Jogging v hiit?

I believe that 30 minutes of insanity would burn more, where did you get that number? In one of the 45 minutes videos I burn over 900 calories

patslitzker wrote: »

I believe that 30 minutes of insanity would burn more, where did you get that number? In one of the 45 minutes videos I burn over 900 calories

How are you getting those readings? An HRM?
Realize that it takes A LOT of intensity (and Insanity is doable even at 80% effort) to burn 900 calories in 45 minutes.
Lebron James burns about 605 calories in 40 minutes of a basketball game. And he's 270lbs.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/fitness-pictures/how-many-calories-do-olympians-burn.aspx#07



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

I use a chest strap HRM. I'm 250 lbs 17% body fat.

Truly, I wouldn't worry about it enough to choose one over the other just based on how many calories you will burn. HIIT is great because you're mixing things up and it probably goes by faster. Steadily jogging is great because you're building up your endurance and should be able to slowly increase your pace as you build up. In general, though, i thought the rule was that you burn about 100 calories per mile.

patslitzker wrote: »

I use a chest strap HRM. I'm 250 lbs 17% body fat.

Really? How tall are you? If you're under 6'2, then you're a really defined muscular person. Not many out there built like that. Got a pic?

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

OP - if you prefer jogging, maybe add some sprints and walk intervals to mix it up a little.

One reason is Because ur resting metabolic rate for approx 24 hrs after the hit is elevated therefore u continue to burn for up to 24 hrs afterward

tarothelp wrote: »

One reason is Because ur resting metabolic rate for approx 24 hrs after the hit is elevated therefore u continue to burn for up to 24 hrs afterward

EPOC for HIIT is about 8-10% of net, so in a HIIT session burning perhaps 200 calories you'll get an extra 20, on a good day. That's assuming one is doing true HIIT.

Insanity isn't true HIIT.

EPOC for steady state and circuit training is between 4-6% of net. So a steady state session burning say 300 calories will get perhaps an extra 15 calories.

msthang444 wrote: »

Can someone help? I'm having issues reconciling jogging v hiit. If i jog 2.5 miles in 30 min i burn ~300 cals. Turbofire/insanity for 30 min burns 181-240 cals. Why is the hiit supposedly better?

You're looking at these from simply an energy expenditure perspective, not a fitness perspective. Also, it's pretty trendy to call anything that involves intervals HIIT...most of the things people are doing aren't actually HIIT. HIIT was designed to improve the fitness of athletes that are already very fit...it is generally done as a part of a training program...it's not the training program itself because it's too intense to do it on a daily basis...usually once per week, maybe twice as a part of an overall program.

msthang444 wrote: »

chelseymorris185 wrote: »

msthang444 wrote: »

Can someone help? I'm having issues reconciling jogging v hiit. If i jog 2.5 miles in 30 min i burn ~300 cals. Turbofire/insanity for 30 min burns 181-240 cals. Why is the hiit supposedly better?

I don't their either is "better" it depends what your body goals are.

Mine is to burn fat....

That comes from you having the correct calorie balance over an extended period of time.
Sure cardio (or activity or any exercise) can contribute. If you are prepared to devote hours then it can contribute a lot.

If you really just want to maximise the calorie burn then go at the fastest speed you can sustain for the amount of time available to you. It's as simple as that.
Would say that just calorie burns are not a great goal though - sorry. Think ahead to maintenance at your goal weight.......


BTW - basic HRMs like the FT4 aren't generally good at estimating calorie burns from exercise but will be awful for interval training. That's where a lot of the mythical and extravagant calorie estimates for HIIT (or exercised labelled HIIT) come from - putting misplaced faith in devices designed for counting heartbeats and thinking that equals calories.

msthang444 wrote: »

Can someone help? I'm having issues reconciling jogging v hiit. If i jog 2.5 miles in 30 min i burn ~300 cals. Turbofire/insanity for 30 min burns 181-240 cals. Why is the hiit supposedly better?

Both have their place, and both burn similar calories. Standard steady state cardio is easier to quantify because it burns the majority of the calories during exercise, but HIIT has an 'after-burn' effect (EPOC) which brings it in line with work done in steady state. From a purely calorie stand-point the main interest in HIIT workouts is that you can get similar caloric burns in approximately 1/3 the duration. Studies also show that HIIT has an increased reduction of fat over a similar period of steady state. Beyond that, everything becomes a bit subjective and the benefits or downfalls will depend on your goals.

Programs like Insanity of the like are billed as HIIT, but they are actually moderate and high intensity steady state. If it is continuous motion at the high HR, it should be logging more calories then less intense jogging, but because it is intervals that are meant to riase and lower the HR, that is were readings for calories become a bit blurred.

So what really matters?

In my opinion, for anyone starting steady state is key until they get muscles and joints used to the movement and impact. at some point I fully believe in adding short session of HIIT (4 weeks or less and maybe a few times a year to every 3-4 months) in with steady state. Anyone can do it, but when done correctly (80-90% of max, aka not catching your breathe and feeling like you will cough up a lung) it isn't for everyone. The good news is, while HIIT was reserved for athletes trying to gain additional, small competitive edges, work over the last few years shows that average exercising adults benefit even more in their cardiovascular improvements (the worse shape you are in, the greater the benefit).

It is certainly worth looking into and studying about to see if you believe it is right for your goals.

Most people starting out and even through their whole weight loss work can simply eat at deficit and walk to lose weight and see cardio improvement. Those that look for more challenge or have performance goals, that is when HIIT would be considered.

Then again, because opinions vary. I always suggest doing reading from sources you trust. Then try it for yourself. What you like and think works for you is really all that matters.

NorthCascades wrote: »

When you get right down to it, most of a HIIT workout is spent resting, so you'll get more calories and more afterburn without all the rest - just doing steady, intense exercise instead. HIIT is for slackers.

That's funny.

I would recommend anyone interested read up.