HIIT vs longer walking

DiNoM84
DiNoM84 Posts: 1
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi there,

first a few things about me. I am a male, 5 11 tall, 205 pounds.

I usually do High Insensitivity Interval Training on the treadmill. Usually do it for about 30 minutes where I job for a mile at 6.5 then go down to 3.6 mpg for 90 seconds and 8.5 mph for 30 to 60 seconds. I burn about 400 to 500 calories this way. The only downside with this is that I tend to be in pain by the time the 30 minutes are over, aka my leg and foot hurt.

However, I had two teeth removed this past Monday and dentist told me I could not work out but could still walk. I ended up walking for about 65 minutes. I changed my inclines anywhere from 1 to 15 at a speed of about 3.6 mpt to 4.1 mph. I burn about 800 calories this way and have no pain.

I do weight training in addition to this so am aware of that as well.

My question is about fat burning. Which one is better for losing fat? The HIIT that I am doing, even though I initially burn less calories, or the walking for longer which burns more calories?

I would love to be guided in the right direction.

Replies

  • allotmentgardener
    allotmentgardener Posts: 248 Member
    I am no expert so more i formed than me will comment but personally I just walk. I have hyperextension and my knees and ankles tend to give out on me if I run so my excerise consists of lots of walking be it with or without the dogs. In my humble opinion I would suggest you start with walking until you loose a bit of weight then gradually progress onto running if thats what you are aiming for.
  • wortez
    wortez Posts: 278 Member
    Well, if you go back to that landmark HIIT study done at Laval university, their steady state cardio group of subjects burned 2X as many calories ( while actually exercising ) as a HIIT group of subjects. However, once they accounted for those differences in the amount burned during exercise, they found that for every calorie burned while exercising, the HIIT group ended up with more fat loss per calorie expended than the steady state cardio group. In fact, the HIIT group had a fat loss 9 X greater than the steady state cardio group. Bottom line - HIIT is the ' optimal ' choice.


    from here http://training.fitness.com/weight-loss/high-intensity-interval-training-hiit-vs-jogging-whats-better-burning-fat-28974.html


    I was actually just googling this and I saw your question.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Hi there,

    first a few things about me. I am a male, 5 11 tall, 205 pounds.

    I usually do High Insensitivity Interval Training on the treadmill. Usually do it for about 30 minutes where I job for a mile at 6.5 then go down to 3.6 mpg for 90 seconds and 8.5 mph for 30 to 60 seconds. I burn about 400 to 500 calories this way. The only downside with this is that I tend to be in pain by the time the 30 minutes are over, aka my leg and foot hurt.

    However, I had two teeth removed this past Monday and dentist told me I could not work out but could still walk. I ended up walking for about 65 minutes. I changed my inclines anywhere from 1 to 15 at a speed of about 3.6 mpt to 4.1 mph. I burn about 800 calories this way and have no pain.

    I do weight training in addition to this so am aware of that as well.

    My question is about fat burning. Which one is better for losing fat? The HIIT that I am doing, even though I initially burn less calories, or the walking for longer which burns more calories?

    I would love to be guided in the right direction.

    Obviously you made it OK, but that's not what the doctor meant when he said you could walk ;-)
    What you did was a similar intensity to running, which was what the doctor was trying to avoid.

    I'm not that your other workout is really HIIT, or if it is more tempo intervals. In any case, both types of workout will work. I would include both, as they complement each other.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    I usually do High Insensitivity Interval Training on the treadmill. Usually do it for about 30 minutes where I job for a mile at 6.5 then go down to 3.6 mpg for 90 seconds and 8.5 mph for 30 to 60 seconds. I burn about 400 to 500 calories this way. The only downside with this is that I tend to be in pain by the time the 30 minutes are over, aka my leg and foot hurt.

    That doesn't sound like particularly high intensity in the sense of HIIT as a mode of training. What high intensity work does is help improve your VO2Max over time.

    I'd pick up more on your point about pain, and would suggest that you address that. After a good session I'm sore, but wouldn't tend to describe that as pain, iykwim.
    I burn about 800 calories this way and have no pain

    While you consumed more calories you were much less efficient, about 30% more for about 200% time. Notwithstanding that you werentbin pain. Key lesson is that one.

    If you can be more specific about the pain you'll probably get some thoughts on how to address it.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Resistance training is better at retaining lean body mass. Your harder intensity style workout is more up that alley. It will burn less calories, but with the same deficit you will lose a higher percentage of fat. With that being said If you're burning more calories (and maintaining a larger deficit), then over all you'll be losing more weight on the lower intensity program. But the weight will be of a higher percentage of muscle. If you were to compare the 2 at the end of a year you would find the walker (who likely had a larger deficit) is smaller, but the HIIT person is more firm. Increased intensity leads to increased fitness, so your body will want to keep more of the muscle you have and lose more fat.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    HIIT every time. But if you can fit long walks into your week then both would be great.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Your harder intensity style workout is more up that alley.

    Not meaningfully at the intensities being talked about upthread. While some higher intensity work has some potential for resistance effect it's predominantly in the acceleration stage. Beyond that the effect is principally the CV impact on oxygen uptake.

    You may have missed that the originator already does resistance training as well, so the CV effect is complementary to that.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Calorie deficit is the most important aspect of losing weight.

    This can be from burning more calories or eating less. (Of course, there are many other factors.)

    If you're limited for time, then higher intensity is going to be better.

    I ended up doing about 2300 calories of mountain biking earlier - I could use it as an excuse to have a bigger deficit, but I don't wan that, so it means I can eat 2300 calories more.

    It'll help to maintain fitness probably, but only a couple of periods of reasonable intensity and nothing new on the distance, so doubt it was particularly improving my fitness.

    While more studies generally suggest not THAT high a calorie burn for 'EPOC' (Excess post exercise oxygen consumption - which correlates with calories burnt as your body recovers) - my own anecdotal evidence SUGGESTS that for me it's reasonably high with heavy weight lifting.
    My FEELING (and no more than that) is the heavier/more intense I go, the higher this is.
  • 6ronXtreme9
    6ronXtreme9 Posts: 416 Member
    longer walk=limited calories burn+muscle loss
    HIIT=calories burn for 24-48 hrs+no muscle loss(if you are eating properly)
  • Loralrose
    Loralrose Posts: 203
    It soundslike you're having joint pain after interval sessions. Does this pain happen any time you run for 30 min? You should not be in pain after a workout.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    longer walk=limited calories burn+muscle loss
    HIIT=calories burn for 24-48 hrs+no muscle loss(if you are eating properly)
    A long walk can burn a pretty large number of calories.
    There are ways to mitigate muscle loss there too.

    Muscle loss in this sort of case I believe is generally related to catabolism from extended energy requirements. For a lot of walks, a long walk shouldn't be so taxing on energy requirements. I did extended but it turned out fairly gentle cardio earlier (about four hours of cardio spread over five hours). I made a point of having some food directly before, an hour in, then high-glucose food in the middle, so hopefully there was plenty of options to provide energy without resorting to excess catabolism.
  • RomulanWarbird
    RomulanWarbird Posts: 230
    I do both HIIT and sustained cardio, though a bit more vigorous than walking. I do what I feel like doing that day and I mix up my routine so I'm doing something different with my body every day. I feel like it's been really effective and I've seen -a lot- of changes in the way I look and feel since I started mixing up my workouts. Just do what's best for your body, but I find that simply mixing up what I'm doing every day has made major improvements, without having to do a ton of cardio and HIIT.

    And calorie deficit may be most important in losing weight...BUT lifting and cardio is most important in getting fit!
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    205 lb man burns 800 calories walking for an hour
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    205 lb man burns 800 calories walking for an hour
    Pretty confident I didn't burn near that when I was that weight.

    How did you work that figure out?
  • RomulanWarbird
    RomulanWarbird Posts: 230
    205 lb man burns 800 calories walking for an hour
    Pretty confident I didn't burn near that when I was that weight.

    How did you work that figure out?

    You need an HRM to predict your personal calorie burn. Websites overestimate, as does MFP big time. When I was in the 200 club I burned maybe half that walking for an hour.
  • BigGuy47
    BigGuy47 Posts: 1,768 Member
    205 lb man burns 800 calories walking for an hour
    Pretty confident I didn't burn near that when I was that weight.

    How did you work that figure out?
    Missing details: The man is walking up a steep muddy hill in the rain with an 80 pound bag strapped to his back.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    205 lb man burns 800 calories walking for an hour
    Pretty confident I didn't burn near that when I was that weight.

    How did you work that figure out?

    You need an HRM to predict your personal calorie burn. Websites overestimate, as does MFP big time. When I was in the 200 club I burned maybe half that walking for an hour.

    I ended up walking for about 65 minutes. I changed my inclines anywhere from 1 to 15 at a speed of about 3.6 mpt to 4.1 mph. I burn about 800 calories this way and have no pain.

    Several people seem to have missed that part.

    Given the workout described, the calorie burn is as accurate as one can get.

    Oh, and HRMs overestimate, too. Quite a bit, in many cases.

    Convincing people that they "need" an HRM as the "only way to get an accurate calorie count" is one of the biggest marketing scams of all time.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    I usually do High Insensitivity Interval Training on the treadmill. Usually do it for about 30 minutes where I job for a mile at 6.5 then go down to 3.6 mpg for 90 seconds and 8.5 mph for 30 to 60 seconds. I burn about 400 to 500 calories this way.
    That isn't what I would regard as HIIT - sounds more like aerobic intervals. HIIT should be maximal effort.
    The only downside with this is that I tend to be in pain by the time the 30 minutes are over, aka my leg and foot hurt.
    Pain isn't good! Stop. Get yourself checked out.
    I ended up walking for about 65 minutes. I changed my inclines anywhere from 1 to 15 at a speed of about 3.6 mpt to 4.1 mph. I burn about 800 calories this way and have no pain.
    My question is about fat burning. Which one is better for losing fat? The HIIT that I am doing, even though I initially burn less calories, or the walking for longer which burns more calories?
    I would love to be guided in the right direction.
    If we assume your calorie burns are correct and that steady state has an EPOC of 7% and HIIT has an EPOC of 14% (ignore my doubts about whether you are doing HIIT for the sake of argument...) then numbers work out as:
    500 cals +14% = 570
    800 cals +7% = 856
    So obviously the steady state is burning more calories and therefore more fat. Downside is that it's taking more time, upside is that you aren't causing yourself pain.

    (Source for EPOC values - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html )
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Oh, and HRMs overestimate, too. Quite a bit, in many cases.
    But still generally come out under MFP, which says something.

    I'm not convinced by some HRMs/apps as far as calorie count goes.

    However, something like the motoactv with a HRM strap - also using it's own GPS, pedometer and ideally VO2 max figures if you have them, should give you about the best idea you can get, I'd say. (It also has 'fit tests' you can do to better calibrate it.)

    Have you got a better suggestion?

    Oh and on the EPOC - those 7% and 14%s are rather big assumptions, though not that I have better suggestions - studies seem to vary wildly, but also their methods tend to differ, so it's hard to compare.

Categories