Is HIIT undoing all my hard work on the gym floor?
Replies
-
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 -
Related question for anyone following... I hope one of the more informed here has an answer I am having a hard time finding.
Being less familiar with VO2max testing than some are, I do understand how they could test to 170% of VO2max using true gas exchange equipment and have read on some of the various testing protocols.
BUT, I can't find anything useful guiding me towards answers on VO2max beyond 100%, and the work load in watts, speeds (at set resistance), total output in calories per minute, or anything I can find useful for my purpose. What I'm essentially looking for is the relationship to energy outputs, in an attempt to calculate my 170% workload. Just to give the "true" Tabata IE1 (might have screwed that up a second time!) protocol a spin on my elliptical.
And I'm not sure I can on my machine. If VO2max is directly related to output power measurements (and emphasis on the **assumption** there), it's right on the upper edge of where my elliptical will measure power output. But I'm sure that I could calculate the pace output on my machine to match, as that continues to monitor beyond the energy output limit the machine has.
But as a general note to anyone remotely interested in the effort on the original Tabata protocol, unless my assumptions (emphasis again!) are way off there is no possible way I could approach that 170% with say wind spints. Not at my weight, no way, no how. If I could accelerate that hard that long I would humble the top sprinters. It would be much more like an uphill wind sprint on a fairly steep hill, or wind sprints while carrying someone fireman's carry style or something.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Related question for anyone following... I hope one of the more informed here has an answer I am having a hard time finding.
Being less familiar with VO2max testing than some are, I do understand how they could test to 170% of VO2max using true gas exchange equipment and have read on some of the various testing protocols.
BUT, I can't find anything useful guiding me towards answers on VO2max beyond 100%, and the work load in watts, speeds (at set resistance), total output in calories per minute, or anything I can find useful for my purpose. What I'm essentially looking for is the relationship to energy outputs, in an attempt to calculate my 170% workload. Just to give the "true" Tabata IE1 (might have screwed that up a second time!) protocol a spin on my elliptical.
And I'm not sure I can on my machine. If VO2max is directly related to output power measurements (and emphasis on the **assumption** there), it's right on the upper edge of where my elliptical will measure power output. But I'm sure that I could calculate the pace output on my machine to match, as that continues to monitor beyond the energy output limit the machine has.
But as a general note to anyone remotely interested in the effort on the original Tabata protocol, unless my assumptions (emphasis again!) are way off there is no possible way I could approach that 170% with say wind spints. Not at my weight, no way, no how. If I could accelerate that hard that long I would humble the top sprinters. It would be much more like an uphill wind sprint on a fairly steep hill, or wind sprints while carrying someone fireman's carry style or something.
Here is my .02. I have been doing my tactical body weight training program for about 8 weeks now. I don't have an HRM or any fancy equipment. I just give it 100%, it is a tabata program or HIIT, I honestly don't see a huge difference between the two. Anyway I haven't done any running in 2 months, went for a run yesterday, all I can say is I killed it, my cardio was much stronger, I was stronger, and I completed it with a PR.
I think people have gotten too bogged down in the details....If your heart rate is up, your using those muscles, eating healthy you will see results.0 -
jeepinshawn wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Related question for anyone following... I hope one of the more informed here has an answer I am having a hard time finding.
Being less familiar with VO2max testing than some are, I do understand how they could test to 170% of VO2max using true gas exchange equipment and have read on some of the various testing protocols.
BUT, I can't find anything useful guiding me towards answers on VO2max beyond 100%, and the work load in watts, speeds (at set resistance), total output in calories per minute, or anything I can find useful for my purpose. What I'm essentially looking for is the relationship to energy outputs, in an attempt to calculate my 170% workload. Just to give the "true" Tabata IE1 (might have screwed that up a second time!) protocol a spin on my elliptical.
And I'm not sure I can on my machine. If VO2max is directly related to output power measurements (and emphasis on the **assumption** there), it's right on the upper edge of where my elliptical will measure power output. But I'm sure that I could calculate the pace output on my machine to match, as that continues to monitor beyond the energy output limit the machine has.
But as a general note to anyone remotely interested in the effort on the original Tabata protocol, unless my assumptions (emphasis again!) are way off there is no possible way I could approach that 170% with say wind spints. Not at my weight, no way, no how. If I could accelerate that hard that long I would humble the top sprinters. It would be much more like an uphill wind sprint on a fairly steep hill, or wind sprints while carrying someone fireman's carry style or something.
Here is my .02. I have been doing my tactical body weight training program for about 8 weeks now. I don't have an HRM or any fancy equipment. I just give it 100%, it is a tabata program or HIIT, I honestly don't see a huge difference between the two. Anyway I haven't done any running in 2 months, went for a run yesterday, all I can say is I killed it, my cardio was much stronger, I was stronger, and I completed it with a PR.
I think people have gotten too bogged down in the details....If your heart rate is up, your using those muscles, eating healthy you will see results.
Being I'm the only one still following up here, I'll disagree with you. I'm not "hung up" on anything, just decided to do the Tabata routine out of curiosity to see how hard it was. And if you're suggesting you always give 100%, I'll differ openly. If you do a routine that is hopefully at least a half hour and more likely closer to an hour, you have to output based on knowing you have an hour to do. Very short time periods of really high output are taxing in a different way. If we all really put out 100% out of the gate and had the mental toughness to do it, we would exercise for much shorter periods until we passed out.
My bike computer and elliptical both have HRMs. Though I agree most don't need them, it's put me much more in touch with output levels. And that with other data on the machines has given me a much better perspective of my output abilities for any given time interval I have to work out.
If you don't see a difference between a Tabata interval and your daily routine, then I'd suggest you try one. At my size if I could do Tabata for an hour I'd burn about 1,600 calories. Not happening, not a chance.
So today I did a true Tabata out of curiosity, with outputs based on my calculations of my VO2max power outputs. Just out of curiosity to gauge difficulty.
I actually did a slight variation in extended warm up. I had done some circuit style upper body muscle retention stuff to warm up, then thought the best of it and did 10 minutes on my legs per the protocol. My heart rate actually dropped from the circuit stuff while warming up my legs, but warming up my legs was the concern for me. So after my 10 minutes at 70%, my heart rate was at 99 BPM, having dropped from the 140s during the circuit stuff.
Observations:
Heart rate: Though likely skewed slightly by the extended warm up, my earlier predictions were WAY off. Heart rate rose much quicker than I expected, and the short break allowed almost nothing in the way of bringing it down. By the end of the 2nd 20 second interval, my low heart rate was in the mid 140s. The high had already peaked near 160. By the 4th and 5th intervals it was up near my calculated max. By the last two, I don't think my heart rate went below 170. The highest I noticed was 182. I had by then reached a point of knowing my doctor would have been shaking his head.
Output pains: Again I was way off. The muscle output itself wasn't as bad as I had predicted, but not easy either. The cardio taxation was huge.
Puke factor: Maybe a 4-5 at most. A couple more intervals would have added quickly. Enough to have some wobbly leg, but not to the point of stopping me from walking.
Breathing: On a scale of 1-10, easily 12 or 13. By the end of the second interval, I was breathing harder than I've had to do in a while. I often do some interval stuff at 140-150% power output, and it's not nearly as taxing. By the last couple intervals (I did 7) I felt like I was 100 feet underwater, and had to make it to the surface.
Sweat factor: Took my shirt off since I had a thick LS shirt on for warm up. The intervals happen so fast that really the sweat doesn't come into play until you are almost done. You can tell you are working hard enough to get it flowing by rep 2 or so.
Recovery: I took a 12-20 minute break and got distracted with dinner prep. After the initial few minutes of getting my breathing under control and walking off the wobbly leg, HR recovered as quick as usual. After my break I got back on the machine for some more steady state stuff, but could notice that my breathing was still "off" from the HIIT. Likely still in EPOC mode and catching up from the intervals I guess.
Not as hard on the muscles as I had expected. I rarely got DOMS even in my heavy lift days, so this might be hard to gauge as I don't expect to feel it tomorrow. When I did my after break cardio I knew I had worked before starting, but not to any extreme level.
Overall: An eye opener, and killed some of my former predictions as to the delayed HR spike, muscle loads, etc. I'm in a fairly solid cardio state for my age, and think I could do it multiple days in a row without issue. It was taxing enough that watching data outputs on the machine was difficult, and the load was enough to make accounting for the time factor a hassle as well (my machine pauses and quits counting time). Might see if I can borrow a GoPro and flex arm mount from a photographer neighbor to get data to look at pertaining to HR and the ups and downs.0 -
@robertw486 , I think that poster just meant that in general we get too bogged down with the details, which to be honest was kind of my point in questioning whether an exercise being true HIIT by a certain definition mattered or not. You're still moving, you're still challenging yourself and pushing your own limits, and most importantly you're still showing up
That said I've found your comments on the research and your own personal workouts very interesting. I actually used to do a four minute Tabata as part of an instructor led workout. She would set the timer on her phone and everything. If I recall correctly, she would have us do exercises like jumping jacks, high knee runs, burpees, that sort of thing. And it was "go as fast as you can", so definitely, positively exhausting. And I agree the ten seconds really weren't much of a recovery and in my case, performance in set one was much, much better than the last set.
Nowadays my HIIT is built into certain tracks of the one hour instructor led workouts I do. I'm usually positively doubled over in those segments, but still the nice thing about those classes is that they provide options and each individual can set and push their own limit0 -
@robertw486 , I think that poster just meant that in general we get too bogged down with the details, which to be honest was kind of my point in questioning whether an exercise being true HIIT by a certain definition mattered or not. You're still moving, you're still challenging yourself and pushing your own limits, and most importantly you're still showing up
That said I've found your comments on the research and your own personal workouts very interesting. I actually used to do a four minute Tabata as part of an instructor led workout. She would set the timer on her phone and everything. If I recall correctly, she would have us do exercises like jumping jacks, high knee runs, burpees, that sort of thing. And it was "go as fast as you can", so definitely, positively exhausting. And I agree the ten seconds really weren't much of a recovery and in my case, performance in set one was much, much better than the last set.
Nowadays my HIIT is built into certain tracks of the one hour instructor led workouts I do. I'm usually positively doubled over in those segments, but still the nice thing about those classes is that they provide options and each individual can set and push their own limit
@JaneiR36 I completely agree on the poster previous to me. I was simply stating how the devices put me in better touch with my maximum outputs based on length of time available. For me the data was quite useful, and I think it helped greatly over just estimating how I feel and trying to hit a certain goal for that say one hour interval.
For me doing the actual Tabata really changed some of my earlier misconceptions and predictions on how I would feel. I really expected more muscle strain, but in my case I also used a machine I use frequently and my biking uses similar muscles. So for me I don't think it would affect my muscle and strength gains as much as someone who primarily trained other groups. But I could well be wrong too.
Since I used energy output based on a set protocol, I'm sure the cycles and result would differ from the 100% effort method. I'd say actually if I used the 100% effort method on my elliptical, I would have probably been seeing decline within the first couple of intervals. Even using a set upper limit of output it happened.
And I should have added to my first observations that if the trend is heart rate applies to all people and wasn't changed much by my extended warm up, I think most people should probably at least consult their doctor before doing intervals at really high intensity. I got stress tested on a treadmill a couple years back, but I think my doctor still would have at least been shaking his head and giving me cautions. That is another area where having outputs via devices could be a really good thing.0 -
I like data, if I had an HRM it would be great. I did another Tabata workout last night. The trainer from the biggest loser was running this one. We did about 4 minutes of mobility warm ups, then 4 exercises, 8 rounds per exercise 20secs on 10 off, with 1 minute off between different exercises. We did burpees with a jump at the top, pushups with an arm lift at the bottom, step up on a box then over always keeping 1 foot on the box, and rock bottom squats. Def. have some mild DOMS this morning, nothing debilitating or anything but I can tell I used some shoulder muscles I haven't used lately. Per the program I will do the same workout today, then I will do a day of mobility training and another of restorative yoga, then a completely new tabata routine.
I feel great, everybodys 100% is different, IDK if I would recommend Tabata for someone who was completely out of shape, but if you have been exercising for a little bit and doctors are okay with your HR being way up for about 20mins, try it and see what you think.0 -
My 2 cents.
In of itself, HIIT or cardio in general should not interfere directly with your ability to gain muscle.
With that said, unless you are part of a specific target audience (like extremely obese individuals or those very new to weight training), your ability to gain muscle is about lifting heavy, eating enough protein, the rest period, and eating at a slight calorie surplus.
Now if performing HIIT or cardio burns extreme amounts of calories, then you have to make sure you eat all of those calories back so you remain in a calorie surplus. So if it makes it easier to eat at a calorie surplus by limiting how much you burn from HIIT or cardio, then you may want to be aware of how much you perform.
Also, for those that practice recomposition, I have never followed that so I don't have experience in that area that I can share. I just know it is much more complicated than the usual cut/bulk method.0 -
It is worth mentioning that the body of evidence done on HIIT and muscle is done one men.
Some evidence suggests women might be better with steady state cardio.
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/why-women-should-not-train-like-men/
^point 5.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Related question for anyone following... I hope one of the more informed here has an answer I am having a hard time finding.
Being less familiar with VO2max testing than some are, I do understand how they could test to 170% of VO2max using true gas exchange equipment and have read on some of the various testing protocols.
BUT, I can't find anything useful guiding me towards answers on VO2max beyond 100%, and the work load in watts, speeds (at set resistance), total output in calories per minute, or anything I can find useful for my purpose. What I'm essentially looking for is the relationship to energy outputs, in an attempt to calculate my 170% workload. Just to give the "true" Tabata IE1 (might have screwed that up a second time!) protocol a spin on my elliptical.
And I'm not sure I can on my machine. If VO2max is directly related to output power measurements (and emphasis on the **assumption** there), it's right on the upper edge of where my elliptical will measure power output. But I'm sure that I could calculate the pace output on my machine to match, as that continues to monitor beyond the energy output limit the machine has.
But as a general note to anyone remotely interested in the effort on the original Tabata protocol, unless my assumptions (emphasis again!) are way off there is no possible way I could approach that 170% with say wind spints. Not at my weight, no way, no how. If I could accelerate that hard that long I would humble the top sprinters. It would be much more like an uphill wind sprint on a fairly steep hill, or wind sprints while carrying someone fireman's carry style or something.
The way these protocols were built is that resistance and speed where set in pre-tests so that a linear response could be reached in the exercise intensity on the equipment used - on a spin cycle (ergometer) - watt output makes sense and it is produced at a constant rpm as this reduces some physio-mechanical variability (at least in the mechanical coupling). This was done with increased resistance.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.467.6234&rep=rep1&type=pdf
If you want to do that at set resistance it is a different ballgame.
Try these tests:
http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/Fitness_Assessment/CV_Fitness_Tests.pdf
(don't do these alone - someone needs to track the numbers for you and for safety...)
0 -
@Stoshew71My 2 cents.
In of itself, HIIT or cardio in general should not interfere directly with your ability to gain muscle.
With that said, unless you are part of a specific target audience (like extremely obese individuals or those very new to weight training), your ability to gain muscle is about lifting heavy, eating enough protein, the rest period, and eating at a slight calorie surplus.
Now if performing HIIT or cardio burns extreme amounts of calories, then you have to make sure you eat all of those calories back so you remain in a calorie surplus. So if it makes it easier to eat at a calorie surplus by limiting how much you burn from HIIT or cardio, then you may want to be aware of how much you perform.
Also, for those that practice recomposition, I have never followed that so I don't have experience in that area that I can share. I just know it is much more complicated than the usual cut/bulk method.
There are some complex recomp regimes but it can be as simple as eat at or around maintenance and train.
That's all I do - body recomposition changes follow performance improvements.
I don't follow any specific food/nutrient timing constraints and macros are far less important than when cutting. It's just part of living an active life and enjoying my exercise.
A reservation I have about HIIT (real HIIT not fashion HIIT !) is when it's combined with a heavy lifting routine and a calorie deficit. That's adding three stressors together and likely to affect performance and recovery.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »@robertw486 , I think that poster just meant that in general we get too bogged down with the details, which to be honest was kind of my point in questioning whether an exercise being true HIIT by a certain definition mattered or not. You're still moving, you're still challenging yourself and pushing your own limits, and most importantly you're still showing up
That said I've found your comments on the research and your own personal workouts very interesting. I actually used to do a four minute Tabata as part of an instructor led workout. She would set the timer on her phone and everything. If I recall correctly, she would have us do exercises like jumping jacks, high knee runs, burpees, that sort of thing. And it was "go as fast as you can", so definitely, positively exhausting. And I agree the ten seconds really weren't much of a recovery and in my case, performance in set one was much, much better than the last set.
Nowadays my HIIT is built into certain tracks of the one hour instructor led workouts I do. I'm usually positively doubled over in those segments, but still the nice thing about those classes is that they provide options and each individual can set and push their own limit
@JaneiR36 I completely agree on the poster previous to me. I was simply stating how the devices put me in better touch with my maximum outputs based on length of time available. For me the data was quite useful, and I think it helped greatly over just estimating how I feel and trying to hit a certain goal for that say one hour interval.
For me doing the actual Tabata really changed some of my earlier misconceptions and predictions on how I would feel. I really expected more muscle strain, but in my case I also used a machine I use frequently and my biking uses similar muscles. So for me I don't think it would affect my muscle and strength gains as much as someone who primarily trained other groups. But I could well be wrong too.
Since I used energy output based on a set protocol, I'm sure the cycles and result would differ from the 100% effort method. I'd say actually if I used the 100% effort method on my elliptical, I would have probably been seeing decline within the first couple of intervals. Even using a set upper limit of output it happened.
And I should have added to my first observations that if the trend is heart rate applies to all people and wasn't changed much by my extended warm up, I think most people should probably at least consult their doctor before doing intervals at really high intensity. I got stress tested on a treadmill a couple years back, but I think my doctor still would have at least been shaking his head and giving me cautions. That is another area where having outputs via devices could be a really good thing.
This cannot be stressed (hah) enough.
It's a great way to discover underlying cardiovascular issues. But you don't want to do that while you are running up and down stairs or in the gym.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Related question for anyone following... I hope one of the more informed here has an answer I am having a hard time finding.
Being less familiar with VO2max testing than some are, I do understand how they could test to 170% of VO2max using true gas exchange equipment and have read on some of the various testing protocols.
BUT, I can't find anything useful guiding me towards answers on VO2max beyond 100%, and the work load in watts, speeds (at set resistance), total output in calories per minute, or anything I can find useful for my purpose. What I'm essentially looking for is the relationship to energy outputs, in an attempt to calculate my 170% workload. Just to give the "true" Tabata IE1 (might have screwed that up a second time!) protocol a spin on my elliptical.
And I'm not sure I can on my machine. If VO2max is directly related to output power measurements (and emphasis on the **assumption** there), it's right on the upper edge of where my elliptical will measure power output. But I'm sure that I could calculate the pace output on my machine to match, as that continues to monitor beyond the energy output limit the machine has.
But as a general note to anyone remotely interested in the effort on the original Tabata protocol, unless my assumptions (emphasis again!) are way off there is no possible way I could approach that 170% with say wind spints. Not at my weight, no way, no how. If I could accelerate that hard that long I would humble the top sprinters. It would be much more like an uphill wind sprint on a fairly steep hill, or wind sprints while carrying someone fireman's carry style or something.
The way these protocols were built is that resistance and speed where set in pre-tests so that a linear response could be reached in the exercise intensity on the equipment used - on a spin cycle (ergometer) - watt output makes sense and it is produced at a constant rpm as this reduces some physio-mechanical variability (at least in the mechanical coupling). This was done with increased resistance.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.467.6234&rep=rep1&type=pdf
If you want to do that at set resistance it is a different ballgame.
Try these tests:
http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/Fitness_Assessment/CV_Fitness_Tests.pdf
(don't do these alone - someone needs to track the numbers for you and for safety...)
@EvgeniZyntx Thanks for the links. That first one graphed the power output in watts, and despite their much more in depth gas exchange testing and pre testing, it's essentially linear.
Just out of further curiosity comparing elliptical motion to bikes, I looked back at some of my biking segments and estimated wattage averages. For my estimated VO2max I'd have to hit about 410-420 watts to replicate the Tabata IE1. Though I don't have many short segments to compare, I can reach near that on the bike for several minutes without nearly the output effort I had to put into the elliptical. I'm not sure if this is just due to the ellipse of the motion or the isolation of the larger muscles. For me and my crappy old mountain bike, it's about a 20-21 MPH load, and I've done that pace for over a mile at a time on the level stuff.
Short version, the calculations on power seem to work, but don't really convert well on my machine and I might have worked at a higher level. Was still something to mix it up with though.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »@robertw486 , I think that poster just meant that in general we get too bogged down with the details, which to be honest was kind of my point in questioning whether an exercise being true HIIT by a certain definition mattered or not. You're still moving, you're still challenging yourself and pushing your own limits, and most importantly you're still showing up
That said I've found your comments on the research and your own personal workouts very interesting. I actually used to do a four minute Tabata as part of an instructor led workout. She would set the timer on her phone and everything. If I recall correctly, she would have us do exercises like jumping jacks, high knee runs, burpees, that sort of thing. And it was "go as fast as you can", so definitely, positively exhausting. And I agree the ten seconds really weren't much of a recovery and in my case, performance in set one was much, much better than the last set.
Nowadays my HIIT is built into certain tracks of the one hour instructor led workouts I do. I'm usually positively doubled over in those segments, but still the nice thing about those classes is that they provide options and each individual can set and push their own limit
@JaneiR36 I completely agree on the poster previous to me. I was simply stating how the devices put me in better touch with my maximum outputs based on length of time available. For me the data was quite useful, and I think it helped greatly over just estimating how I feel and trying to hit a certain goal for that say one hour interval.
For me doing the actual Tabata really changed some of my earlier misconceptions and predictions on how I would feel. I really expected more muscle strain, but in my case I also used a machine I use frequently and my biking uses similar muscles. So for me I don't think it would affect my muscle and strength gains as much as someone who primarily trained other groups. But I could well be wrong too.
Since I used energy output based on a set protocol, I'm sure the cycles and result would differ from the 100% effort method. I'd say actually if I used the 100% effort method on my elliptical, I would have probably been seeing decline within the first couple of intervals. Even using a set upper limit of output it happened.
And I should have added to my first observations that if the trend is heart rate applies to all people and wasn't changed much by my extended warm up, I think most people should probably at least consult their doctor before doing intervals at really high intensity. I got stress tested on a treadmill a couple years back, but I think my doctor still would have at least been shaking his head and giving me cautions. That is another area where having outputs via devices could be a really good thing.
This cannot be stressed (hah) enough.
It's a great way to discover underlying cardiovascular issues. But you don't want to do that while you are running up and down stairs or in the gym.
Yeah. I did realize I actually did the warm up at a slightly higher load (70% vs 50%), but that wouldn't have made much difference in heart rate based on how quick it spiked. Even though I've been stress tested the thought of aborting for safety concerns briefly crossed my mind. But my hard headed nature figured at that point what harm was another interval or two.
Other than converting the elliptical drive system, I have no stationary bike to do it on. I'm guessing I overdid it based on my comparison of machines vs bike, so that would have caused a lesser heart rate spike.
But if I can prove it I can start hype about the RW486 protocol MCM1 (my calculation mistake 1) that shows the Tabata test groups were young wimps.0 -
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 Evo3dogsrunning 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.
I agree with all this. I've seen various peer reviewed studies stating low-mod intensity cardio burns more calories from fat but less calories overall when compared to HIIT. However, HIIT also suppresses appetite and therefore helps you achieve a calorie deficit without feeling like you're Tom Hanks in Cast Away. So if you stay properly hydrated throughout the day (especially during workouts), as water is needed for the hydrolysis(breakdown) reaction to metabolise fat molecules, you'll definitely burn through fat quite substantially and get mad results in definition.
HIIT aid recovery and increases cardiovascular performance and muscle strength and endurance. However it doesn't have to be limited to twice a week. Personally I do about 10-20 mins of HIIT most times I go to the gym as a warm up; else I do 20-45 mins of MMA with stretching, push-ups and abs during rests. 30secs SPRINT-30secs rest-repeat for 10 mins on either the stationary bike and/or incline treadmill(personal favourite for boosting sprint speed and stamina) before moving on to my strength training.
This system allows me to get a dope warm up, my body glistening with hard work and burn a lot of calories without exhausting myself before hitting the weights.
Hope this helps someone. Let me know your thoughts.
I'm an aspiring personal trainer who wants the best for everyone. I don't do excuses, I do results. Whatever your situation, we can make crazy progress and reach our goals together X
0 -
CarltonAyoola 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 Evo3dogsrunning 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.
I agree with all this. I've seen various peer reviewed studies stating low-mod intensity cardio burns more calories from fat but less calories overall when compared to HIIT. However, HIIT also suppresses appetite and therefore helps you achieve a calorie deficit without feeling like you're Tom Hanks in Cast Away. So if you stay properly hydrated throughout the day (especially during workouts), as water is needed for the hydrolysis(breakdown) reaction to metabolise fat molecules, you'll definitely burn through fat quite substantially and get mad results in definition.
HIIT aid recovery and increases cardiovascular performance and muscle strength and endurance. However it doesn't have to be limited to twice a week. Personally I do about 10-20 mins of HIIT most times I go to the gym as a warm up; else I do 20-45 mins of MMA with stretching, push-ups and abs during rests. 30secs SPRINT-30secs rest-repeat for 10 mins on either the stationary bike and/or incline treadmill(personal favourite for boosting sprint speed and stamina) before moving on to my strength training.
This system allows me to get a dope warm up, my body glistening with hard work and burn a lot of calories without exhausting myself before hitting the weights.
Hope this helps someone. Let me know your thoughts.
I'm an aspiring personal trainer who wants the best for everyone. I don't do excuses, I do results. Whatever your situation, we can make crazy progress and reach our goals together X
Wouldn't total calorie burn depend on how long you did either exercise format?
Also satiety is individual. Do you have any references to your statement of HIIT suppressing appetite? More so than low/moderate intensity cardio, anyway?0 -
kiahdarby257 wrote: »I've recently read that intense cardio such as HIIT can be bad for those hard earned gains from lifting weights...any thoughts?
"The New Rules of Lifting for Women" recommends intervals over steady state cardio - "You've stopped doing "aerobics" and started doing something that resembles strength training, at least in terms of energy. You're selectively using glycogen-fueled movements with the goal of forcing your body to use more fat while it recovers."0 -
Time for a quick bump and update.
So I decided to run the IE1 protocol on my elliptical for a week straight, mostly since I have been tight for time to work out. The elliptical motion makes it a bit tricky to hit 170% of my VO2max, and requires really high stride rate along with high resistance. I did some experimentation to find the right settings, including ramp rate, so that I could accelerate hard enough and reach the output level needed with foot speed. One of the real concerns was the deceleration after the work period. Since the elliptical can't freewheel like a bike, I found a way to back off without tossing myself around, and attempted to compensate with the understanding that a few more calories would be added to my total.
On my machine, my current VO2max is just shy of 30 Kcals per minute output. The problem is that the instantaneous reading only reads to just past 25 Kcals/minute. I figured out how to get around this by using stride rate at set resistance.
Sooooooo.....
One week wasn't terrible. In the past elliptical experiment I had warmed up above protocol, and that had a more profound impact than I would have thought. Even though I've lost some cardio base since the last time, my HR was slightly lower overall, and the peaks didn't ramp up quite as quick during the first few intervals. After interval 4 or 5, forget it. HR is going to be up and stay up with very little recovery. I did have one day where my HR spike was quicker and higher, but I had put in a long day at work and really hadn't eaten any carbs in 5-6 hours prior to the intervals.
After the 4 hard interval days, I could feel it in my legs. Not terrible, but similar to a semi heavy lifting day. The fifth day with the steady state and only four intervals at high intensity was like a rest day though.
Further observations from previous one time efforts:
170% is no joke, and very difficult on the elliptical due to the motion. I think it would be much less awkward (and safer!) to do on a bike. But regardless of machine type, 170% is reaching the point where seconds grow very long. Since I couldn't accurately predict my acceleration rate I had to estimate the intervals and then crunch numbers after the fact to make sure I hit the 170% goal. On day three my foot lifted and landed out of position when I was accelerating into the 2nd (I think) interval. I knew it cost some time, so pushed a little harder for the remaining intervals. When I did the numbers I ended up hitting 174% that day, and felt the difference in my legs big time. I would guess that if I was to shoot for 180% the puke urge would be growing rapidly after the intervals. But on the flip side, I can do intervals at 140-150% way longer. I might experiment some to see the time differences.
I don't think I'd want to do 6 weeks of this on the elliptical. The chances of screwing up or getting tossed off would be too high. I'd like to set up a bike method to take out that awkward portion, but don't currently have the right equipment. I'm seriously considering converting the generator from the elliptical to be driven by a bike crank .
If I had the time I'd love to do some long term testing of various intervals at above VO2max intensities, using real lab testing for more defined metrics. Looking back at data, I think hard pushes helped my anaerobic abilities more than the VO2max changes, what is really what the original testing showed. If anyone has any studies on lower intensity HIIT stuff, I'd love to see them. I just think that the IE1 intensity is trick to hit for a lot of exercise types, and doing intervals at 140-150% for a longer time per interval or more intervals would surely be safer, and probably more fun.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!
RPMs is only half of what matters. The other half is torque vector. More force on the pedals at a slower rate is the same as less force at a higher rate, in terms of effort and speed. You can't tell much from one of those variables without the other.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions