Is HIIT undoing all my hard work on the gym floor?
Options
Replies
-
Got any links?[/quote]
Try https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/HIITvsCardio.html for starters, but there are many more if you google HIIT scientific studies
Interval training is great and gives real benefits, in fact it is more appropriate to most people, but to say that interval training is the same as HIIT is saying that joging is the same as sprinting0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
0 -
I've been doing hiit workouts also and don't quite a bit of research on it. From what I've found it'd the oposite. It's really good for retaining muscle mass. Long periods of cardio is training your muscles for endurance so hiit can help with bulking.
Like a couple others said though make sure you're still getting the calories in that you need.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
0 -
I've bookmarked this for further reading on the supplied links, but personally I think some of the original HIIT protocol testing was a bit flawed as well. One of the original Tabata protocols (AE1 or some combo of those letters and numbers I think) disqualified people spinning below a certain pace. Regardless of the load involved, spinning at such a low pace (IIRC 85 RPM) was more of a strength loading type setting vs what any real world biker would do attempting to set max effort and pace.
As such, I would question the method by how they would be judging maximal effort, when in fact the test itself might simply be skewed towards strength over the overall power curve.
As for the overall effort and "puke factor" references, personally I feel that the type of exercise performed would have a huge impact. Even at maximum effort, people lacking in strength in certain areas just couldn't tax their body as hard unless the load was weight biased. As in a sprinter or runner build type person with smaller muscles could readily sprint for 20 second intervals at max capacity without exerting nearly as much effort as a heavy person, or large body builder type. Less resistance to motion, less overall load, and no gearing involved.
What makes a runner puke might be easy for a heavy lifter, and what is easy to the runner might make the lifter puke.0 -
I am usually hesistant to link to wikipedia, but the article on HIIT is fairly well-written and includes a number of different protocols with references.
Also, Catalyst (a science and technology programme on the ABC, which is the Australian equivalent of the BBC) did an episode on interval training and HIIT in particular earlier this year. It can be found here on iView or here on youtube.0 -
...So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Here's an article which discusses HIIT pretty extensively, with links to studies, research review, etc. Lyle wrote a whole series of articles about steady-state vs. interval training, most of which are linked from that article.0 -
A lot of different responses in here already. The short answer is "no" it's not going to hurt your strength training gains. It's all a matter of finding balance between all of your training modalities as to not negatively impact your recovery. Too much of any form of exercise can impede one's progress if their recovery protocol isn't good or enough.0
-
really depends on goals and what you're after.
It won't "hurt" in that it makes your work go away... but you may not be as an efficient of a beast at the squat rack if you are regularly doing HIIT work between/before your lifts.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Well said.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
72rpm on a spin bike - but at what resistance level. For HIIT i would imagine it is incredibly high so much so that you are pushing a "lot" to reach that point.
in a spin class warm up you have little if any resistance on0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
72rpm on a spin bike - but at what resistance level. For HIIT i would imagine it is incredibly high so much so that you are pushing a "lot" to reach that point.
in a spin class warm up you have little if any resistance on
Good point - I don't know that the experiment specified either, could check
FYI some things I saw in the Wiki article included, there's no set protocol for HIIT, and also the "low" part could be as easy as walking
There are some more links and possibly videos that I didn't get to yet. Mostly I'm not yet seeing that hard for the individual, vs kill yourself level doesn't give similar HIIT benefits and results0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
Having now read the link supplied by @EvgeniZyntx I really feel that the testing was skewed even more than I originally thought.
The group 1 participants were of a higher BMI, as well as a higher VO2max and max accumulated O2 deficit. Though both groups were in the normal BMI range by US standards, both groups were at the upper edge. But the differences in the VO2max and max O2 deficit indicate that the group with lower gains were already had better aerobic conditioning. There are also indications that the way to account for improvements might not have been consistent between the groups, but that isn't clear enough to determine.
They also had an RPM of 70, while the second group had a target RPM of 90, with test termination taking place if they dropped below 85. This should be a huge red flag to anyone who knows the relationships of power measures as they relate to RPM. In a nutshell, increasing RPM lowers the need for rotational force applied as it is overcome by the speed of the work (rotational force) being applied.
In practical application as applies to humans, biking at the same speed with that much variance in RPM is a huge change in the shift of how the systems would apply. The lower RPM would tax the muscles more, and have much greater potential to call on the anaerobic systems vs the aerobic systems. The higher RPM allows speed of work performed to overcome the torque pushing the pedal.
And then there is the issue that the group 2 people actually had warm up time, as well as one day with steady state cardio included. That accounts for 70 (or 80 if the 10 minute warm up still took place on the steady state day) minutes of cardio work included with the high intensity stuff. The group 1 people had no form of strength training tied in with their cardio, and operating at 70% VO2max isn't that tough at all.
And I'll also add that adding to VO2max and accumulated O2 deficit don't correlate directly to exercise performance ability. So by not switching the exercise differences between the two groups, they allowed the biases in performance without actually testing true energy outputs.
So really if I look at the overall testing without bias, they aren't proving much IMO. They take a group better trained at cardio, have them keep doing cardio and they see improvements in cardio. They take another group lesser trained in cardio, let them do strength training and cardio, and they see improvements in both.
Dang, I wish I had a big title and prominence within the medical community. I could take some heavy lifters out of the gym, and let them keep lifting. Then I could take another group and have them lift and do cardio, and act as if it's a huge find that doing the cardio might help the lifters gain cardio endurance. Then I could attach the name to all kinds of crap that doesn't really apply.
I almost wish I had never seen the specifics in the link. Almost.
As a side note, I did some quick math using energy output for my elliptical, and found that the output increase based on my estimated VO2max isn't all that terrible. I frequently do cardio at a level higher than the group 2 fifth day training, for a longer period, and then do intervals that would meet the 170% VO2max, assuming that the VO2max and direct energy output are the same relationships. I've done upwards of 4 to 5 reps of high intensity after close to an hour at 80-85% of my estimated VO2max. I might have to do a more recent beep test or something, then do the true HIIT from the start based on the protocol, just to see how taxing it is.0 -
HIIT wasn't invented in a fitness club in 2005. Athletes have been training using HIIT methodology for a long time. Think running lines or suicides at basketball practice or gassers/wind sprints at the end of football practice.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »HIIT wasn't invented in a fitness club in 2005. Athletes have been training using HIIT methodology for a long time. Think running lines or suicides at basketball practice or gassers/wind sprints at the end of football practice.
We were doing those in the '70s - just nobody had thought of a catchy/trendy acronym for them yet.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »HIIT wasn't invented in a fitness club in 2005. Athletes have been training using HIIT methodology for a long time. Think running lines or suicides at basketball practice or gassers/wind sprints at the end of football practice.
We were doing those in the '70s - just nobody had thought of a catchy/trendy acronym for them yet.
I'd imagine there was no protocol set, but most likely the first true interval training involved survival, probably in the form of running from sabre toothed tigers or something.
There is another angle I can work. The caveman HIIT interval. Works best on the paleo diet of course.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
Having now read the link supplied by @EvgeniZyntx I really feel that the testing was skewed even more than I originally thought.
The group 1 participants were of a higher BMI, as well as a higher VO2max and max accumulated O2 deficit. Though both groups were in the normal BMI range by US standards, both groups were at the upper edge. But the differences in the VO2max and max O2 deficit indicate that the group with lower gains were already had better aerobic conditioning. There are also indications that the way to account for improvements might not have been consistent between the groups, but that isn't clear enough to determine.
They also had an RPM of 70, while the second group had a target RPM of 90, with test termination taking place if they dropped below 85. This should be a huge red flag to anyone who knows the relationships of power measures as they relate to RPM. In a nutshell, increasing RPM lowers the need for rotational force applied as it is overcome by the speed of the work (rotational force) being applied.
In practical application as applies to humans, biking at the same speed with that much variance in RPM is a huge change in the shift of how the systems would apply. The lower RPM would tax the muscles more, and have much greater potential to call on the anaerobic systems vs the aerobic systems. The higher RPM allows speed of work performed to overcome the torque pushing the pedal.
And then there is the issue that the group 2 people actually had warm up time, as well as one day with steady state cardio included. That accounts for 70 (or 80 if the 10 minute warm up still took place on the steady state day) minutes of cardio work included with the high intensity stuff. The group 1 people had no form of strength training tied in with their cardio, and operating at 70% VO2max isn't that tough at all.
And I'll also add that adding to VO2max and accumulated O2 deficit don't correlate directly to exercise performance ability. So by not switching the exercise differences between the two groups, they allowed the biases in performance without actually testing true energy outputs.
So really if I look at the overall testing without bias, they aren't proving much IMO. They take a group better trained at cardio, have them keep doing cardio and they see improvements in cardio. They take another group lesser trained in cardio, let them do strength training and cardio, and they see improvements in both.
Dang, I wish I had a big title and prominence within the medical community. I could take some heavy lifters out of the gym, and let them keep lifting. Then I could take another group and have them lift and do cardio, and act as if it's a huge find that doing the cardio might help the lifters gain cardio endurance. Then I could attach the name to all kinds of crap that doesn't really apply.
I almost wish I had never seen the specifics in the link. Almost.
As a side note, I did some quick math using energy output for my elliptical, and found that the output increase based on my estimated VO2max isn't all that terrible. I frequently do cardio at a level higher than the group 2 fifth day training, for a longer period, and then do intervals that would meet the 170% VO2max, assuming that the VO2max and direct energy output are the same relationships. I've done upwards of 4 to 5 reps of high intensity after close to an hour at 80-85% of my estimated VO2max. I might have to do a more recent beep test or something, then do the true HIIT from the start based on the protocol, just to see how taxing it is.
And now you see why there is an tendency to consider the whole "only HIIT is best" is considered hype by people that focus on functional performance. It has a role but it isn't a panacea.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
Having now read the link supplied by @EvgeniZyntx I really feel that the testing was skewed even more than I originally thought.
The group 1 participants were of a higher BMI, as well as a higher VO2max and max accumulated O2 deficit. Though both groups were in the normal BMI range by US standards, both groups were at the upper edge. But the differences in the VO2max and max O2 deficit indicate that the group with lower gains were already had better aerobic conditioning. There are also indications that the way to account for improvements might not have been consistent between the groups, but that isn't clear enough to determine.
They also had an RPM of 70, while the second group had a target RPM of 90, with test termination taking place if they dropped below 85. This should be a huge red flag to anyone who knows the relationships of power measures as they relate to RPM. In a nutshell, increasing RPM lowers the need for rotational force applied as it is overcome by the speed of the work (rotational force) being applied.
In practical application as applies to humans, biking at the same speed with that much variance in RPM is a huge change in the shift of how the systems would apply. The lower RPM would tax the muscles more, and have much greater potential to call on the anaerobic systems vs the aerobic systems. The higher RPM allows speed of work performed to overcome the torque pushing the pedal.
And then there is the issue that the group 2 people actually had warm up time, as well as one day with steady state cardio included. That accounts for 70 (or 80 if the 10 minute warm up still took place on the steady state day) minutes of cardio work included with the high intensity stuff. The group 1 people had no form of strength training tied in with their cardio, and operating at 70% VO2max isn't that tough at all.
And I'll also add that adding to VO2max and accumulated O2 deficit don't correlate directly to exercise performance ability. So by not switching the exercise differences between the two groups, they allowed the biases in performance without actually testing true energy outputs.
So really if I look at the overall testing without bias, they aren't proving much IMO. They take a group better trained at cardio, have them keep doing cardio and they see improvements in cardio. They take another group lesser trained in cardio, let them do strength training and cardio, and they see improvements in both.
Dang, I wish I had a big title and prominence within the medical community. I could take some heavy lifters out of the gym, and let them keep lifting. Then I could take another group and have them lift and do cardio, and act as if it's a huge find that doing the cardio might help the lifters gain cardio endurance. Then I could attach the name to all kinds of crap that doesn't really apply.
I almost wish I had never seen the specifics in the link. Almost.
As a side note, I did some quick math using energy output for my elliptical, and found that the output increase based on my estimated VO2max isn't all that terrible. I frequently do cardio at a level higher than the group 2 fifth day training, for a longer period, and then do intervals that would meet the 170% VO2max, assuming that the VO2max and direct energy output are the same relationships. I've done upwards of 4 to 5 reps of high intensity after close to an hour at 80-85% of my estimated VO2max. I might have to do a more recent beep test or something, then do the true HIIT from the start based on the protocol, just to see how taxing it is.
And now you see why there is an tendency to consider the whole "only HIIT is best" is considered hype by people that focus on functional performance. It has a role but it isn't a panacea.
I think it's even more crazy when people think that intervals of any kind will grossly outweigh steady state cardio stuff. Having measures of both on the elliptical we have, it was easy enough to disprove that quickly. And I'm not even a cardio nut.
I'm glad you had the link with the Tabata protocols, but still found great bias in them. I'm actually shocked that the medical community and peer reviews didn't call him out in a major way. But really, for me it's a good example of science and peer review being an imperfect process. I'd bet money I could name dozens of car nut/motorhead types that understand how much the RPM variances alone skewed the testing, and they could have waded through all the other stuff regardless of their knowledge in biology, and identified the serious flaws.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
Having now read the link supplied by @EvgeniZyntx I really feel that the testing was skewed even more than I originally thought.
The group 1 participants were of a higher BMI, as well as a higher VO2max and max accumulated O2 deficit. Though both groups were in the normal BMI range by US standards, both groups were at the upper edge. But the differences in the VO2max and max O2 deficit indicate that the group with lower gains were already had better aerobic conditioning. There are also indications that the way to account for improvements might not have been consistent between the groups, but that isn't clear enough to determine.
They also had an RPM of 70, while the second group had a target RPM of 90, with test termination taking place if they dropped below 85. This should be a huge red flag to anyone who knows the relationships of power measures as they relate to RPM. In a nutshell, increasing RPM lowers the need for rotational force applied as it is overcome by the speed of the work (rotational force) being applied.
In practical application as applies to humans, biking at the same speed with that much variance in RPM is a huge change in the shift of how the systems would apply. The lower RPM would tax the muscles more, and have much greater potential to call on the anaerobic systems vs the aerobic systems. The higher RPM allows speed of work performed to overcome the torque pushing the pedal.
And then there is the issue that the group 2 people actually had warm up time, as well as one day with steady state cardio included. That accounts for 70 (or 80 if the 10 minute warm up still took place on the steady state day) minutes of cardio work included with the high intensity stuff. The group 1 people had no form of strength training tied in with their cardio, and operating at 70% VO2max isn't that tough at all.
And I'll also add that adding to VO2max and accumulated O2 deficit don't correlate directly to exercise performance ability. So by not switching the exercise differences between the two groups, they allowed the biases in performance without actually testing true energy outputs.
So really if I look at the overall testing without bias, they aren't proving much IMO. They take a group better trained at cardio, have them keep doing cardio and they see improvements in cardio. They take another group lesser trained in cardio, let them do strength training and cardio, and they see improvements in both.
Dang, I wish I had a big title and prominence within the medical community. I could take some heavy lifters out of the gym, and let them keep lifting. Then I could take another group and have them lift and do cardio, and act as if it's a huge find that doing the cardio might help the lifters gain cardio endurance. Then I could attach the name to all kinds of crap that doesn't really apply.
I almost wish I had never seen the specifics in the link. Almost.
As a side note, I did some quick math using energy output for my elliptical, and found that the output increase based on my estimated VO2max isn't all that terrible. I frequently do cardio at a level higher than the group 2 fifth day training, for a longer period, and then do intervals that would meet the 170% VO2max, assuming that the VO2max and direct energy output are the same relationships. I've done upwards of 4 to 5 reps of high intensity after close to an hour at 80-85% of my estimated VO2max. I might have to do a more recent beep test or something, then do the true HIIT from the start based on the protocol, just to see how taxing it is.
And now you see why there is an tendency to consider the whole "only HIIT is best" is considered hype by people that focus on functional performance. It has a role but it isn't a panacea.
I think it's even more crazy when people think that intervals of any kind will grossly outweigh steady state cardio stuff. Having measures of both on the elliptical we have, it was easy enough to disprove that quickly. And I'm not even a cardio nut.
I'm glad you had the link with the Tabata protocols, but still found great bias in them. I'm actually shocked that the medical community and peer reviews didn't call him out in a major way. But really, for me it's a good example of science and peer review being an imperfect process. I'd bet money I could name dozens of car nut/motorhead types that understand how much the RPM variances alone skewed the testing, and they could have waded through all the other stuff regardless of their knowledge in biology, and identified the serious flaws.
Oh, it has been called out and the debate still rages. There is a lot of secondary research in both camps. It is not an area I focus a lot on but I used to have dozens and dozens of follow up studies.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »kiahdarby257 wrote: »"Walking or cycling at a low to moderate intensity burns off some extra fat without interfering too much with your performance in the gym. That’s not the case with more intense forms of exercise, such as HIIT."
This is a snippet from one email, I couldn't find the other where he talked more in depth. He's the founder of Muscle Evo
That goes back to what Dope said. The issue is recovery, not the it undoes your work, but that it could hinder your progress.
^ Recovery is indeed the point. If somebody is truly doing HIIT (and not just aerobic intervals), the HIIT is very taxing to the CNS and creates recovery issues of its own separate from the recovery issues associated with strength training. The most sensible recommendation I've seen is to perform HIIT no more than twice a week, with low/moderate intensity cardio on other days.
A separate issue is that what most people consider HIIT is not actually HIIT. It's become a trendy acronym in the fitness world, but it's grossly misused. Walk/jog intervals aren't HIIT - it requires absolute maximal, all-out effort during the work periods. Not many people actually do true HIIT workouts because they're very uncomfortable/painful and most people don't enjoy lying on the ground gasping for breath and trying not to throw up on themselves at the end of a workout.
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't the whole thing made up to begin with? Was there some definition included with the development and packaging of this form of exercise that said only certain things could be HIIT? How does the fitness world misuse something it basically invented?
My understanding was that HIIT is description for protocols used in scientific studies (though it originated long before that in athletes). When those studies started showing the benefits of HIIT, it became a vague marketing term for the fitness industry to sell you on those same benefits. I agree with the others, real HIIT is alternating intervals of maximal effort with recovery. I'd go one step further and say that the recovery should be passive if your really want to imitate the protocol in most studies.
Interesting! If there are actual studies indicating that it must be high intensity to the death training to be considered HIIT, I'd be curious to see those. Otherwise IMO it's just opinion on top of opinion. Meaning, who cares, so long as people are working out at their own definition of high intensity, what's it hurting, and yes they're getting some benefit. However, again, if there are specific scientific studies delineating absolute maximum effort as a requirement to be HIIT, and associated benefits that do not exist unless you're going full pelt, I'm definitely curious. Otherwise it does seem like ascribing scientific definitions to, yep, a marketing term
The positive effects of HIIT seen in research are using High Intensity protocols (90%+ VOmax) -- if you think your suboptimal 10 minute pseudo HIIT is going to be equal to an hour of running then it hurts because these are basically useless for either cardiovascular health or calorie burns. So when people come out with "yeah, I tried it. Didn't work" they hurt themselves and are getting no benefit.
It's a research definition first then became a marketing term.
Got any links?
The research I've read on HIIT was interesting, but I don't particularly keep up with it specifically. I see HIIT type training as part of any training regimen that works on endurance, power and speed (cyclists practiced it in 70s - speed play, SMIs (supramax intervals), Fartleks from the 1940's, Ladders, etc...). I wouldn't use it as an exclusive training method.
But for the defining research - it is a pretty well known study:
http://www.renevanmaarsseveen.nl/wp-content/uploads/overig/effects-of-moderate-intensity-etc.pdf
Moderate was Vo2Max @ 70%, "the exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight
sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of ·VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, ·VO2max increased by 7 ml·kg-1·min-1, while the
anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate- intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems."
Thank you for this link! I got through the study earlier today but was hoping to read up another referenced one [5]. Turns out I do not have access to view it. Basically the linked study covered(2) groups of 7 fairly lean Phys Ed majors and athletes, whereas reference [5] was a group of untrained people, who experienced a 16% anaerobic capacity increase. All the linked study said was that whereas their own 7 participants went full pelt, exertion perception from the untrained ones in the other experiment was simply "hard"
Something else that jumped out at me is that the exercise done by the moderate group in the linked experiment I believe was said to be around 72rpm on a bike. Most spin classes I've attended will have somewhere in that range as a warm up, and have intervals of pushing quite a bit beyond that, just not necessarily to the point that I'm about falling off the bike
So I was just again really curious to see what kinds of sliding scales might be out there regarding the benefits of HIIT. Yes, there was a significant difference shown between 5 days per week of 72rpm work, compared to full blast HIIT work for more or less seasoned athletes. But what degrees of differentiation might we see in pretty much regular folk?
Also interesting was the fact that VO2 Max increased in both the moderate and HIIT groups in the linked experiment
Thanks again for the read!
Having now read the link supplied by @EvgeniZyntx I really feel that the testing was skewed even more than I originally thought.
The group 1 participants were of a higher BMI, as well as a higher VO2max and max accumulated O2 deficit. Though both groups were in the normal BMI range by US standards, both groups were at the upper edge. But the differences in the VO2max and max O2 deficit indicate that the group with lower gains were already had better aerobic conditioning. There are also indications that the way to account for improvements might not have been consistent between the groups, but that isn't clear enough to determine.
They also had an RPM of 70, while the second group had a target RPM of 90, with test termination taking place if they dropped below 85. This should be a huge red flag to anyone who knows the relationships of power measures as they relate to RPM. In a nutshell, increasing RPM lowers the need for rotational force applied as it is overcome by the speed of the work (rotational force) being applied.
In practical application as applies to humans, biking at the same speed with that much variance in RPM is a huge change in the shift of how the systems would apply. The lower RPM would tax the muscles more, and have much greater potential to call on the anaerobic systems vs the aerobic systems. The higher RPM allows speed of work performed to overcome the torque pushing the pedal.
And then there is the issue that the group 2 people actually had warm up time, as well as one day with steady state cardio included. That accounts for 70 (or 80 if the 10 minute warm up still took place on the steady state day) minutes of cardio work included with the high intensity stuff. The group 1 people had no form of strength training tied in with their cardio, and operating at 70% VO2max isn't that tough at all.
And I'll also add that adding to VO2max and accumulated O2 deficit don't correlate directly to exercise performance ability. So by not switching the exercise differences between the two groups, they allowed the biases in performance without actually testing true energy outputs.
So really if I look at the overall testing without bias, they aren't proving much IMO. They take a group better trained at cardio, have them keep doing cardio and they see improvements in cardio. They take another group lesser trained in cardio, let them do strength training and cardio, and they see improvements in both.
Dang, I wish I had a big title and prominence within the medical community. I could take some heavy lifters out of the gym, and let them keep lifting. Then I could take another group and have them lift and do cardio, and act as if it's a huge find that doing the cardio might help the lifters gain cardio endurance. Then I could attach the name to all kinds of crap that doesn't really apply.
I almost wish I had never seen the specifics in the link. Almost.
As a side note, I did some quick math using energy output for my elliptical, and found that the output increase based on my estimated VO2max isn't all that terrible. I frequently do cardio at a level higher than the group 2 fifth day training, for a longer period, and then do intervals that would meet the 170% VO2max, assuming that the VO2max and direct energy output are the same relationships. I've done upwards of 4 to 5 reps of high intensity after close to an hour at 80-85% of my estimated VO2max. I might have to do a more recent beep test or something, then do the true HIIT from the start based on the protocol, just to see how taxing it is.
And now you see why there is an tendency to consider the whole "only HIIT is best" is considered hype by people that focus on functional performance. It has a role but it isn't a panacea.
I think it's even more crazy when people think that intervals of any kind will grossly outweigh steady state cardio stuff. Having measures of both on the elliptical we have, it was easy enough to disprove that quickly. And I'm not even a cardio nut.
I'm glad you had the link with the Tabata protocols, but still found great bias in them. I'm actually shocked that the medical community and peer reviews didn't call him out in a major way. But really, for me it's a good example of science and peer review being an imperfect process. I'd bet money I could name dozens of car nut/motorhead types that understand how much the RPM variances alone skewed the testing, and they could have waded through all the other stuff regardless of their knowledge in biology, and identified the serious flaws.
Oh, it has been called out and the debate still rages. There is a lot of secondary research in both camps. It is not an area I focus a lot on but I used to have dozens and dozens of follow up studies.
I've seen some of the follow up stuff that is still taking place. But poor wording on my part... I should have said I'm surprised the peer review of his original stuff didn't catch the obvious bias concerning the testing method and in particular the RPM bias.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions