Confused- interval training v more calories burnt

franturn

Hi hope someone can help- when I go to the gym I use the treadmill (amongst other things of course). Now, I constantly read that interval training burns fat and helps weight loss better than steady continuous cardio. Yet I also read that the more calories you burn the more weight you lose. I presume it must be to do with the type of calories you are burning but don't want to reduce my calorie burn level by changing to intervals unless this is correct.
For example- I walk for say 2mins at around 6.4kph, jog for 15 mins at say 7.6-8kph, walk for 2 mins at 6.5kph then walk at 6.6kph on a maximum incline for about 20 mins. This burns me about 700-750 calories.
Last night I tried interval training for the first 25 mins but it seemed to burn fewer calories and I resorted to the last 15mins fast walk on maximum incline to increase no of cals burnt.

Will i lose more weight and fat by doing short burst intervals on the treadmill and burn fewer calories or continue doing as I was, burning more calories and just increasing speed or incline every few workouts to keep the exercise fresh?
Many thanks for any help. :-)

Musikelektronik

This is an interesting question. I hope someone answers it, because I'd like to know, too!

paruls86

what i think is that when you do interval training it increases your endurance and strenght along with burning fat refer this article. my personal experience says that though you need cardio but interval training tops all...
go through the articles below...

http://jap.physiology.org/content/102/4/1439.abstract
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/fashion/03Fitness.html?_r=1

taxidermist15

someone better could probably explain it but the basic understanding about HIIT (high intensity interval training), is the afterburn. Your body burns more calories AFTER youve stopped working out. With aerobic exercises (with oxygen), the fat/calories are only being burnt while you exercise, once you stop, the fat burning stops (not quite this simple but its the jist of it). with anaerobic respiration (without oxygen/hiit) calories are being burnt 24-48 hours after youve stopped exercising. So you get the same calorie burn, but in half the time.

cimonroe

Interval training is better because it helps you develop/maintain muscle and increase the number of calories you burn when you are in between workouts. Have you seen long distance runners? They have no muscle mass! If you look at your decathletes and sprinters--they look much better (low body fat and tone) because they incorporate more weight training and interval training in their regimens. In the long term you will burn more calories and lose more fat overall because of your increased metabolism at rest and more muscle mass you carry and you won't have to suffer a longer workout at the same boring pace..unless you like that stuff..then youre lucky.

franturn

Thanks everyone, impressed at the speedy responses!! I have just been reading more articles and there really does seem to be completely mixed opinions. It seems that the gist of HIT is all down to not the number of cals you burn dying training but those you burn afterwards but would love more opinions on this. Clearly fewer calories would get recorded on my fitness pal but that obviously doesn't matter, it's what your body actually does that counts. Interested to see more posts on this. But thanks to everyone posting so far :-)

Masterdo

Well, HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) has been associated with improved fat burn because it keeps your metabolism in "higher gear" for longer after your workout.

In fact, except if you burn more calories than your BMR each day, the greatest burn calorie burn you experience all day is not from your workout. It is from just... living. Now, when you workout, you put your body through stress, a wide variety of reactions happen to make this possible. Those reactions don't stop right when you finish your workout. Now the studies on the subject show that this lasting effect of workouts is lasting longer with interval training. That's good. Part of the whole "work smart".

So yeah, it's a lot harder to register on MFP, but it's really great for VO2max and cardio improvement
Good luck with your training!

meshashesha2012

so i did a test when i first got my HRM because i kept hearing how you burn some insane amount of calories doing HIIT.
during a non hiit cardio session, i burn something like 400-500 calories per hour.

during the sprint HIIT session (18 minutes including cool down) i only burned about 300 calories. that was the end of my workout. i kept my HRM on for the next 40 minutes and by then i was up to 800 calories.

not bad for less than 18 minutes worth of work, but those were 18 minutes of HELL

i'm kind of addicted to hiit now, but unfortunately it's not something you can do every day if you're doing it right. especially if you're lifting weights too

deedog007

thanks for the insight. and real testing.. i am convinced!!!

so i did a test when i first got my HRM because i kept hearing how you burn some insane amount of calories doing HIIT.
during a non hiit cardio session, i burn something like 400-500 calories per hour.

during the sprint HIIT session (18 minutes including cool down) i only burned about 300 calories. that was the end of my workout. i kept my HRM on for the next 40 minutes and by then i was up to 800 calories.

not bad for less than 18 minutes worth of work, but those were 18 minutes of HELL

i'm kind of addicted to hiit now, but unfortunately it's not something you can do every day if you're doing it right. especially if you're lifting weights too

LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo

someone better could probably explain it but the basic understanding about HIIT (high intensity interval training), is the afterburn. Your body burns more calories AFTER youve stopped working out. With aerobic exercises (with oxygen), the fat/calories are only being burnt while you exercise, once you stop, the fat burning stops (not quite this simple but its the jist of it). with anaerobic respiration (without oxygen/hiit) calories are being burnt 24-48 hours after youve stopped exercising. So you get the same calorie burn, but in half the time.

I don't think thats true. Found this article:

http://www.burnthefat.com/high_intensity_interval_training.html

MissNordicLight

As people said above, it's the afterburn.

HIIT is highly intense and I have noticed that my overall fitness level has increased a lot since I started doing intervalls. Thankfully the sessions are short, because they are crazy and I'm always a wreck at the end.

MissNordicLight

I don't think thats true. Found this article:

http://www.burnthefat.com/high_intensity_interval_training.html

You will always find studies supporting one thing or another.
I have tried both and get far better results with HIIT, that's all the 'science' I need!

meerkat70

did anyone reason the venuto article? i'd be interested in informed responses.

also is what the op describes really hiit, or just interval training?

meshashesha2012

I don't think thats true. Found this article:

http://www.burnthefat.com/high_intensity_interval_training.html

You will always find studies supporting one thing or another.
I have tried both and get far better results with HIIT, that's all the 'science' I need!

this is the way i look at it as well. also the only running i did for a month was those 15 second sprint HIIT intervals once or twice a week (6 minutes total of sprinting in an 18 minute session). before that i could maybe run on 4.6 for like 5 minutes before getting too winded. by the end of the month i was up to running at 5.1 for 30 minutes and could have gone longer.

i know i've read research that says HIIT and steady state have no correlation to each other because you are working 2 different types of muscles. i just know that for me that isnt the case. working on sprints helped my endurance at lower intensity

franturn

Thank you. :-)

Azdak

did anyone reason the venuto article? i'd be interested in informed responses.

also is what the op describes really hiit, or just interval training?

Lyle McDonald at www.bodyrecomposition.com has published an excellent series of articles describing the differences between HIIT and steady-state training. His overall discussion is more detailed that Venuto but, in terms of the Tremblay study, is in complete agreement (as am I). I find the Tremblay study and the Tabata studies to be two of the most misinterpreted and misused pieces of research I have ever seen.

HIIT is an excellent form of training. It should be an important part of everyone's routine. But it's not some wonder drug that should be used to the exclusion of all else.

I don't have time to go into detail. Just go to Lyle's site and search "interval vs steady state" and you will get all the information you want and put this whole question into perspective.

Azdak

I don't think thats true. Found this article:

http://www.burnthefat.com/high_intensity_interval_training.html

You will always find studies supporting one thing or another.
I have tried both and get far better results with HIIT, that's all the 'science' I need!

this is the way i look at it as well. also the only running i did for a month was those 15 second sprint HIIT intervals once or twice a week (6 minutes total of sprinting in an 18 minute session). before that i could maybe run on 4.6 for like 5 minutes before getting too winded. by the end of the month i was up to running at 5.1 for 30 minutes and could have gone longer.

i know i've read research that says HIIT and steady state have no correlation to each other because you are working 2 different types of muscles. i just know that for me that isnt the case. working on sprints helped my endurance at lower intensity

No, they are entirely correlated. What you experienced is typical, not atypical. However, the converse is often true as well--endurance training applied in the right way can enhance HIIT training as well. It's not an "either/or" question. Both types of training play an important role--any program that focuses on one type of training only is going to be unbalanced.

Azdak

You really have to read the details on a lot of these studies because that's where the truth usually lies--not just in the "results". The studies that show the "advantages" of HIIT are usually designed to be isocaloric--that means they are set up so that the participants burn the same number of calories each workout, or in total. You have to do that otherwise you could not compare results. So when doing workouts of equal calorie burn, HIIT definitely wins out. It's probably not the "afterburn" effect--the effect of HIIT seems to be more one of increased catecholamine release (because of the higher effort), which results in greater fat loss.

Again, however, that is comparing workouts that achieve the same calorie burn. For beginners, endurance workouts can burn far more calories than HIIT, even taking the "afterburn" in to account. While there is still variability in study results, a meta analysis of research done a few years ago, suggested that the average "afterburn" effect of HIIT was 14% total calories burned during the workout (vs 7% for steady-state cardio). A typical calorie burn for a HIIT workout might be 300 calories. 14% is a whopping 42 more calories. Even if we go 400 calories, the "afterburn" is 56. Someone burning that many calories in a HIIT workout could typically burn 600-800 in a 45-60 min endurance workout.

Obviously, one of the advantages of HIIT is a shorter workout time. However, many beginners, and even advanced beginners or intermediates cannot work at a high enough level--even for a 15-20 min interval workout--to realize the promised benefits of HIIT. To really do HIIT the right way takes a pretty high level of conditioning and effort. At that level, most people will realize more benefits by still doing a good chunk of FOCUSED steady-state training (not just going through the motions), using higher-intensity interval training as an adjunct to improve performance.

There are lots of different ways to do effective cardio that don't require full-fledged HIIT (and, again, I not criticizing HIIT in any way shape or form). Mostly that includes interval training at different intensity levels, varying durations, and doing tempo training. Whenever I read one of these anecdotes (e.g. Karen Cosgrove) that describes how they were doing all this cardio, but then switched to HIIT and saw these miraculous results, my reaction is always "well, you were doing some crappy cardio all those years".

All types of exercise training have benefits--you should think of them not as a hierarchy, but as tools -- it's not a question of which is "best", it's one of using the right tool for the job.

meerkat70

Interesting and helpful, thanks Azdak.

HappilyLifts

so i did a test when i first got my HRM because i kept hearing how you burn some insane amount of calories doing HIIT.
during a non hiit cardio session, i burn something like 400-500 calories per hour.

during the sprint HIIT session (18 minutes including cool down) i only burned about 300 calories. that was the end of my workout. i kept my HRM on for the next 40 minutes and by then i was up to 800 calories.

not bad for less than 18 minutes worth of work, but those were 18 minutes of HELL

i'm kind of addicted to hiit now, but unfortunately it's not something you can do every day if you're doing it right. especially if you're lifting weights too

thanks for posting that. I had been thinking about doing the same kidn of experiment but never got round to it.

ninerbuff

The reason why is because intervals (like HIIT) verges more on "anaerobic" than "aerobic". Anaerobic training has the tendency to utilize fat better at rest than from standard steady state cardio training.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

jamiesadler

My trainer told me the reason this is so beneficial is because it takes so much energy to bring you heart rate up and drop it down and bring it up etc. It wouldnt recommend doing it more than 3 times a week and certainly not on super heavy lifting days. It is very beneficial for weight loss and takes far less time than traditional cardio exercises.

DannyMussels

I used to do about 5 mins warm up, then 20mins interval on an elliptical (i think it was a minute fast, minute slow) then 5-10 cooldown. It was my favorite way (in like 5-6yrs) to exercise.

Highly recommended. But I don't think I could do it on a treadmill. I'd probably fall , or die.

crisanderson27

Whenever I read one of these anecdotes (e.g. Karen Cosgrove) that describes how they were doing all this cardio, but then switched to HIIT and saw these miraculous results, my reaction is always "well, you were doing some crappy cardio all those years".

If you mean Rachel Cosgrove...I think I have to disagree. Training for an Iron Man, isn't exactly crappy (for steady state) cardio.

The reason why is because intervals (like HIIT) verges more on "anaerobic" than "aerobic". Anaerobic training has the tendency to utilize fat better at rest than from standard steady state cardio training.

Agreed...through experience.

Azdak

Whenever I read one of these anecdotes (e.g. Karen Cosgrove) that describes how they were doing all this cardio, but then switched to HIIT and saw these miraculous results, my reaction is always "well, you were doing some crappy cardio all those years".

If you mean Rachel Cosgrove...I think I have to disagree. Training for an Iron Man, isn't exactly crappy (for steady state) cardio.

The reason why is because intervals (like HIIT) verges more on "anaerobic" than "aerobic". Anaerobic training has the tendency to utilize fat better at rest than from standard steady state cardio training.

Agreed...through experience.

Ooops. Poor Karen--I didn't mean to insult her like that (old friend and GREAT marathon runner back in the day).

But, yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. Anyone who gets THAT much benefit from HIIT (at least the way she describes) was not following a particularly intelligent or balanced program before. Physiologically, there's no way HIIT can make that much of a difference in a trained athlete unless it's an area that was totally ignored.

There's nothing new about any of this. We have more research today that is providing more detail to exactly how HIIT affects the body, but the basic research on HIIT was done 50-60 years ago. The irony is that the whole "endurance training" emphasis started in the early 1970s as a response to the number of athletes who had been burned out and their careers destroyed by too much HIIT training, which was the standard in the 1960s. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

prettygirlhoward

bump

ahamm002

To the OP:

There are several reasons for all of the confusion on the HIIT vs endurance cardio debate:

1. There is A LOT MORE to exercise than just calories burned. There are hormonal changes that take place in the body. For example, if you take in a 100 extra calories in a day, how does your body decide what percentage should be turned into fat, and what percentage should be turned into muscle? If you do HIIT, you'll likely have a higher percentage turned into muscle. This will in turn increase your metabolism further. Likewise, if you havea 100 calorie net negative, how much fat versus how much muscle is burned?

2. There is a big difference b/w what happens in real life, and what happens in a lab. In real life, people doing endurance cardio often don't get very good workouts b/c they get into a rut and do the same work out every day in "their comfort zone." Hello failure. Whereas, if you're continually pushing yourself past your comfort zone like in HIIT, then you know you're always getting a good work out.

3. There is a lot we don't fully understand. But most studies often show HIIT crushing endurance. Yet people try and use logic (despite a lack complete understanding of the science) to minimize the results. For example, we recently learned that people who work out more tend to burn significantly more calories when they're cold (but not shivering) then sedentary people. No calculations can take things like that and hormonal changes into account accurately.

meerkat70

If that is the case, aham, how can you, logically, be so certain of your view? How do you *know*, if none of this can be appropriately or accurately measured?

I'm sorry, but I find azdak a bit more convincing.