HIIT Workouts vs Cardio Workouts

Yes. I have read the same thing. I think HIIT is better in my opinion, because it raises the resting heart rate after the exercise for several hours.

This allows you to continue burning calories after your workout out. It is much quicker also.

AnvilHead wrote: »

Not to mention the facts that:

1) True HIIT workouts suck. They're hard and make you want to puke and pass out while you gasp for breath and slowly drown in a puddle of your own sweat.

2) What most people think is HIIT, really isn't HIIT. What most people are doing when they think they're doing HIIT is actually cardio intervals, which is a different thing.


The EPOC (post-exercise "afterburn") is grossly overstated by most people, and doesn't compensate for the fact that the workouts are much shorter than LISS (low intensity steady state) cardio workouts, so they burn less calories in that regard. If you can do a HIIT workout for 30-45 minutes, rest assured that you're not really doing HIIT.

This is informative. Cardio intervals I've done and never fooled myself into believing I was doing HiIT. You mean to tall me that's what people think HiIT is? LOL.

The HIIT workouts are great when you are pressed for time, you can incorporate weights and cardio for a quick cardio session as well if you do circuit training(multiple sets of different exercises with no rest in between)

I have read that HIIT Workouts are more effective than Cardio Workouts.
They are cardio workouts, just a different type.
More effective for what? (What are your goals? What are your capabilities?)
More effective when compared what other types of cardio?

Are there any truths to this?
Very, very little. Mostly gimmicky marketing. Take a pinch of science and add a ton of hyperbole....
Yes it has some value (often as part of an overall training plan) to many people but IMHO very, very, few people should solely do HIIT. It's a good last resort though if you are very short of time.
It's also unsuitable for many people or a just plain poor option.

I know that you burn calories after doing HIIT Workouts than you do Cardio Workouts.
That's the hyperbole at work!
A higher percentage EPOC (but still very low) of a small burn is totally insignificant. Remember true HIIT workouts include recovery time and the ultra high intensity portions are very short duration.
Compared to steady state (even lower EPOC percentage) but potentially has a much higher number to apply that small percentage to - still pretty insignificant until you are into long duration training.

hoppy62 wrote: »

just as a matter of interest I was lead to believe by a personal trainer that HIIT stood for High intensity interval training which is a great way to boost cardio fitness over a period of time but cardio fitness does not necessarily bring massive calorie burn, this is achieved only by the long haul low intensity steady state, it was simplified to me by explanation that the body has to burn the sugars in your blood over a period of exercise before it can start to turn the body fat into sugars that are needed to function hence burning more calories so although there is evidence that HIIT is a great fast way to increase cardio fitness it isn’t much good as a calorie/fat burn work out

Think about this for a minute. Why does it matter if the calories you are burning are from sugars, glycogen or fat stores. Whichever you burn will be the first to be replenished from calories consumed. So, aside from burning more calories from working out longer, it doesn't matter, or it doesn't matter enough to make a difference. There may be some different inefficiencies in how fat/glycogen/sugars are restored, but it isn't material.

Having said that, I don't do HIIT. Best I do is cardio intervals on the treadmill. HIIT requires near 100% effort for a minute or two at a time and just seems too much for me.

Hi i do a mixture of both, most of my cardio stuff is intervall training but not intense enough to be HIIT, 2 - (max) 3 times a week i do a HIIT session (6 -8 sets of full intensity work for 30 Seconds with 30 seconds active rest between sets) if you do HIIT right you will not really be capable of much more then thet, in fact you will be absolouteley jiggered and probalbly think you are going to die!
Anything less then thet intensity and you are not doing HIIT

For 15-20 minutes of HIIT (80-90 percent of my max heart rate) I would burn the same amount as doing a 30 minute steady state cardio workout. SO I enjoy HIIT for that, however it sucks and I don't do it more than three times a week.

I don't find HIIT has ever helped with my cardio endurance. So I like to do a mixture of cardio some days (hate pretty much all cardio and HIIT tbh) and HIIT a few times and weight lifting. If you want an "after burn" weight lifting would be better for you I'd assume, since muscle burns more calories than fat anyway.

I figure you'd basically have no way of really knowing what an after burn effect would grant you in terms of extra calories so really just pick something you like doing, or the least objectionable activity.

wally2wiki wrote: »

Yes. I have read the same thing. I think HIIT is better in my opinion, because it raises the resting heart rate after the exercise for several hours.

This allows you to continue burning calories after your workout out. It is much quicker also.

False. As mentioned epoc is highly exaggerated.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition