Short, High Intensity Debunked

2»

Replies

  • carolyn000000
    carolyn000000 Posts: 179 Member
    Wow I am really enjoying reading all you comments! I always learn so much here. After reading everything I have a couple of thoughts. The reason it is important to understand that glycogen is burned during a workout is because you need to replace some right after working out (within 30 minutes). I feel like crap if I don't. I do believe, correct me if I am wrong, that you can use all of your glycogen while working out and then you body starts burning fat. I mean , it makes sense. If you run out of glycogen your body has to get energy from somewhere.

    My other thought is that the author of the article overstated his case in the beginning to make a point to strike interest and get people thinking.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,061 Member
    carolyn000000 wrote: »
    Wow I am really enjoying reading all you comments! I always learn so much here. After reading everything I have a couple of thoughts. The reason it is important to understand that glycogen is burned during a workout is because you need to replace some right after working out (within 30 minutes).
    It doesn't HAVE to be replaced immediately. A true depletion of all glycogen storage during exercise would have people LITERALLY stopping.
    I feel like crap if I don't.
    Most people feel much less energetic after working out.
    I do believe, correct me if I am wrong, that you can use all of your glycogen while working out and then you body starts burning fat. I mean , it makes sense. If you run out of glycogen your body has to get energy from somewhere.
    It's much harder than everyone thinks. Again, if you truly depleted all your glycogen stores, you'd stop immediately. You wouldn't be able to do anymore. Also known as hitting a wall.
    My other thought is that the author of the article overstated his case in the beginning to make a point to strike interest and get people thinking.
    Agreed.

    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
    9285851.png
  • carolyn000000
    carolyn000000 Posts: 179 Member
    I just did a Spartan race that was a grueling two and a half hours. Of course I needed to replace some glycogen after about an hour. So, it did need to be replaced immediately or my performance would have decreased immensely. However, I would have finished, even if I had to crawl. Also, yes, everyone is tired after a workout, but I am wiped out all day if I don't get some carbs and protein in me asap.

    Even so, I am 55 so perhaps a bit more sensitive to energy levels etc.
  • carolyn000000
    carolyn000000 Posts: 179 Member
    Also, I think because I did replace glycogen at appropriate times , during and after my race, I feel pretty good today.
  • carolyn000000
    carolyn000000 Posts: 179 Member
    Makes total sense. I think I had that bonk when I was out in a long run and forgot my snack. I decided to push through anyway, and after about two hours I got confused and didn't know where I was for a sec. Luckily I do a trail run that does not take me too far from my car!
    We had a dietician come speak to our Spartan group, and she said you need glycogen, even if it is candy like skittles, after an hour during a race and every 30 mins or so after which is kind of what I follow. It would be nice to go longer than that so I don't need to have to carry a snack especially for shorter races.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    After about 5 minutes my heart rate was still below 100. I asked if the machine would go much faster and mentioned that from my home equipment and other workouts, that I thought it would take a lot more effort to get to the 125-130 range. Dr Serious assured me that my HR would be in range within a minute or two max.

    I think it was close to 5 minutes later that he instructed one of the nurses to hit me with the IV, which was for some type of artificial adrenaline to spike the HR up to the levels needed for the test. I have no idea how fast the machine went, but taking strides that long without breaking into a jog wasn't easy. No feat of speed, but the nurses seemed to get a kick out of the doctor ignoring my comments on my heart rate and what it would take to get it there.

    Great story. That is sad you couldn't get a full test out of it that would be useful data for you.

    One of our local hospitals that is well known for it's heart center, uses their 3 testing rooms for VO2max tests if you just want to pay for one. $60.
    So they got all the equipment needed, and the techs used then are more knowledgeable about letting it go as best you can. Dr isn't even present, he reviews the data later for the LT/AT point and VO2max point.
    During the interview, they find out how much you've been working out to decide which protocol to use.

    First one I got was one where the incline went so high up though only tad fast walking pace, he stopped me from running at one point.
    My achilles were not used to that at all - the twanging stopped me before HRmax, but at least got my VO2max and LT/AT level. Already had HRmax on my own test.

    Next test was speed over incline, though they both went up, and running allowed. I prepared better by having more hill sprints done (I enjoy that type of intervals more than HIIT on a track).
    Sadly the data available wasn't per min, but per 3 min at the pace/incline changes. Very annoyed. At least pretty straight line.
  • Theo166
    Theo166 Posts: 2,564 Member
    edited July 2017
    carolyn000000 wrote: »
    This guy goes so far as to ridicule those who do short, high intensity workouts vs long, slow in his opening paragraph. I think you need both types in an effective workout program to improve performance, especially if you are an athlete.

    https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/new9e8/your-seven-minute-workout-sucks

    It's a strawman argument they are making.

    As I've read, the claim is that HIT gives physiological benefits that don't come with lower intensity training. The benefits show up in your bloodwork more than the scale.

    https://www.fast-exercises.com/
  • esjones12
    esjones12 Posts: 1,363 Member
    carolyn000000 wrote: »
    This guy goes so far as to ridicule those who do short, high intensity workouts vs long, slow in his opening paragraph. I think you need both types in an effective workout program to improve performance, especially if you are an athlete.

    https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/new9e8/your-seven-minute-workout-sucks

    There are benefits to both types of workouts. For an athlete, the amount at which you should be using one, the other, or both is going to depend astronomically upon which sport (or sports) you are pursuing. Same goes for diet (high carb vs keto vs metabolic flexibility). And of course your individual physiology will play a part, as well as your desire to optimize your performance.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    Theo166 wrote: »
    carolyn000000 wrote: »
    This guy goes so far as to ridicule those who do short, high intensity workouts vs long, slow in his opening paragraph. I think you need both types in an effective workout program to improve performance, especially if you are an athlete.

    https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/new9e8/your-seven-minute-workout-sucks

    It's a strawman argument they are making.

    As I've read, the claim is that HIT gives physiological benefits that don't come with lower intensity training. The benefits show up in your bloodwork more than the scale.

    https://www.fast-exercises.com/

    They also show up faster. And are applicable even to elite and borderline elite athletes. You can induce measurable improvement in 4-6 weeks before a competition in Vo2Max and other relevant competition stats.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,061 Member
    edited July 2017
    heybales wrote: »
    I'm not sure I understand some of the comments being made about glycogen being used first though - studies don't show that at all. Shoot - individual VO2max tests with actual data don't show that happening either.
    Krebs cycle. And while fats and proteins can be used too, conversion is much harder. The body takes the easiest route first. This is what I've been taught and haven't seen anything different. If there's any info or links you have to show new evidence or studies, I'm always up for that.

    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
    9285851.png
  • dmkoenig
    dmkoenig Posts: 299 Member
    If you are interested in maintaining fitness as you age, incorporating High Intensity Training into your regimen is the ticket according to the studies referenced by Joe Friel in his Fast After Fifty book. LSD alone will not sustain fitness levels.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited July 2017
    But the Krebs cycle includes fat oxidation in it - merely that you require enough oxygen to obtain it. It's not as easy during intense stuff - but plenty easy during rest up to anaerobic threshold.
    That's why every VO2max test, if you can view the data for what the energy source is, shows fat utilized at higher % at start of test, up to almost nothing at the anaerobic threshold.
    For example - this shows the RQ info where .85 is 50% each, and a column shows the exact % being used right then.
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/images/2012/01/a-look-at-testing-with-new-leaf-fitness-for-garmin-device-calorie-calculations-3.jpg
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/images/2012/01/a-look-at-testing-with-new-leaf-fitness-for-garmin-device-calorie-calculations-17.png

    If it was always carbs first - then no one would show the upwards of 90% fat utilitization at rest, outside presence of insulin causing whatever carbs you ate to be stored and used first as energy source (along with fat you ate and available prior to fat release being shut down).

    It's what this calculator is based on. The fact you can try to get as low carb usage as possible as energy source, as much fat as possible - through training. Or carb loading. Or eating during the event.
    http://endurancecalculator.com/EnduranceCalculatorForm.html

    Here's the study.
    http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000960

    From study, which matches plenty of other discussions about this order and method of energy source.
    Here the main focus is on making your available carbs last as long as needed to avoid "the wall".
    Muscular contractions can be fueled by a variety of metabolic substrates, most important of which, in the context of long-distance running, are carbohydrate, derived from liver and muscle glycogen as well as from plasma glucose, and fat, including intramuscular triacylglycerols and plasma free fatty acids liberated from adipose tissue. An apparent paradox of endurance sports is that even the leanest athletes store enough metabolic potential energy to power multiple, back-to-back marathons, if only the working muscles could derive their power exclusively from fat.

    Muscles store glycogen as well, but only for local use. Whereas liver glycogen can be made globally available to metabolically active cells (including working myocytes) throughout the body via glycogenolysis and release of the resulting glycogen-derived glucose into the bloodstream, muscle glycogen can be used only by the cell in which it has been synthesized and stored. The reason for this difference between liver and muscle glycogen reserves is that myocytes, in contrast to hepatocytes, lack the enzyme glucose-6-phosphatase that catalyzes the final reaction of glycogenolysis and permits membrane glucose transporters to liberate intracellular glucose. As a result, glycogen stores of the specific muscles to be used in an endurance event must be loaded prior to exercise. Optimization strategies for ‘carbohydrate loading’ abound, and not all of those used by athletes are based on sound physiologic reasoning.

    The model incorporates the metabolic cost of running and the known dependence of fat versus carbohydrate metabolism on relative exertion. This work reveals the functional dependencies of the distance required to run glycogen stores to depletion, as well as the fastest pace at which a given distance, such as the marathon, can be run without exhausting glycogen stores.

    Working muscles consume a mixture of metabolic substrates, and the relative contributions of fat and carbohydrate to this mixture dynamically depend on exercise intensity and the size of available glycogen reservoirs: Carbohydrates account for a greater proportion at higher intensities, while fat accounts for a greater proportion as available glycogen is depleted [24]. These trends reflect the significantly greater efficiency of carbohydrate relative to fat as a fuel for aerobic exercise, as discussed in greater detail in the Methods section: Carbohydrate oxidation typically generates approximately per mole of respired oxygen, whereas fatty acid oxidation typically generates only approximately per mole of oxygen.

    studies such as that of Romijn and colleagues [24] have demonstrated that resting metabolism derives no appreciable energy from muscle glycogen reserves and less than 10% from plasma glucose.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    It's not really debunking anything...this is what happens when you tie exercise (whatever it is) to weight loss or some magical fat burning whatever. Exercise has the added benefit of more energy expenditure, but exercise...whether steady state, HIIT, resistance training, etc is first and foremost about fitness. HIIT does a great job of improving one's overall cardiovascular capacity...which is exactly what it was made to do.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Theo166 wrote: »
    carolyn000000 wrote: »
    This guy goes so far as to ridicule those who do short, high intensity workouts vs long, slow in his opening paragraph. I think you need both types in an effective workout program to improve performance, especially if you are an athlete.

    https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/new9e8/your-seven-minute-workout-sucks

    It's a strawman argument they are making.

    As I've read, the claim is that HIT gives physiological benefits that don't come with lower intensity training. The benefits show up in your bloodwork more than the scale.

    https://www.fast-exercises.com/

    They also show up faster. And are applicable even to elite and borderline elite athletes. You can induce measurable improvement in 4-6 weeks before a competition in Vo2Max and other relevant competition stats.

    Which has been the traditional use of HIIT training for the past 50 years: a brief, sharpening period before a competition.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,934 Member
    dmkoenig wrote: »
    If you are interested in maintaining fitness as you age, incorporating High Intensity Training into your regimen is the ticket according to the studies referenced by Joe Friel in his Fast After Fifty book. LSD alone will not sustain fitness levels.

    Since what I've read of his writing has been OK, I hope he's particularly careful with the "after fifty" audience to recommend building base fitness before undertaking intensity. Aging beginners also are more likely to have health challenges/risks going in (perhaps unknowingly), to injure a bit more easily, to recover more slowly from injury (or over-exertion), and to de-train faster if they have to back off for a while.

    (Signed - 61y/o athlete who likes high intensity, needs it when training seriously, and encourages other oldies who need it to pursue it . . . with adequate prep.)

    There's some info around from a study - NYT had a story, I think? - about it offering neuroprotective effects in aging populations, too, IIRC. But I didn't pay close attention, since it didn't affect my plans. ;)
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »
    Whether my body is burning glycogen, body fat or last nights beer is not something I can influence. I'm not sure why people get so hung up and it

    Of course you can influence what fuel source your body uses. Dial the intensity back to burn more fat and less glycogen; ramp it up to do the reverse. That's why people run marathons at a slower pace than 5ks.

    People get hung up on it because hitting the wall feels like a grand piano fell out of a window and landed on your head.
  • dmkoenig
    dmkoenig Posts: 299 Member
    edited July 2017
    Since what I've read of his writing has been OK, I hope he's particularly careful with the "after fifty" audience to recommend building base fitness before undertaking intensity. Aging beginners also are more likely to have health challenges/risks going in (perhaps unknowingly), to injure a bit more easily, to recover more slowly from injury (or over-exertion), and to de-train faster if they have to back off for a while.

    The primary target audience for Fast after Fifty is senior athletes, not so much sedentary aging population, although many lessons about managing the aging process certainly apply to anyone interested in maintaining good physical health as they get older. Not surprisingly, in addition to HIIT, adequate sleep and longer recovery periods are essential to support this sort of training.

    For me, the book was very instructive as I turned 60 in January this year and set a goal to compete in my first 70.3 Ironman triathlon in April...and lose 30 pounds. I treated it as an experiment as much as anything to see how well my body could sustain a vigorous training regimen and respond to stressful workouts like High Intensity Training. Weekends were dedicated to slogging out long aerobic workouts and weekdays were primarily focused on doing the shorter but more intense interval training. There was no question both of these types of workouts significantly contributed to my preparation and confidence.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,430 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    PS
    IMHO the idea of someone badly overweight, unfit and not conditioned to exercise being advised to do (real) HIIT I find appalling.

    So much this. I decided to do some Tabata IE1 on the elliptical just to see how bad it really was, and commented that it probably shouldn't have been done without talking to my doctor. I had been stress tested on a treadmill for heart conditions (maxed the treadmill!), had a fairly solid cardio base, was working out on a regular basis, and had plenty of HR, power, etc data. And I'm still sure my doctor would have been shaking his head asking why I did it. The HR lift alone is something to consider, and for those unfit the doctor would probably be more in question.


    That said, I do think that the trend of "my crazy short workout helps!" has gone a bit overboard. I would never do true HIIT for calorie burn vs lesser intensity stuff, but it can have it's place for some. I don't think I train to a level that the VO2max increases and such are much (if any) better than lesser intensity intervals. But more than anything I just like to mix it up some. Doing some HIIT here and there makes me appreciate the LISS days more, and I usually hate them otherwise. And I never felt like I might get thrown off a machine doing LISS either, so that's a plus.

    Curious as to what, "Maxed the treadmill!" means?



    cmriverside wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    PS
    IMHO the idea of someone badly overweight, unfit and not conditioned to exercise being advised to do (real) HIIT I find appalling.

    So much this. I decided to do some Tabata IE1 on the elliptical just to see how bad it really was, and commented that it probably shouldn't have been done without talking to my doctor. I had been stress tested on a treadmill for heart conditions (maxed the treadmill!), had a fairly solid cardio base, was working out on a regular basis, and had plenty of HR, power, etc data. And I'm still sure my doctor would have been shaking his head asking why I did it. The HR lift alone is something to consider, and for those unfit the doctor would probably be more in question.


    That said, I do think that the trend of "my crazy short workout helps!" has gone a bit overboard. I would never do true HIIT for calorie burn vs lesser intensity stuff, but it can have it's place for some. I don't think I train to a level that the VO2max increases and such are much (if any) better than lesser intensity intervals. But more than anything I just like to mix it up some. Doing some HIIT here and there makes me appreciate the LISS days more, and I usually hate them otherwise. And I never felt like I might get thrown off a machine doing LISS either, so that's a plus.

    Curious as to what, "Maxed the treadmill!" means?

    I'm guessing it means he has really long legs and is one of those outlier types.


    A few years back I had a scare and a suspected minor heart attack. It turned out to be isolated major acid reflux (boy did I feel stupid, but healthy at least) but when I was admitted it was under the assumption of a heart attack and the full ER treatment and panel of tests that followed.

    The treadmill I maxed out was not a high speed unit, but a very large machine designed only to allow very fast walking, with the only result that I know of being a mininum (125-130 BPM) heart rate to allow the various tests to be done. They didn't want anyone running due to all the various monitor wires hooked up all over me, as well as an IV.

    The reason it is well remembered by me was primarily the doctor. There were three nurses hooking me up to all the sensors and crap, and all were trying to be upbeat and positive, etc... trying to keep me in a comfort zone. The doctor came in and was the mood quickly changed, more the quiet and serious type of guy. So anyway, every 45 seconds to a minute, the treadmill would speed up, and the idea was that when I hit the intended heart rate zone the tests would take place. I was assured the entire process would likely only take 3 or 4 minutes.

    After about 5 minutes my heart rate was still below 100. I asked if the machine would go much faster and mentioned that from my home equipment and other workouts, that I thought it would take a lot more effort to get to the 125-130 range. Dr Serious assured me that my HR would be in range within a minute or two max.

    I think it was close to 5 minutes later that he instructed one of the nurses to hit me with the IV, which was for some type of artificial adrenaline to spike the HR up to the levels needed for the test. I have no idea how fast the machine went, but taking strides that long without breaking into a jog wasn't easy. No feat of speed, but the nurses seemed to get a kick out of the doctor ignoring my comments on my heart rate and what it would take to get it there.

    Unfortunately, most medical offices have replaced exercise physiologists with techs or nurses. The result is that, including the doctor, there is usually not anyone who knows how to properly conduct a graded exercise test. In your case they used an inappropriate protocol (sounds like an original Balke protocol), and very likely had you hold on to the handrails.

    If done properly, 90+% of the population should max out within 9-10 minutes. I have seen tests where a reasonably fit person went 20+ minutes on a Bruce protocol, which is impossible for anyone but an elite endurance athlete. They were holding on so hard, they couldn't get a readable ECG because of the muscle tension in the arms and chest.

    I wish I had some idea of what the protocol was, not that it really matters much. I was rather shocked that it wasn't harder, especially being that it was a veterans hospital, and most veterans have as least been in decent shape at some point during their service.

    I don't recall holding on, but as I said the machine wasn't nearly as quick as I thought it would have been. I do know that the "Dr Serious" I mentioned was not the cardiologist, so I have no idea what his actual training or credentials are.





    heybales wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    After about 5 minutes my heart rate was still below 100. I asked if the machine would go much faster and mentioned that from my home equipment and other workouts, that I thought it would take a lot more effort to get to the 125-130 range. Dr Serious assured me that my HR would be in range within a minute or two max.

    I think it was close to 5 minutes later that he instructed one of the nurses to hit me with the IV, which was for some type of artificial adrenaline to spike the HR up to the levels needed for the test. I have no idea how fast the machine went, but taking strides that long without breaking into a jog wasn't easy. No feat of speed, but the nurses seemed to get a kick out of the doctor ignoring my comments on my heart rate and what it would take to get it there.

    Great story. That is sad you couldn't get a full test out of it that would be useful data for you.

    One of our local hospitals that is well known for it's heart center, uses their 3 testing rooms for VO2max tests if you just want to pay for one. $60.
    So they got all the equipment needed, and the techs used then are more knowledgeable about letting it go as best you can. Dr isn't even present, he reviews the data later for the LT/AT point and VO2max point.
    During the interview, they find out how much you've been working out to decide which protocol to use.

    First one I got was one where the incline went so high up though only tad fast walking pace, he stopped me from running at one point.
    My achilles were not used to that at all - the twanging stopped me before HRmax, but at least got my VO2max and LT/AT level. Already had HRmax on my own test.

    Next test was speed over incline, though they both went up, and running allowed. I prepared better by having more hill sprints done (I enjoy that type of intervals more than HIIT on a track).
    Sadly the data available wasn't per min, but per 3 min at the pace/incline changes. Very annoyed. At least pretty straight line.

    I've thought about getting testing done a few times, but always talk myself out of it. With so many DIY methods for testing and training to improve results, I figure in the end it's just the magic number that changes over time regardless.

    I can see the point on the incline, another reason I talk myself out of it. I think I'd be more comfortable on a bike for any type of exhaustive testing. I guess to me there is some twisted part of me that would enjoy the "push to complete exhaustion" aspect more than the actual numbers I end up with.
  • ijsantos2005
    ijsantos2005 Posts: 306 Member
    Ain't no body got time for LISS.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,934 Member
    ijsantos2005 wrote: »
    Ain't no body got time for LISS.

    Depending on what sport we train for, some of us sure enough do. Or we lose to people who did.
  • jennybearlv
    jennybearlv Posts: 1,519 Member
    ijsantos2005 wrote: »
    Ain't no body got time for LISS.

    Oh, I do. I can spend hours walking or cycling. The closest I get to HIIT is sprinting across the street to avoid being flattened by a semi. I really hope HIIT never becomes necessary to meet my goals. LISS is working great for my simple weight loss.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories