Interval running vs stable pace
Options
CatieBd
Posts: 12 Member
Is interval running much preferable to running at stable pace for the same time? Some says the fast round in interval running is more efficient in burning fat. Is that true?
0
Replies
-
If you push yourself more you burn a few more calories and also improve your cardio conditioning
Both are good
The intervals will help you increase capacity for speed too!
It is a good change up
I'm a fan0 -
Is interval running much preferable to running at stable pace for the same time? Some says the fast round in interval running is more efficient in burning fat. Is that true?
Depends on your objectives and current level of fitness, also what you mean by intervals.
Couch to 5K plans are interval running, but are intended to get you to the stage that you can run continuously for 30 minutes. If you're doing maximal effort sprint intervals you're less likely to be able to sustain them for long, but that can help improve your oxygen uptake.
Personally I would say that until you're consistently running 10km three to four times per week there is no value in trying to add higher intensity work. The steady paced long duration stuff builds the engine, the speedwork helps you use it.
fwiw if you're interested in training your body to derive energy from fat stores then you're into long runs of 90 minutes or more on a regular basis.0 -
I do both steady pace and interval running. I like the interval running the best. I've increased my endurance and actually do more distance in a shorter amount of time.
I can run 3 miles at a steady pace in 36 mins. Burn roughly 350 calories.
When I do intervals I warm up with walking intervals 4-4.5 speed. Then I do a sprint for 45 secs at 8.0, then back down to 4.0 for speed for a minute. I do 13 intervals of 8.0/4.0 split. Burn roughly 400 calories for 35mins.
I've been doing intervals the last month and found I can run faster easier. 5.0 for speed seems a little easier for me now.
It all depends on your goals.0 -
Is interval running much preferable to running at stable pace for the same time?
Depends on your goals. Balanced fitness needs both.Some says the fast round in interval running is more efficient in burning fat. Is that true?
No. If the main goal is calorie burn, nothing beats steady state running.0 -
When I do intervals I warm up with walking intervals 4-4.5 speed. Then I do a sprint for 45 secs at 8.0, then back down to 4.0 for speed for a minute. I do 13 intervals of 8.0/4.0 split. Burn roughly 400 calories for 35mins.
I'm guessing you're using an HRM, because that burn number is massively over-inflated.
Massively.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Personally I would say that until you're consistently running 10km three to four times per week there is no value in trying to add higher intensity work. The steady paced long duration stuff builds the engine, the speedwork helps you use it.
Agreed, and I'd only add to consistently running 10km regularly each week... injury free.
0 -
-
I read somewhere that both are equally good at burning fat. But, as said above, a good base is necessary. To go from a low-intensity (50-75% of MHR) for two minutes to a high-intensity (70-85% of MHR) for 30 seconds over and over is pretty hard to achieve without conditioning.0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
13 * 45 seconds @ 8mph -> 585/3600 * 8 -> 1.3 miles of running -> 0.8 calories/pound bodyweight
Plus a downfactor if it was on a treadmill.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Personally I would say that until you're consistently running 10km three to four times per week there is no value in trying to add higher intensity work. The steady paced long duration stuff builds the engine, the speedwork helps you use it.
Agreed, and I'd only add to consistently running 10km regularly each week... injury free.
+1
Coming back to running after a month off - and prior to that I was running 6-10 miles 5 times a week. Added in speed work after a couple of weeks. One really short pace run, one 30min sprint interval session two days apart. Mistake. Ankle is complaining about the overuse. It only showed up the day after the sprint session.
It's not bad enough to keep me from running, but it'll have to be slow and steady until it heals.
Don't be me. Make sure your base is solid and work into speed work slowly.0 -
Some says the fast round in interval running is more efficient in burning fat. Is that true?
No. If the main goal is calorie burn, nothing beats steady state running.
Depends what you mean by this, if you mean you will burn more because you can go longer than perhaps (though I'm not even sure that is true). But for an equal time commitment HIIT is clearly superior. (See Link for Trapp study, one of many that shows HIIT as more effective for losing fat mass).
Here are the Results and conclusions based on the study (This is similar to other study results):RESULTS:
Both exercise groups demonstrated a significant improvement (P<0.05) in cardiovascular fitness. However, only the HIIE group had a significant reduction in total body mass (TBM), fat mass (FM), trunk fat and fasting plasma insulin levels. There was significant fat loss (P<0.05) in legs compared to arms in the HIIE group only. Lean compared to overweight women lost less fat after HIIE. Decreases in leptin concentrations were negatively correlated with increases in VO(2peak) (r=-0.57, P<0.05) and positively correlated with decreases in TBM (r=0.47; P<0.0001). There was no significant change in adiponectin levels after training.
CONCLUSIONS:
HIIE three times per week for 15 weeks compared to the same frequency of SSE exercise was associated with significant reductions in total body fat, subcutaneous leg and trunk fat, and insulin resistance in young women.
For fat loss HIIT is far superior (this assumes you actually go all out effort with no holding back in your intense portions).0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
13 * 45 seconds @ 8mph -> 585/3600 * 8 -> 1.3 miles of running -> 0.8 calories/pound bodyweight
Plus a downfactor if it was on a treadmill.
So about half as much calorie expenditure as a comparable time of steady state training...0 -
Steady state burns more calories but it also takes more time. Interval has a lot of variety but can be taxing on the body. I would say so both, but it depends on time, training and goals.
0 -
I love interval running. I think it works well because you're likely to push yourself harder in the intervals if you give yourself a little rest in between.0
-
Some says the fast round in interval running is more efficient in burning fat. Is that true?
No. If the main goal is calorie burn, nothing beats steady state running.
Depends what you mean by this, if you mean you will burn more because you can go longer than perhaps (though I'm not even sure that is true). But for an equal time commitment HIIT is clearly superior. (See Link for Trapp study, one of many that shows HIIT as more effective for losing fat mass).
Here are the Results and conclusions based on the study (This is similar to other study results):RESULTS:
Both exercise groups demonstrated a significant improvement (P<0.05) in cardiovascular fitness. However, only the HIIE group had a significant reduction in total body mass (TBM), fat mass (FM), trunk fat and fasting plasma insulin levels. There was significant fat loss (P<0.05) in legs compared to arms in the HIIE group only. Lean compared to overweight women lost less fat after HIIE. Decreases in leptin concentrations were negatively correlated with increases in VO(2peak) (r=-0.57, P<0.05) and positively correlated with decreases in TBM (r=0.47; P<0.0001). There was no significant change in adiponectin levels after training.
CONCLUSIONS:
HIIE three times per week for 15 weeks compared to the same frequency of SSE exercise was associated with significant reductions in total body fat, subcutaneous leg and trunk fat, and insulin resistance in young women.
For fat loss HIIT is far superior (this assumes you actually go all out effort with no holding back in your intense portions).
Which is all very misleading. Id agree with Mr knight. In the real world in a week or a month you could lose more by doing steady state. Whilst hiit might burn more in the immediate time you are doing it, then by its nature you cnat do it for very long and its much harder to recover from.
In contrast you can do steady state for long periods of time and recover from it more easily.0 -
I prefer not to think of one as "better" than another. A varied exercise plan is a good exercise plan. If you like running, do intervals once or twice a week, and do steady runs the rest of the time.0
-
It boils down to calories in verse out and overall intensity drives that equation (per unit of time). The metabolic pathways used are different but it's not black or white, one or the other. Think of it as preferred and availability of fuel and other chemicals in the system. To an extent one can "train" the preference and thus manage type used but it takes more than a few weeks (months or years of dedicated work) for the adaptation. Incidentally this is the hype or misinformation surrounding HIIT (most are referring to the lower case, hiit, not the upper case which is very specific with regards to the intensity).
See http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss/ & http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-and-interval-training-part-1.html/0 -
Some says the fast round in interval running is more efficient in burning fat. Is that true?
No. If the main goal is calorie burn, nothing beats steady state running.
Depends what you mean by this, if you mean you will burn more because you can go longer than perhaps (though I'm not even sure that is true). But for an equal time commitment HIIT is clearly superior. (See Link for Trapp study, one of many that shows HIIT as more effective for losing fat mass).
Here are the Results and conclusions based on the study (This is similar to other study results):RESULTS:
Both exercise groups demonstrated a significant improvement (P<0.05) in cardiovascular fitness. However, only the HIIE group had a significant reduction in total body mass (TBM), fat mass (FM), trunk fat and fasting plasma insulin levels. There was significant fat loss (P<0.05) in legs compared to arms in the HIIE group only. Lean compared to overweight women lost less fat after HIIE. Decreases in leptin concentrations were negatively correlated with increases in VO(2peak) (r=-0.57, P<0.05) and positively correlated with decreases in TBM (r=0.47; P<0.0001). There was no significant change in adiponectin levels after training.
CONCLUSIONS:
HIIE three times per week for 15 weeks compared to the same frequency of SSE exercise was associated with significant reductions in total body fat, subcutaneous leg and trunk fat, and insulin resistance in young women.
For fat loss HIIT is far superior (this assumes you actually go all out effort with no holding back in your intense portions).
Which is all very misleading. Id agree with Mr knight. In the real world in a week or a month you could lose more by doing steady state. Whilst hiit might burn more in the immediate time you are doing it, then by its nature you cnat do it for very long and its much harder to recover from.
In contrast you can do steady state for long periods of time and recover from it more easily.
You're missing the point of the studies. HIIT burns more calories in less time, but your point about willingness to continue is a good one. If you won't keep doing a HIIT workout then steady state is better.0 -
Some says the fast round in interval running is more efficient in burning fat. Is that true?
No. If the main goal is calorie burn, nothing beats steady state running.
Depends what you mean by this, if you mean you will burn more because you can go longer than perhaps (though I'm not even sure that is true). But for an equal time commitment HIIT is clearly superior.
No, it's really not.
Tabata is the ultimate in HIIT, so lets look at that. It consists of half a dozen 20 second intervals separated by (pick an interval) a minute of rest. The complete cycle is 120 seconds of maximum effort (which burns something) and six minutes of rest (which burns next to nothing).
In that 8 minutes, the distance covered will be about half a mile - that's it.
In the same 8 minutes, someone fit enough for Tabata will easily cover over a mile, burning twice as much.
And this doesn't even count what happens the next day - Tabata *requires* downtime, steady state moderate running does not. So the next day, the sprinter isn't burning much of anything, while the runner is putting up another session's worth of burn.
Ironically, someone actually fit enough to benefit from Tabata will burn more in the (steady state) warm up than during the actual exertion...
EDIT: The study you linked to isn't doing apples to apples.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions