Resting HR Goals? vs H.I.I.T.

Something of a well rounded article there, a rarity! Thanks for sharing.

Steady-state cardio well within your aerobic function limits will definitely improve your aerobic function over time, no doubt about it. I might still have 40 pounds to lose (started at 105 to shed) but I'm already aerobically quite fit. My resting heart rate is 47-50, down from 80-90. Incidentally if my resting HR is ~10 beats higher in the morning I know I've not recovered enough from a workout the day before; it's time for a rest day.

So I'm agreeing with the article there: Avoiding high intensity training until an aerobic base is built is advice you'll see coming from some running coaches too.

My aerobic function and HIIT-equivalent training both come principally from running. Longer runs are done slower, intentionally pegging heart rate well within aerobic function limits. Some will talk of Zone 2; others might follow the Maffetone method (180-age=HR Target).

You can adapt the same principles to other exercise programs.

HIIT training for a runner can be intervals, hill work, fartlek/speed play training on a longer run intended for this purpose, not for aerobic development. I don't agree with the article's premise that you shouldn't mix them up, unless they mean to say don't mix them up on the same day / same workout. I doubt that was their intent.

The other thing I don't agree with is the comment on weight loss. Exercise of any sort that creates a deficit will assist in weight loss. I dropped 50 pounds doing nothing but running (which created a deficit but also rebuilt significant muscle mass in my legs) and wasn't even counting calories at that point.

Lots of things are relative but I wouldn't call the very poor cardio-pulmonary system of a very unfit, very over-weight (hey, that was me at 255 pounds) person a good place to establish a baseline for this discussion.

When you run or perform other high intensity cardio at your maximum possible output you are taxing your system as hard as you possibly can and yes your heart rate will rise to its maximum normal capacity at whatever level of fitness you happen to be.

But you shouldn't be pushing yourself *that* hard unless it is safe. I don't know about your case but would imagine your doctor would have had quite a problem with you trying that.

Your walk-rest pattern wasn't pushing your heart to the max, but it might have felt like like it was, I certainly can understand that.

Taking your case and moving it up a relative notch: Someone starting at a higher level of fitness would do a similar pattern of run-walk (no "rest", the walk is the rest). But even then these people *are not* running anywhere near their maximum output during the run phase. This is completely different to HIIT or classic sprint intervals or fartlek/speed play in running.

What you are describing isn't interval training in the classic sense, from a runner's perspective, even though yes there certainly are intervals of walking and intervals of resting in your original plan, or running (well below max) and walking as was my plan.

The OP isn't obese like you were or I was, so things being relative maybe we should stick to her case?

mwyvr wrote: »

Steady-state cardio well within your aerobic function limits will definitely improve your aerobic function over time, no doubt about it.

Yes...

mwyvr wrote: »

I might still have 40 pounds to lose (started at 105 to shed) but I'm already aerobically quite fit. My resting heart rate is 47-50, down from 80-90.

I think there are some important points in what you've conveyed, and I feel compelled to 'shine a light' on them --

(1) that one should definitely *not* be under the impression that only when one's body 'looks' a certain way -- or has otherwise attained a kind of 'target form', or specific lesser weight 'value' -- can one be aerobically fit...

I think many people would be surprised by just how cardiovascularly fit they can become even if/when not near their 'target phase' of the evolution in their physical weight and/or appearance.

(2) it would likely surprise many to find out just how quickly an initial 'difference' in their resting heart rate can occur/result_from their beginning to engage in cardiovascular exercise...

I was astonished to find that within a month of even minimal cardiovascular exercise, my resting heart rate dropped 10 beats per minute...

...that 'minimal' amount of cardio represented a 'monumental' difference, however, when viewed in the context of the reality that it was the only cardio I'd done in years, and it essentially equated to the only true 'exercise' I'd engaged in for a stunningly long time... but that seemingly trivial amount of cardio that took place was definitely 'seen' by my body as something 'major' (in a positive way), and it 'responded'... and that surprising-to-me-at-the-time change in my resting heart rate (and specifically, the degree to which it changed, after what seemed like such a minimal amount of activity, and over a relatively brief period of time) was a 'wake-up call' of sorts, and truly got my attention -- and made me wonder, ~'what might happen if I actually did more of this...?' -- and then the results of *that* involved highly welcome positive consequences, and further changes to my resting heart rate...

Among other things, I couldn't help noticing that when my resting heart rate (and as measured when in a sitting position, specifically) decreased to between 50-52, there were additional differences in how I felt that were unlike any I'd known in my life -- and it was as though there was a never-before-experienced form of 'internal body quiet' (so to speak -- it's difficult for me to describe), with respect to 'the innerworkings' of my body -- as though the beating of my heart and/or 'sound' of associated blood pressure were somehow noticeably 'quieter' (which is an odd way to refer to it, perhaps, given that I hadn't previously perceived either as having made any kind of ongoing 'noise').

mwyvr wrote: »

Incidentally if my resting HR is ~10 beats higher in the morning I know I've not recovered enough from a workout the day before; it's time for a rest day.

Yep, I know what you mean...

...and as I learned, if/when I tried to 'push forth', in the wake of such -- any subsequent 'prematurely' actioned workout ends up being 'off' in several respects, doesn't feel 'right' or good, is not beneficial, and involves cardiovascularly 'jacked' elements... and becomes a frustrating lesson(/reminder) that there is no 'mind over matter'-like 'defiance' of what the body is 'saying' in such a circumstance... and attempts to 'ignore' the body's need for rest do a disservice to oneself (and simply 'delay the inevitable' -- the need for rest/recovery, which will then allow for productive resumption of activity)...

mwyvr wrote: »

So I'm agreeing with the article there: Avoiding high intensity training until an aerobic base is built is advice you'll see coming from some running coaches too.

And while I do not entirely agree with this (albeit 'technically'... and in this regard, I concur with some comments made by Pu_239 (found below)), I can say, and from my own experience, that IF one builds an aerobic fitness 'base' prior to engaging in a kind of presents-further-challenges(-relative-to-one's-current-fitness-level) form of high intensity training, and which involves intervals of differing -- and including 'all out' -- effort, then having that aerobic fitness base can allow for (1) a greater 'range' of intensity-level 'variation', and (2) a more discernable 'recovery' element, when it comes to how quickly -- and to what 'degree' -- one's heart rate 'recovers', and especially from being elevated in conjunction with 'all out' effort... if beginning with an aerobic fitness base, it can be surprising just how much that 'base' allows for relatively rapid improvement in not only the nature and degree of recovery that is observed in conjunction with HIIT, but in how rapidly the max heart rate associated with 'all out' effort can adjust/improve/decrease... and then all of THAT improvement 'feeds into' and affects what is observed and experienced in one's steady-state aerobic fitness training.

It never ceases to amaze me how remarkable the body's adaptation to cardiovascular 'challenge' can be...

mwyvr wrote: »

Your priority should be to build capability useful to your life.

I agree...

Pu_239 wrote: »

For someone who is obese, just walking and resting can be HIIT.

Yes... and it makes sense...

Pu_239 wrote: »

HIGH INTENSITY interval training is relative.

Yep... and it drives me a bit nuts that so many HIIT-related articles and 'prescriptive recommendations' don't seem to acknowledge the reality that "high intensity", by its very nature (and when examining it from the standpoint of the two-word descriptor in question), involves relativity...

Pu_239 wrote: »

When I was obese, I couldn't even walk 10mins, I would walk 8 minutes, take a break, then walk 2. This can also be seen as interval training.

I agree... and all of that makes sense...

Good article overall but I'm sceptical about basing the ability to do HIIT (proper maximal effort to anaerobic levels HIIT not interval training which takes many forms) purely on RHR. To me someone used to exercise but with a higher RHR could add HIIT without issue.

Something people in a calorie deficit should also consider that a high stress activity when your recovery and performance is compromised by that deficit may be the worse time to start doing HIIT.

nightingale702 wrote: »

...getting our resting heart rates to 60-65 with steady-state cardio before starting any HIIT (high intensity interval training).

So, build an aerobic base before trying to build on it.

fwiw I didn't have high hopes for the article when I opened it, as many MFP articles are pretty BroSciency. This one was pretty well balanced, for a change.

For many people, steady state CV work will give them appreciable gains. More advanced training modes then develop it.

Personally I started training with an RHR of around 80bpm, it's around 50 now, with predominantly easy paced running and cycling.