HIIT for someone whose BF is 21~22%
Options
Replies
-
robertw486 wrote: »qkrzazzang wrote: »I'm 5'8 at 175 pounds. I want to bring my body fat down to 15% with progressive exercise and health eating.
For my exercise other than weight training, I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times. My treadmill says about 600kal burned (with the input of my current weight and age if makes it accurate by all means). I was wondering what would actually burn more calories between my treadmill routine and HIIT cycling for about 20 minutes (5-7 repetitions).
The vast majority of people will maximize calorie burn if you just find your speed/heart rate threshold for the total time you have to exercise, assuming your appropriate muscle groups (in this case mostly legs) are up to it. Intervals are great for helping you learn to breathe properly, work the muscles harder, and for general cardio building. But in terms of calorie burn, the elevated HR from HIIT type stuff will reach a point where your HR doesn't settle as quickly, and from there is is usually all downhill for performance.
As for accuracy, depends on the machine and the formulas and inputs they use. Quite a few of the various cardio machines also show calorie burn for a standard formula used to approximate resting metabolism, as well as the speed/distance involved. But if you really want to nail it down you can find a trusted running calculator to compare to.
We have an elliptical at home, and they are a different beast since the stride is set but they use ramp angle and/or resistance to calculate calorie burn. But I can easily burn more calories doing steady state vs HIIT type training. On lower intensity intervals I can make the calorie count closer, but to do that requires a shorter high intensity output, and ramp down the recovery period more.
I often use the calories per minute to set an output reasonable for the time I've got, then if I've got energy in the tank do some higher output intervals the last 5-10 minutes, to maximize what I can output on any given day.
Thanks four your input. The HR part from the HIIT was very interesting to know. I didn't really track my HR when I was doing a steady cardio at treadmill, but I do remember that mine is somewhere in the 80% range when I'm doing 5.5 mph run for 5 mins (80% is about towards the end, so about at last 20 seconds of remaining until back to walking).0 -
robertw486 wrote: »It takes time to build speed or endurance. If you're making progress, that's all that really matters. You can go for a lower speed for a set time, then gradually as you build add speed for that same time. Of you can go for a higher speed, and gradually increase the amount of time/distance you can run at that speed.
If the machines have a heart rate monitor, that is a great tool. With that and the wattage readouts on my elliptical I can figure out where I can sustain for quite a while and where just a little more effort really starts lifting my heart rate and leads to burning out quicker.
I did an experiment tool with the HR monitor built in to the treadmill machine. I recently did just an hour moderate walk on the treadmill at 3.5mph, and my average HR was at 130. When you do a relatively good intense running, what % of the max HR do you keep at if you do happen to constantly track?0 -
qkrzazzang wrote: »I'm 5'8 at 175 pounds. I want to bring my body fat down to 15% with progressive exercise and health eating.
For my exercise other than weight training, I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times. My treadmill says about 600kal burned (with the input of my current weight and age if makes it accurate by all means). I was wondering what would actually burn more calories between my treadmill routine and HIIT cycling for about 20 minutes (5-7 repetitions).
You're doing 4 x 60 mins HIIT plus 3 x progressive weights? When is rest day?
Sometimes I rest on Saturday, but mostly I work 7 days a week. M,W,F=Cardio and Tues,Thurs weight training& muscles. I know I don't over-train as I've never experience injuries. And I did HIIT sometimes ago but that was mainly to experiment my weekly progress vs. my regular treadmill routine, but as you may know even with the strict diet, the result always varies..0 -
qkrzazzang wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »It takes time to build speed or endurance. If you're making progress, that's all that really matters. You can go for a lower speed for a set time, then gradually as you build add speed for that same time. Of you can go for a higher speed, and gradually increase the amount of time/distance you can run at that speed.
If the machines have a heart rate monitor, that is a great tool. With that and the wattage readouts on my elliptical I can figure out where I can sustain for quite a while and where just a little more effort really starts lifting my heart rate and leads to burning out quicker.
I did an experiment tool with the HR monitor built in to the treadmill machine. I recently did just an hour moderate walk on the treadmill at 3.5mph, and my average HR was at 130. When you do a relatively good intense running, what % of the max HR do you keep at if you do happen to constantly track?
I'm doing my cardio on the bike or elliptical, but can readily get my heart rate up in the 140-150 zone for an hour at a time. But it takes time to build to where you are comfortable working out at a steady heart rate that is higher, and it varies somewhat with what type of exercise you are doing and where/conditions/etc.
On the bike or elliptical, I'm setting pace, so if my HR starts climbing I can easily back off the pace a little bit to recover. On a treadmill, you have to keep up with the machine, so it's not quite as simple at times.
I didn't see where you made any mention of age, which would give you a general guideline for max HR. But keep that and any issues you've had, the time you've been working out, any any general risk factors in mind for choosing your workout HR zones. I had a full heart test done just a couple years back, so I know I'm good to up above the norm for my age group.
As for the workout conditions, keep in mind that unless you like being a dripping bag of sweat, something as simple as fans can make all the difference in where you get uncomfortable, even if it's not the work effort and HR causing it. I've noticed that when on my bike I'm much more likely to get my HR up farther, probably due to all the cooling air.0 -
qkrzazzang wrote: »I'm 5'8 at 175 pounds. I want to bring my body fat down to 15% with progressive exercise and health eating.
For my exercise other than weight training, I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times. My treadmill says about 600kal burned (with the input of my current weight and age if makes it accurate by all means). I was wondering what would actually burn more calories between my treadmill routine and HIIT cycling for about 20 minutes (5-7 repetitions).
You're doing 4 x 60 mins HIIT plus 3 x progressive weights? When is rest day?
This is not HIIT:
"I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times."
He's doing a low to moderate intensity exercise routine, varying his movements, not significantly overweight. No need for a scheduled rest day in this situation.0 -
I find the hr monitor on treadmills very inaccurate. I don't usually use it because holding on when running isn't good form but I was curious. It said80 after running for 20 minutes and when I checked a minute later it said 220... Um OK...... My usual running heart rate with a chest band is 150-1800
-
Packerjohn wrote: »qkrzazzang wrote: »I'm 5'8 at 175 pounds. I want to bring my body fat down to 15% with progressive exercise and health eating.
For my exercise other than weight training, I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times. My treadmill says about 600kal burned (with the input of my current weight and age if makes it accurate by all means). I was wondering what would actually burn more calories between my treadmill routine and HIIT cycling for about 20 minutes (5-7 repetitions).
You're doing 4 x 60 mins HIIT plus 3 x progressive weights? When is rest day?
This is not HIIT:
"I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times."
He's doing a low to moderate intensity exercise routine, varying his movements, not significantly overweight. No need for a scheduled rest day in this situation.
Yup definitely not HIIT0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »qkrzazzang wrote: ».... I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times. My treadmill says about 600kal burned (with the input of my current weight and age if makes it accurate by all means).
So the question I'd ask is, what are you trying to achieve from the time on the treadmill? Expending energy (calories), improving endurance and stamina etc?
As you're walking and then running reasonably slowly I'd be very surprised if you're covering the distance needed to expend 600 cals,but what I would say is that HIIT wouldn't expend more energy, if you're doing it properly. Despite the miracle cure claims of many the purpose of HIIT is somewhat different.
Essentially if you're wanting to burn more energy in that hour you need to concentrate on increasing the distance you cover in the time, as you highlight you can run for longr at a time now. What I'd suggest is using a structured running programme. As you're already doing an hour then you can probably drop into a Couch to 10K plan about 4 weeks in. For me that 600 calories is about 10K of running, although I'm a bit lighter than you.
fwiw I wouldn't swap out your resistance training sessions for cycling at the moment.
Thanks for the suggestion. My main purpose was originally burning the most calorie as possible, although I did begin to like the idea of improving on my athletic aspect in running, because not only does it set a goal for my progression but also it just happens to make running fun at least.0 -
qkrzazzang wrote: »I'm 5'8 at 175 pounds. I want to bring my body fat down to 15% with progressive exercise and health eating.
For my exercise other than weight training, I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times. My treadmill says about 600kal burned (with the input of my current weight and age if makes it accurate by all means). I was wondering what would actually burn more calories between my treadmill routine and HIIT cycling for about 20 minutes (5-7 repetitions).
You are not at 21% body fat with 80+ lbs to lose. Something is off either in your calculations or your goals when you set up your MFP account.
Other than this, if the goal is increased calorie burn, aim for distance. Either by increasing speed or duration. If you are alternating between 3 and 5.5 mph per hour, you have definitely room for improving speed and distance covered. Maybe look into a beginner running program to adapt your intervals. This 5 min slow 5 min faster plan leaves a lot of room for improvement.
Yes my profile hasn't been updated, but now I'm at 174 pound with 21% BF, most accurate and recent by far0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
OP, I'm not sure how these numbers are working out. 21YO male 88pounds to lose as your goal on your profile. You are a little overweight at 175 LBS for your height of 5 foot 8. You BF goal is 15% and you are walking for 30 minutes on a treadmill and running(5 mph to 5.5 mph) and feel you burn 600 calories. So, is your goal to get to goal (the BF reduction) with more efficiency or does time not matter? Is your goal to better understand caloric burn rates and the various steady state activities you can do and measure accurately for a caloric burn? Also, I am confused at the number and type of workouts you do weekly. What sort of lifting schedule(meaning amount of reps and lifts/weight) you are currently doing.qkrzazzang wrote: »I'm 5'8 at 175 pounds. I want to bring my body fat down to 15% with progressive exercise and health eating.
For my exercise other than weight training, I spend 60 minutes on the treadmill Mon, Wed, Fri and Sun, 5 minutes at 3.0~3.5mph followed by 5 minutes at 5.5mph, and repeat this process 6 times. My treadmill says about 600kal burned (with the input of my current weight and age if makes it accurate by all means). I was wondering what would actually burn more calories between my treadmill routine and HIIT cycling for about 20 minutes (5-7 repetitions).
If HIIT is something you'd like to try I'd suggest a class. I'm not sure given your current stamina it would be ideal. Trying it and working to improve during the classes makes sense but I'm not sure of what type of HIIT is available to you and the intensity. Apologies for all the questions but we have a greater chance to help you with your goals if we can have answers to some of the questions posed.
Sorry, didn't update my profile, but 174lb with 21%BF is the most accurate at this point. I do consider good amount of efficiency. I really don't think I can spend more than an hour on a treadmill, that's why I set my cardio session to 1 hour, thus the most calorie burn within that given time would be what I'm looking for. And the main purpose of the thread was to see what other people think about HIIT as an overall calorie burn vs. the steady cardio.
On my lifting days, I do back/rear squats (120lb), 15/5 reps, biceps/triceps training 15/5 reps (25lb), and leg exercise (not sure what it's actually called, but it's a machine which I place my feet by the board and I push it with my legs against it) 20/5 reps, 200lb.0 -
Do you mean 15 sets of 5 reps or 5 sets of 15 reps? 15 sets is way too many0
-
Look into a weight program that concentrates on compound movements. Much more bang for your buck than tricep and bicep isolation exercises0
-
Heart rate monitor are useless when doing HIIT. The rep and rest period, ~60-90 seconds, will be over before your heart rate ramps up (~2 minutes average). It's losing proposition for the following rep as your heart rate will never settle to reflect the intensity. Anyone saying otherwise needs to hit the books.
By the way HIIT is done at 150-170%+ of VO2Max depending on the regimen. Except for cycling, there is no consumer available monitor that can measure the workload, PERIOD. Power meter makes it possible for cycling to gauge intensity as well as estimating one's VO2Max. All else is through laboratory testing (although to be as accurate as possible it's still recommended for cyclist).0 -
Heart rate monitor are useless when doing HIIT. The rep and rest period, ~60-90 seconds, will be over before your heart rate ramps up (~2 minutes average). It's losing proposition for the following rep as your heart rate will never settle to reflect the intensity. Anyone saying otherwise needs to hit the books.
By the way HIIT is done at 150-170%+ of VO2Max depending on the regimen. Except for cycling, there is no consumer available monitor that can measure the workload, PERIOD. Power meter makes it possible for cycling to gauge intensity as well as estimating one's VO2Max. All else is through laboratory testing (although to be as accurate as possible it's still recommended for cyclist).
For the HR monitors, useless for tracking the burn I would agree. But they can be very helpful in figuring out the high intensity vs recovery time, as well as keeping track of actual max heart rate.
I'm a bit confused as to your statement about not being able to monitor workload except during cycling though. Any type of HIIT done on a machine that can measure would be just as accurate measuring as would a cycle power meter, as in only as good as the device.0 -
.robertw486 wrote: »For the HR monitors, useless for tracking the burn I would agree. But they can be very helpful in figuring out the high intensity vs recovery time, as well as keeping track of actual max heart rate
It's a question of lead and lag. If you're doing true HIIT then work efforts of 20-30 seconds aren't long enough for the heart to respond enough to reflect the change in workload. Similarly the change in worload entering the rest period leaves the heart slowing at a slower rate, so the gradients on the rising slope and falling slope aren't equivalent. Essentially the slow speed of response to both increased and reduced demand means the short times of true HIIT can't be reliably managed using HR data, better to use time or distance.
I'd make the same distinction about true HIIT and what people call HIIT. I've seen some people refer to 160-180 as high HRs on here, when in their 20s or 30s. If they're working those as their effort periods then there is no way it's HIIT, that's aerobic effort.
0 -
It's a matter of determining intensity or work effort. Most people, including myself, are really bad at it especially when your red lining. It takes practice and subjectivity to apply RPE when doing steady state tempo (up to 80-90% LT) but that goes out of door when there is no effective matrix to track for 20-30 seconds of work, especially when one don't know there VO2Max in the first place. Power meter gives you the exact level of effort one is putting out, coupled with known VO2Max, 170% of that effort is easly known and tracked during the session. It's just a stab in the dark otherwise.
Again, there is no really benefit of doing HIIT unless you're peaking for an event. (Not a real problem for 99.9% since the term is misused.)0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
.robertw486 wrote: »For the HR monitors, useless for tracking the burn I would agree. But they can be very helpful in figuring out the high intensity vs recovery time, as well as keeping track of actual max heart rate
It's a question of lead and lag. If you're doing true HIIT then work efforts of 20-30 seconds aren't long enough for the heart to respond enough to reflect the change in workload. Similarly the change in worload entering the rest period leaves the heart slowing at a slower rate, so the gradients on the rising slope and falling slope aren't equivalent. Essentially the slow speed of response to both increased and reduced demand means the short times of true HIIT can't be reliably managed using HR data, better to use time or distance.
I'd make the same distinction about true HIIT and what people call HIIT. I've seen some people refer to 160-180 as high HRs on here, when in their 20s or 30s. If they're working those as their effort periods then there is no way it's HIIT, that's aerobic effort.
If you're doing HIIT early in a workout, completely agree that HR isn't going to get anywhere elevated quickly. But in my case I often do some HIIT stuff at the end or well into some steady state cardio, where my HR might already be up in the 150-160 range. Though the lifts are still relatively slow, doing the intervals with too short of a rest gives opportunity to allow them to keep climbing and limits the ceiling somewhat for those of us not still 20 or 30 years old.
And I completely agree it's an abused term. I do have to slightly alter from true HIIT on the elliptical, since you don't have the easy option to stop, puke, and fall over without potentially hitting heavy metal pieces of the machine. But other than tapering off slightly sooner for the sake of safety, it's still easy to get up above the oxygen capabilities pretty quick.It's a matter of determining intensity or work effort. Most people, including myself, are really bad at it especially when your red lining. It takes practice and subjectivity to apply RPE when doing steady state tempo (up to 80-90% LT) but that goes out of door when there is no effective matrix to track for 20-30 seconds of work, especially when one don't know there VO2Max in the first place. Power meter gives you the exact level of effort one is putting out, coupled with known VO2Max, 170% of that effort is easly known and tracked during the session. It's just a stab in the dark otherwise.
Again, there is no really benefit of doing HIIT unless you're peaking for an event. (Not a real problem for 99.9% since the term is misused.)
That makes more sense with the direction you explained. I was just wondering why you had singled it out to using a bike vs any known power meter method. I would think with the right data available, really you could do it on just about anything, just by adjusting the data source used to measure power output.
Being I don't have a power meter on the bike, I use the elliptical to watch output vs heart rate, both during steady state and HIIT type stuff. It's helped me get much better connected with appropriate power output when I'm actually on the bike with less data available to me. To agree with your RPE statement, I found I was using small acceleration events and minor changes to allow too much swing in my HR by outputting energy where it was essentially wasted. Using the HRM on the bike computer and watching HR on the elliptical put my in much better touch concerning where the added effort and keeping HR more stable on the bike paid off in real pace. It was actually easier riding to higher pace but being mindful of HR, verses the "old me" version which put too much effort into some of the acceleration events that were in terms of overall pace, slow regardless.
I wish it wasn't cooling off so much here. Even with the old crappy mountain bike, I'm confident I could knock down some good steady state pace if I just pack the bike to places clear enough of traffic to do it.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »If you're doing HIIT early in a workout, completely agree that HR isn't going to get anywhere elevated quickly.
Indeed, if I'm running I won't do sprint intervals until I've warmed up for 15-20 minutes, at about a 9-10min/mile, on the bike/ turbo it's about 15 minutes at about 25kph before I'll go into it.
0 -
HIIT even 30 min will burn more calories then an hour on a treadmill. It increases your epoc.0
-
heatherwartanyan wrote: »HIIT even 30 min will burn more calories then an hour on a treadmill. It increases your epoc.
If you're doing 30 minutes of HIIT, you're not doing HIIT.
And no... To put the calorie expenditure in context, using a sprint interval session:- 15 minute warm up - 1.5 miles - c 150cals
- 10* 100metre sprint with 100 metre rest periods - c1.2 miles - c120cals
- 15 minute cool down - 1.5 miles (unlikely as much slower after the session) - c150 cals
- Total - 420cals (optimistically)
- EPOC @ 8% - 33cals
Compare that with a steady state run:- 60 minutes easy pace - 6.5miles - 650cals
- EPOC @ 4% - 25cals
You'll note that the actual high intensity period within the sprint session is quite a small part, so most of the calorie expenditure comes from the warm up and cool down.
As upthread, the value of a HIIT session isn't about the calorie expenditure, it's about the effect on VO2Max.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions