of the aerobic to anaerobic threshold improves exercise efficiency, your ability to convert fuel to movement
High intensity intervals imrprove oxygen uptake, so raise your VO2Max, which has an effect of increasing your base metabolic rate.

They work together to imrpvoe your fitness, one in isolation will have a very limited effect.

Over the last year I saw most benefit in terms of fat reduction through doing 3 moderate intensity steady state, one high intensity steady state and one high intensity interval session per week. That saw a reduction of my bodyfat percentage by a third.

HIIT might create EPOC related to each individual workout, but will not affect your BMR. BMR will increase if you add more muscle. Mitocondrial density is increased most efficiently at either aerobic levels of training or very intense levels of training.

weightliftingdiva

In terms of what I like to do? I prefer walking and run/walk HIIT. I'm terribly at steady-state and find that I have no endurance for jogging for long periods of time. One of my fitness goals is to be able to run a 5K but I hate it so much that I don't know if I'll ever do it. That being said, I LOVE run/walk HIIT - it goes by super quick and I love seeing hoe fast I can run in a short period of time. And I could walk for hours.

TrailRunnermn

Why not do both?

brosis85

HIIT is good in moderation. 2-3 times per week. I know you lift heavy, so this is a great way to get some intense cardio in without having to spend forever on the treadmill. Steady state burns more calories in the moment, but HIIT (like weight lifting) burns calories for up to 18 hours after its complete.

I do both ... I do low intensity intervals (still not steady state, but not HIIT) three times a week and HIIT three times a week. The fat burning is pretty fantastic!

knitapeace

Since you ask for personal testimony, I will tell you my recent experience. And I do mean recent, not really long enough to draw a scientific conclusion.

Between July and December of 2013 I began eating at a deficit and continued my regular running routine. I lost almost 40 pounds.

Over the winter I stopped outdoor exercise and began doing workout videos, most recently Fitness Blender workout plans (the 4 week beginner plan followed immediately by the 8 week "busy people" plan). These plans incorporate cardio, HIIT, and weights 6 days a week. I lost probably 2-3 pounds from December through the beginning of May, although I saw significant gains in strength.

Last week I started running again, incorporating that with the strength and HIIT stuff I enjoyed over the winter. And I've already seen the scale start moving downward again.

So in my PERSONAL experience, steady state cardio is a significant factor in WEIGHT LOSS although I know now I can't do without the strength and HIIT for the body comp benefits I've enjoyed from them.

SingingSingleTracker

Yes I know there are studies upon studies out there based on this topic. But, I want to know from you personally. For those of you who have done both, which was more effective in shedding that extra fat?

Well, trained athletes can pour out a bunch of steady state time at power/HR levels considered to be HIIT by others. ;-)

You can shed a lot of weight - and raise your functional threshold power - by spending a lot of time in what one calls Zone 2 (Endurance, LSD, All Day Pace, etc...) - especially if done on consecutive days (3 - 6 days a week). Training Zones explained here: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/power-training-levels

You can also fire up the metabolism after-burn with high intensity intervals. In other words, both could be very effective alone, or in tandem. It all depends on how you fuel them, recover, and what your calories in vs. calories out math works out to be.

2 - 3+ hours per day of Zone 2 'steady state' bike rides, for example, are put in by a lot of elite athletes to trim the winter bulge (shed weight) and build a huge base in the December/January - March time frame - all while raising their FTP. And that kind of base really builds support to take on the interval training. Ditto for distance runners. It should be no surprise that logging in 12 - 20+ hours per week on the bike or running will aid in one's attempt to trim the fat. Most don't have the time or devotion to do that, unless they are training to race at a competitive level (amateur or pro).

If your only goal is to lose weight, and not build a huge aerobic engine to race, then focusing on a slight caloric deficit combined with your exercise is key. More on racing with a lawn mower engine vs. a turbo jet engine here: http://www.markallenonline.com/maoArticles.aspx?AID=4

I do a lot of Endurance/LSD training during a 12 week base period in the first 3 months every year (lost a good pound a week this year during that period), but I also do intervals on two days per week which progress in duration throughout the 12 week period. I would say, that doing consecutive days of Endurance/LSD "steady state" needs a lot of fuel to aid in recovery and prevent a cummulative effect of fatigue. So you have to be careful not to eat too much with the raging hunger it creates. One would be suprised what it feels like doing 6 days out of 7 in a week of 2-3+ hours on the bike of Endurance/LSD Zone 2 pace riding. The first few days feel nearly easy as pie, by day 6 it is quite a telling effort. I manage to do about 1 week a year of this in the early Spring thanks to being off work for a week, and the rest of the Spring I do most of the longer rides on the weekends. I burn about 1200 - 2000+ calories on each of those rides. If limiting your calories, it's not hard to see that the weight will shed quickly because you have plenty of 'numbers in the bank' to play with as opposed to not exercising to get the calories in vs. calories out equation correct to shed the weight.

To the OP - what is your chosen method of cardio? Running, swimming, cycling, etc....?

ValGogo

Why not do both?

Jesus lord finally, an answer.

Derpes

HIIT is solid, but the problem lies in doing it properly and for the right duration.

Here is an article from Stronglifts on HIIT:

http://stronglifts.com/hiit-interval-training-fat-loss/

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MissFit0101

Why isn't weight lifting an option here?

JoRocka

long stead state cardio by default often builds a larger calorie deficit.

BOTH are great- and BOTH are worth doing- for most people do what fits in your life and what makes you happy.

The EPOC burns are often times blown out of proportion- it doesn't last hours and hours into the next day.

Also- if HIIT was so effective- you'd see way more body builders doing that than spending an hour on the stair master every day when they were cutting.

Those people are professional dieters. They've been doing it for years- it works.

Why isn't weight lifting an option here?

because if you did weight lifting with cardio it would probably be called HIIT...

oh wait...

tycho_mx

For losing weight?

Steady state is the most time efficient, especially if you're moderately fit. Take a look at serious amateur and plus runners, riders, and triathletes. They are all lean.

i am a fit cyclist. Trained for about 7 years now. On a real HIIT day (no "Oh, I'm working hard here, phew! But true, pass the bucket, high intensity until failure) I can barely burn 800 cal/hour, because the recovery between intervals needs to be long. And I can't do them for more than 90 min. I mean real hard work. Look up "Tabata".

On a steady-state day, 950-1000 cal. per hour. Sustainable for 2 - 2.5 hours. Or at an even easier pace, the ability to go longer is increased. I did a 6 hour ride on sunday and burned 3700 calories.

It's no coincidence that endurance athletes are lean. But HIIT lets you "build" to a bigger engine in the future so you burn more sustainably. So I'd advice both. Build a foundation of fitness first, though. Don't try running sprints if you couldn't walk a block the previous week. Don't try going for a 25 mile ride if last week you could only do 2.

SingingSingleTracker

For losing weight?

Steady state is the most time efficient, especially if you're moderately fit. Take a look at serious amateur and plus runners, riders, and triathletes. They are all lean.

i am a fit cyclist. Trained for about 7 years now. On a real HIIT day (no "Oh, I'm working hard here, phew! But true, pass the bucket, high intensity until failure) I can barely burn 800 cal/hour, because the recovery between intervals needs to be long. And I can't do them for more than 90 min. I mean real hard work. Look up "Tabata".

On a steady-state day, 950-1000 cal. per hour. Sustainable for 2 - 2.5 hours. Or at an even easier pace, the ability to go longer is increased. I did a 6 hour ride on sunday and burned 3700 calories.

It's no coincidence that endurance athletes are lean. But HIIT lets you "build" to a bigger engine in the future so you burn more sustainably. So I'd advice both. Build a foundation of fitness first, though. Don't try running sprints if you couldn't walk a block the previous week. Don't try going for a 25 mile ride if last week you could only do 2.

I'll echo that. I just got of the bike churning out Zone 5, three minute intervals. Those are the "I'm gonna die" efforts. Only burned 859 calories in a 90 minute session that include 15 mintues of very easy warm up (dog walk, actually), and 20 cool down. Recovery between efforts of 3 minutes per interval, plus a 5 minute recovery between sets is totally needed to keep from dialing 911. I'd burn about 1200 calories on a solid Zone 2 Steady State road ride.

MeanderingMammal

HIIT might create EPOC related to each individual workout, but will not affect your BMR. BMR will increase if you add more muscle. Mitocondrial density is increased most efficiently at either aerobic levels of training or very intense levels of training.

OK, so I oversimplified the jump from use of HIIT to improve VO2 Max to a sustained improvement in performance and energy conversion...

That said, for someone asking the question that improvement is going to need a solid aerobic base to be built before there is any likelihood of HIIT having a sustained effect. So in the short term it's just a slightly less efficient way to burn calories than a tempo session.