Interval based training metabolic aftershock
gracekennedy1958
Posts: 1 Member
I have been following this system for a few months now, only 15 mins three times a week. Not sure how much calories this burns but would like to add it to my diary, any advice?
2
Replies
-
Describe what you actually do in this 15 minute workout but with such a short duration it's not going to be very significant in term of calories.
2 -
If this is your only exercise for the week, no matter the intensity, I highly doubt is enough to make any difference.3
-
I'd log it as 15 minutes walking, over the week it'll give you an extra 150 for your weekend.2
-
Should add not to listen to his sales pitch that 15 minutes will reset your metabolism and burn fat fast.
It's rubbish to try and sell his work out plan.5 -
@RuNaRoUnDaFiEldRuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Should add not to listen to his sales pitch that 15 minutes will reset your metabolism and burn fat fast.
It's rubbish to try and sell his work out plan.
Your comment made me do a little Googling as hadn't heard of this before....
From the site:
"But only certain forms of exercise have been scientifically proven to force your body to change, adapt and turn on your fat-burning potential."
What a load of cobblers! My woo meter just went all the way to eleven.17 -
@RuNaRoUnDaFiEldRuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Should add not to listen to his sales pitch that 15 minutes will reset your metabolism and burn fat fast.
It's rubbish to try and sell his work out plan.
Your comment made me do a little Googling as hadn't heard of this before....
From the site:
"But only certain forms of exercise have been scientifically proven to force your body to change, adapt and turn on your fat-burning potential."
What a load of cobblers! My woo meter just went all the way to eleven.
Well TRUE HIIT does increase EPOC, I'd argue a great many people doing interval training aren't doing true HIIT.
As far as resetting metabolism or whatever, yeah that's kinda nonsense.
I think that claim is the classic example of someone "running with it" without actually knowing what they're talking about.
20-30 minutes of HIIT is MORE effective than the same amount of steady state cardio (and by a somewhat significant amount too from what I understand), it's not some magic thing.8 -
@RuNaRoUnDaFiEldRuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Should add not to listen to his sales pitch that 15 minutes will reset your metabolism and burn fat fast.
It's rubbish to try and sell his work out plan.
Your comment made me do a little Googling as hadn't heard of this before....
From the site:
"But only certain forms of exercise have been scientifically proven to force your body to change, adapt and turn on your fat-burning potential."
What a load of cobblers! My woo meter just went all the way to eleven.
Well TRUE HIIT does increase EPOC, I'd argue a great many people doing interval training aren't doing true HIIT.
As far as resetting metabolism or whatever, yeah that's kinda nonsense.
I think that claim is the classic example of someone "running with it" without actually knowing what they're talking about.
20-30 minutes of HIIT is MORE effective than the same amount of steady state cardio (and by a somewhat significant amount too from what I understand), it's not some magic thing.
And intense but steady state cardio creates a fair bit of EPOC.
Even moderate intensity steady state cardio creates a small amount of EPOC.
Weight/strength training of course creates EPOC.
HIIT (whether real HIIT or magical marketing department HIIT, we share the same cynicism!) isn't more effective unless it's aligned to your particular personal goals and capabilities. Different tools for different jobs and different people.
The biggest twaddle of course is the "turn on your fat burning potential" comment from the site. That would be as simple as a calorie deficit of course - but there's no money in that.5 -
@RuNaRoUnDaFiEldRuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Should add not to listen to his sales pitch that 15 minutes will reset your metabolism and burn fat fast.
It's rubbish to try and sell his work out plan.
Your comment made me do a little Googling as hadn't heard of this before....
From the site:
"But only certain forms of exercise have been scientifically proven to force your body to change, adapt and turn on your fat-burning potential."
What a load of cobblers! My woo meter just went all the way to eleven.
Well TRUE HIIT does increase EPOC, I'd argue a great many people doing interval training aren't doing true HIIT.
As far as resetting metabolism or whatever, yeah that's kinda nonsense.
I think that claim is the classic example of someone "running with it" without actually knowing what they're talking about.
20-30 minutes of HIIT is MORE effective than the same amount of steady state cardio (and by a somewhat significant amount too from what I understand), it's not some magic thing.
If you can sustain the intensity for 30 minutes you're not doing HIIT.
Any exercise that breaks down muscle tissue will produce EPOC.
HIIT can't be more or less effective, only better or worse for a specific goal. And the exercise world isn't intervals and steady state only, it's a gradient. Actual steady state cardiovascular exercise is pretty rare.7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
@RuNaRoUnDaFiEldRuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Should add not to listen to his sales pitch that 15 minutes will reset your metabolism and burn fat fast.
It's rubbish to try and sell his work out plan.
Your comment made me do a little Googling as hadn't heard of this before....
From the site:
"But only certain forms of exercise have been scientifically proven to force your body to change, adapt and turn on your fat-burning potential."
What a load of cobblers! My woo meter just went all the way to eleven.
Well TRUE HIIT does increase EPOC, I'd argue a great many people doing interval training aren't doing true HIIT.
As far as resetting metabolism or whatever, yeah that's kinda nonsense.
I think that claim is the classic example of someone "running with it" without actually knowing what they're talking about.
20-30 minutes of HIIT is MORE effective than the same amount of steady state cardio (and by a somewhat significant amount too from what I understand), it's not some magic thing.
If you can sustain the intensity for 30 minutes you're not doing HIIT.
Any exercise that breaks down muscle tissue will produce EPOC.
HIIT can't be more or less effective, only better or worse for a specific goal. And the exercise world isn't intervals and steady state only, it's a gradient. Actual steady state cardiovascular exercise is pretty rare.
And, in order to see clear contrasts, most "HIIT vs steady state" studies set the steady state intensity at 50%-60%.
2 -
@RuNaRoUnDaFiEldRuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Should add not to listen to his sales pitch that 15 minutes will reset your metabolism and burn fat fast.
It's rubbish to try and sell his work out plan.
Your comment made me do a little Googling as hadn't heard of this before....
From the site:
"But only certain forms of exercise have been scientifically proven to force your body to change, adapt and turn on your fat-burning potential."
What a load of cobblers! My woo meter just went all the way to eleven.
Well TRUE HIIT does increase EPOC, I'd argue a great many people doing interval training aren't doing true HIIT.
As far as resetting metabolism or whatever, yeah that's kinda nonsense.
I think that claim is the classic example of someone "running with it" without actually knowing what they're talking about.
20-30 minutes of HIIT is MORE effective than the same amount of steady state cardio (and by a somewhat significant amount too from what I understand), it's not some magic thing.
And intense but steady state cardio creates a fair bit of EPOC.
Even moderate intensity steady state cardio creates a small amount of EPOC.
Weight/strength training of course creates EPOC.
HIIT (whether real HIIT or magical marketing department HIIT, we share the same cynicism!) isn't more effective unless it's aligned to your particular personal goals and capabilities. Different tools for different jobs and different people.
The biggest twaddle of course is the "turn on your fat burning potential" comment from the site. That would be as simple as a calorie deficit of course - but there's no money in that.
The thing is that the "fat burning" statement has some truth to it. Except that a) its not the only type of exercise that does that and b) it has no significant effect on fat loss.
The whole program/website is like that. Its a loose collection of sorta true statements combined and amplified into a Category 4 Woo-icane.
8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
@RuNaRoUnDaFiEldRuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Should add not to listen to his sales pitch that 15 minutes will reset your metabolism and burn fat fast.
It's rubbish to try and sell his work out plan.
Your comment made me do a little Googling as hadn't heard of this before....
From the site:
"But only certain forms of exercise have been scientifically proven to force your body to change, adapt and turn on your fat-burning potential."
What a load of cobblers! My woo meter just went all the way to eleven.
Well TRUE HIIT does increase EPOC, I'd argue a great many people doing interval training aren't doing true HIIT.
As far as resetting metabolism or whatever, yeah that's kinda nonsense.
I think that claim is the classic example of someone "running with it" without actually knowing what they're talking about.
20-30 minutes of HIIT is MORE effective than the same amount of steady state cardio (and by a somewhat significant amount too from what I understand), it's not some magic thing.
If you can sustain the intensity for 30 minutes you're not doing HIIT.
Any exercise that breaks down muscle tissue will produce EPOC.
HIIT can't be more or less effective, only better or worse for a specific goal. And the exercise world isn't intervals and steady state only, it's a gradient. Actual steady state cardiovascular exercise is pretty rare.
This^. This only thing HIIT has going for it is that it is time efficient. EPOC for HIIT is about 14%. So, how many calories can you burn in 15 minutes of HIIT? 100? LISS has EPOC of about 7%. In a podcast by Brad Schoenfeld called Facts and Fallacies of Fat Loss, he equates the burn for 30 minutes of true HIIT with 60 minutes of LISS when factoring impact. But who can do 30 minutes of HIIT?? It is being marketed as a fat burning gimmick when in reality it is protocol for improving VO2 max for athletic performance of sprinter, soccer players ect.
Link to full podcast here: https://www.nsca.com/education/videos/facts-and-fallacies-of-fat-loss/5 -
A dual post:
To the original poster:
If your HIIT program includes a warm-up and cool-down, I recommend logging those by the minute as they appear to match the activity (such as walking or stretching). For the higher-intensity portions, consider the activity and how it relates to the overall time. For instance, if you're doing 6 minutes which is 2/3 running in place at max pace, then 1/3 resting, I'd probably enter it as 4 minutes of jogging to be conservative.
Do be sure to give it your max effort in your "on" times, though! I did a HIIT program to start which included a warm-up, the work-break section, then a cool-down, and though I couldn't quantify it in calories (and wouldn't want to count on too much), I can say with certainty that it did help me get back to "living life," so they do *something*. I felt like I was ready to drop dead at the end of each workout, but the shorter duration allowed me an entry into the foyer of the world of mobility/fitness.
To others (as applicable):
Of course, we can just shoot things down without looking at potential positives, right? Shut doors that can open the possibilities of a healthy world for someone?
To be clear, I am not familiar with the single program being discussed, but regardless of whether it is well-formed or not, it is not representative of an entire category. Speaking from my personal experience, a well-developed 15 minute HIIT program, when executed well and with proper effort (especially if there are separate warm-up and cool-down components), has several benefits.
The first (and foremost in some minds, though least in mine) is the calories being burned (no matter how small it is something). I myself saw improvements in this quarter, though I will readily admit the difference was exponentially amplified by adopting a fully-rounded program with diet change and both strength and aerobic components.
Secondly, though this one is not from my own experience, as I've become a lot more aggressive in working out since I was able to get into water fitness, is that a person on a well-developed rotating 15-minute HIIT program would be able to at least maintain muscle. I haven't seen anyone have big gains by any means (unless starting out from nearly nothing, like me), but I have seen healthy people use it as a sort of maintenance tool.
Finally, and this is what is THE foremost in my mind, it also can aid someone who is extremely out of shape in beginning their fitness journey. For someone who started where I was, it was about the only reasonable place to start. It is something that also comes across as "completely do-able" in the mind of an unfit person to "only give seconds" of hard effort, and thus is more likely to happen. In my case, it really didn't take much to get to the level of exertion needed, but that's fine -- it was a place to start. It was also pretty adaptable for my physical limitations.
My personal stance is to look at a person's situation or give a qualified recommendation (structured, depending on the situation of course, in a way such as: if you're just starting out and give it your full effort for several weeks this may be a great way to start but after that [you might look into]) rather than a blanket statement, at least for this type of workout. Then explain or provide a resource for the person to learn more about what a great HIIT workout is.8 -
A dual post:
To the original poster:
If your HIIT program includes a warm-up and cool-down, I recommend logging those by the minute as they appear to match the activity (such as walking or stretching). For the higher-intensity portions, consider the activity and how it relates to the overall time. For instance, if you're doing 6 minutes which is 2/3 running in place at max pace, then 1/3 resting, I'd probably enter it as 4 minutes of jogging to be conservative.
Do be sure to give it your max effort in your "on" times, though! I did a HIIT program to start which included a warm-up, the work-break section, then a cool-down, and though I couldn't quantify it in calories (and wouldn't want to count on too much), I can say with certainty that it did help me get back to "living life," so they do *something*. I felt like I was ready to drop dead at the end of each workout, but the shorter duration allowed me an entry into the foyer of the world of mobility/fitness.
To others (as applicable):
Of course, we can just shoot things down without looking at potential positives, right? Shut doors that can open the possibilities of a healthy world for someone?
To be clear, I am not familiar with the single program being discussed, but regardless of whether it is well-formed or not, it is not representative of an entire category. Speaking from my personal experience, a well-developed 15 minute HIIT program, when executed well and with proper effort (especially if there are separate warm-up and cool-down components), has several benefits.
The first (and foremost in some minds, though least in mine) is the calories being burned (no matter how small it is something). I myself saw improvements in this quarter, though I will readily admit the difference was exponentially amplified by adopting a fully-rounded program with diet change and both strength and aerobic components.
Secondly, though this one is not from my own experience, as I've become a lot more aggressive in working out since I was able to get into water fitness, is that a person on a well-developed rotating 15-minute HIIT program would be able to at least maintain muscle. I haven't seen anyone have big gains by any means (unless starting out from nearly nothing, like me), but I have seen healthy people use it as a sort of maintenance tool.
Finally, and this is what is THE foremost in my mind, it also can aid someone who is extremely out of shape in beginning their fitness journey. For someone who started where I was, it was about the only reasonable place to start. It is something that also comes across as "completely do-able" in the mind of an unfit person to "only give seconds" of hard effort, and thus is more likely to happen. In my case, it really didn't take much to get to the level of exertion needed, but that's fine -- it was a place to start. It was also pretty adaptable for my physical limitations.
My personal stance is to look at a person's situation or give a qualified recommendation (structured, depending on the situation of course, in a way such as: if you're just starting out and give it your full effort for several weeks this may be a great way to start but after that [you might look into]) rather than a blanket statement, at least for this type of workout. Then explain or provide a resource for the person to learn more about what a great HIIT workout is.
You do realize that HIIT is completely NOT recommended for beginners to fitness right? You had a good experience and it worked out well for you but there is inherent risk for the unfit to start with so intense a protocol and should never be undertaken without a medical consultation.
As far as alternatives, they are all well know, and I think, fairly obvious. LISS, MISS, body weight exercise, calisthenics and beginner weight training.8 -
A dual post:
To the original poster:
If your HIIT program includes a warm-up and cool-down, I recommend logging those by the minute as they appear to match the activity (such as walking or stretching). For the higher-intensity portions, consider the activity and how it relates to the overall time. For instance, if you're doing 6 minutes which is 2/3 running in place at max pace, then 1/3 resting, I'd probably enter it as 4 minutes of jogging to be conservative.
Do be sure to give it your max effort in your "on" times, though! I did a HIIT program to start which included a warm-up, the work-break section, then a cool-down, and though I couldn't quantify it in calories (and wouldn't want to count on too much), I can say with certainty that it did help me get back to "living life," so they do *something*. I felt like I was ready to drop dead at the end of each workout, but the shorter duration allowed me an entry into the foyer of the world of mobility/fitness.
To others (as applicable):
Of course, we can just shoot things down without looking at potential positives, right? Shut doors that can open the possibilities of a healthy world for someone?
To be clear, I am not familiar with the single program being discussed, but regardless of whether it is well-formed or not, it is not representative of an entire category. Speaking from my personal experience, a well-developed 15 minute HIIT program, when executed well and with proper effort (especially if there are separate warm-up and cool-down components), has several benefits.
The first (and foremost in some minds, though least in mine) is the calories being burned (no matter how small it is something). I myself saw improvements in this quarter, though I will readily admit the difference was exponentially amplified by adopting a fully-rounded program with diet change and both strength and aerobic components.
Secondly, though this one is not from my own experience, as I've become a lot more aggressive in working out since I was able to get into water fitness, is that a person on a well-developed rotating 15-minute HIIT program would be able to at least maintain muscle. I haven't seen anyone have big gains by any means (unless starting out from nearly nothing, like me), but I have seen healthy people use it as a sort of maintenance tool.
Finally, and this is what is THE foremost in my mind, it also can aid someone who is extremely out of shape in beginning their fitness journey. For someone who started where I was, it was about the only reasonable place to start. It is something that also comes across as "completely do-able" in the mind of an unfit person to "only give seconds" of hard effort, and thus is more likely to happen. In my case, it really didn't take much to get to the level of exertion needed, but that's fine -- it was a place to start. It was also pretty adaptable for my physical limitations.
My personal stance is to look at a person's situation or give a qualified recommendation (structured, depending on the situation of course, in a way such as: if you're just starting out and give it your full effort for several weeks this may be a great way to start but after that [you might look into]) rather than a blanket statement, at least for this type of workout. Then explain or provide a resource for the person to learn more about what a great HIIT workout is.
Ref the bold - absolutely not.
It is one of a whole host of places people can start from and one of the most inappropriate choices you could make - a bit like someone deciding to run a marathon when they can't even manage a 5k.
It could well be a great way to injure yourself, perhaps seriously.
HIIT workouts (real HIIT which is a tiny subset of interval training) are really most suitable for people accustomed to exercise and probably as part, not the only element, of an overall workout program.
12 -
A dual post:
To the original poster:
If your HIIT program includes a warm-up and cool-down, I recommend logging those by the minute as they appear to match the activity (such as walking or stretching). For the higher-intensity portions, consider the activity and how it relates to the overall time. For instance, if you're doing 6 minutes which is 2/3 running in place at max pace, then 1/3 resting, I'd probably enter it as 4 minutes of jogging to be conservative.
Do be sure to give it your max effort in your "on" times, though! I did a HIIT program to start which included a warm-up, the work-break section, then a cool-down, and though I couldn't quantify it in calories (and wouldn't want to count on too much), I can say with certainty that it did help me get back to "living life," so they do *something*. I felt like I was ready to drop dead at the end of each workout, but the shorter duration allowed me an entry into the foyer of the world of mobility/fitness.
To others (as applicable):
Of course, we can just shoot things down without looking at potential positives, right? Shut doors that can open the possibilities of a healthy world for someone?
To be clear, I am not familiar with the single program being discussed, but regardless of whether it is well-formed or not, it is not representative of an entire category. Speaking from my personal experience, a well-developed 15 minute HIIT program, when executed well and with proper effort (especially if there are separate warm-up and cool-down components), has several benefits.
The first (and foremost in some minds, though least in mine) is the calories being burned (no matter how small it is something). I myself saw improvements in this quarter, though I will readily admit the difference was exponentially amplified by adopting a fully-rounded program with diet change and both strength and aerobic components.
Secondly, though this one is not from my own experience, as I've become a lot more aggressive in working out since I was able to get into water fitness, is that a person on a well-developed rotating 15-minute HIIT program would be able to at least maintain muscle. I haven't seen anyone have big gains by any means (unless starting out from nearly nothing, like me), but I have seen healthy people use it as a sort of maintenance tool.
Finally, and this is what is THE foremost in my mind, it also can aid someone who is extremely out of shape in beginning their fitness journey. For someone who started where I was, it was about the only reasonable place to start. It is something that also comes across as "completely do-able" in the mind of an unfit person to "only give seconds" of hard effort, and thus is more likely to happen. In my case, it really didn't take much to get to the level of exertion needed, but that's fine -- it was a place to start. It was also pretty adaptable for my physical limitations.
My personal stance is to look at a person's situation or give a qualified recommendation (structured, depending on the situation of course, in a way such as: if you're just starting out and give it your full effort for several weeks this may be a great way to start but after that [you might look into]) rather than a blanket statement, at least for this type of workout. Then explain or provide a resource for the person to learn more about what a great HIIT workout is.
Ref the bold - absolutely not.
It is one of a whole host of places people can start from and one of the most inappropriate choices you could make - a bit like someone deciding to run a marathon when they can't even manage a 5k.
It could well be a great way to injure yourself, perhaps seriously.
HIIT workouts (real HIIT which is a tiny subset of interval training) are really most suitable for people accustomed to exercise and probably as part, not the only element, of an overall workout program.
TBH, I'd be hard pressed to think of a much worse idea than starting a beginner off on HIIT (actual HIIT, that is). Not only is it a pathway to crippling DOMS and making them hate the very thought of exercise, it's also a great way to get severely injured by stressing muscles and connective tissue that aren't prepared for the intense demands. Not to mention the impaired recovery by a body/CNS which hasn't developed the work capacity to handle such intensity.
In other words, that's a big fat No.8 -
If you're actually doing true high intensity intervals, 15 minutes is a lot, and burns more calories than most folks on this thread seem to think. The primary benefit of HIIT is that it does a lot in a little time. I log my HIIT cycling at 200 cal / 15 minutes, and my weight loss has consistently been higher than predicted - down 96 lbs currently. Sometimes I get sick of doing HIIT and do other cardio instead, and my rate of loss slows. It does work. Just FYI in case any diabetics are reading this, it's also the most effective way I've found of quickly lowering blood glucose levels. Doesn't work for everyone, for some diabetics the stress hormones from high intensity exercise actually raise levels, but for me I can reliably drop my levels from 150 to the high 70s in 15 minutes. The main problem with HIIT is that it's only HIIT if it's high intensity FOR YOU - which means that you must keep upping your intensity as you become better conditioned.
You say you've been doing this for several months - you should have some idea by now of how fast you are losing weight, which should give you a rough idea of how many calories you are burning in a day. Figure out how many you should be burning at your base activity level, factor in your food, and see if there's anything left over.
4 -
@rheddmobilerheddmobile wrote: »If you're actually doing true high intensity intervals, 15 minutes is a lot, and burns more calories than most folks on this thread seem to think. The primary benefit of HIIT is that it does a lot in a little time. I log my HIIT cycling at 200 cal / 15 minutes, and my weight loss has consistently been higher than predicted - down 96 lbs currently. Sometimes I get sick of doing HIIT and do other cardio instead, and my rate of loss slows. It does work. Just FYI in case any diabetics are reading this, it's also the most effective way I've found of quickly lowering blood glucose levels. Doesn't work for everyone, for some diabetics the stress hormones from high intensity exercise actually raise levels, but for me I can reliably drop my levels from 150 to the high 70s in 15 minutes. The main problem with HIIT is that it's only HIIT if it's high intensity FOR YOU - which means that you must keep upping your intensity as you become better conditioned.
You say you've been doing this for several months - you should have some idea by now of how fast you are losing weight, which should give you a rough idea of how many calories you are burning in a day. Figure out how many you should be burning at your base activity level, factor in your food, and see if there's anything left over.
How are you coming by those calorie estimates?
What are your intervals?
What's your FTP?
3 -
A dual post:
To the original poster:
If your HIIT program includes a warm-up and cool-down, I recommend logging those by the minute as they appear to match the activity (such as walking or stretching). For the higher-intensity portions, consider the activity and how it relates to the overall time. For instance, if you're doing 6 minutes which is 2/3 running in place at max pace, then 1/3 resting, I'd probably enter it as 4 minutes of jogging to be conservative.
Do be sure to give it your max effort in your "on" times, though! I did a HIIT program to start which included a warm-up, the work-break section, then a cool-down, and though I couldn't quantify it in calories (and wouldn't want to count on too much), I can say with certainty that it did help me get back to "living life," so they do *something*. I felt like I was ready to drop dead at the end of each workout, but the shorter duration allowed me an entry into the foyer of the world of mobility/fitness.
To others (as applicable):
Of course, we can just shoot things down without looking at potential positives, right? Shut doors that can open the possibilities of a healthy world for someone?
To be clear, I am not familiar with the single program being discussed, but regardless of whether it is well-formed or not, it is not representative of an entire category. Speaking from my personal experience, a well-developed 15 minute HIIT program, when executed well and with proper effort (especially if there are separate warm-up and cool-down components), has several benefits.
The first (and foremost in some minds, though least in mine) is the calories being burned (no matter how small it is something). I myself saw improvements in this quarter, though I will readily admit the difference was exponentially amplified by adopting a fully-rounded program with diet change and both strength and aerobic components.
Secondly, though this one is not from my own experience, as I've become a lot more aggressive in working out since I was able to get into water fitness, is that a person on a well-developed rotating 15-minute HIIT program would be able to at least maintain muscle. I haven't seen anyone have big gains by any means (unless starting out from nearly nothing, like me), but I have seen healthy people use it as a sort of maintenance tool.
Finally, and this is what is THE foremost in my mind, it also can aid someone who is extremely out of shape in beginning their fitness journey. For someone who started where I was, it was about the only reasonable place to start. It is something that also comes across as "completely do-able" in the mind of an unfit person to "only give seconds" of hard effort, and thus is more likely to happen. In my case, it really didn't take much to get to the level of exertion needed, but that's fine -- it was a place to start. It was also pretty adaptable for my physical limitations.
My personal stance is to look at a person's situation or give a qualified recommendation (structured, depending on the situation of course, in a way such as: if you're just starting out and give it your full effort for several weeks this may be a great way to start but after that [you might look into]) rather than a blanket statement, at least for this type of workout. Then explain or provide a resource for the person to learn more about what a great HIIT workout is.
Ref the bold - absolutely not.
It is one of a whole host of places people can start from and one of the most inappropriate choices you could make - a bit like someone deciding to run a marathon when they can't even manage a 5k.
It could well be a great way to injure yourself, perhaps seriously.
HIIT workouts (real HIIT which is a tiny subset of interval training) are really most suitable for people accustomed to exercise and probably as part, not the only element, of an overall workout program.
TBH, I'd be hard pressed to think of a much worse idea than starting a beginner off on HIIT (actual HIIT, that is). Not only is it a pathway to crippling DOMS and making them hate the very thought of exercise, it's also a great way to get severely injured by stressing muscles and connective tissue that aren't prepared for the intense demands. Not to mention the impaired recovery by a body/CNS which hasn't developed the work capacity to handle such intensity.
In other words, that's a big fat No.
Or the possibility of heart attack or stroke in someone going from sedentary to HIIT.5 -
@rheddmobilerheddmobile wrote: »If you're actually doing true high intensity intervals, 15 minutes is a lot, and burns more calories than most folks on this thread seem to think. The primary benefit of HIIT is that it does a lot in a little time. I log my HIIT cycling at 200 cal / 15 minutes, and my weight loss has consistently been higher than predicted - down 96 lbs currently. Sometimes I get sick of doing HIIT and do other cardio instead, and my rate of loss slows. It does work. Just FYI in case any diabetics are reading this, it's also the most effective way I've found of quickly lowering blood glucose levels. Doesn't work for everyone, for some diabetics the stress hormones from high intensity exercise actually raise levels, but for me I can reliably drop my levels from 150 to the high 70s in 15 minutes. The main problem with HIIT is that it's only HIIT if it's high intensity FOR YOU - which means that you must keep upping your intensity as you become better conditioned.
You say you've been doing this for several months - you should have some idea by now of how fast you are losing weight, which should give you a rough idea of how many calories you are burning in a day. Figure out how many you should be burning at your base activity level, factor in your food, and see if there's anything left over.
How are you coming by those calorie estimates?
What are your intervals?
Well, I started from the estimates given by MFP for stationary bike, and averaged them with the actual calorie burn recorded on my bike. MFP has stationary bike, vigorous, 10 minutes at 140, very vigorous for 5 minutes at 84. I've been ramping the difficulty over time as I got used to it. Currently doing 5 repeats of two minutes at 22 mph on a moderate hill setting with 1 minute at 27 on a higher hill setting. Can't recall what rpm that is but it's something like 92 and 111. My bike generally gives me about 300 cal for a 15 minute session. I do eat back my exercise calories, and I continue to lose weight at or above predicted.
Actual HIIT is no joke. If you are not soaked in sweat and unable to talk after 15 minutes, it's not HIIT. It is definitely not the easy way out or a shortcut.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
@rheddmobilerheddmobile wrote: »If you're actually doing true high intensity intervals, 15 minutes is a lot, and burns more calories than most folks on this thread seem to think. The primary benefit of HIIT is that it does a lot in a little time. I log my HIIT cycling at 200 cal / 15 minutes, and my weight loss has consistently been higher than predicted - down 96 lbs currently. Sometimes I get sick of doing HIIT and do other cardio instead, and my rate of loss slows. It does work. Just FYI in case any diabetics are reading this, it's also the most effective way I've found of quickly lowering blood glucose levels. Doesn't work for everyone, for some diabetics the stress hormones from high intensity exercise actually raise levels, but for me I can reliably drop my levels from 150 to the high 70s in 15 minutes. The main problem with HIIT is that it's only HIIT if it's high intensity FOR YOU - which means that you must keep upping your intensity as you become better conditioned.
You say you've been doing this for several months - you should have some idea by now of how fast you are losing weight, which should give you a rough idea of how many calories you are burning in a day. Figure out how many you should be burning at your base activity level, factor in your food, and see if there's anything left over.
How are you coming by those calorie estimates?
What are your intervals?
Well, I started from the estimates given by MFP for stationary bike, and averaged them with the actual calorie burn recorded on my bike. MFP has stationary bike, vigorous, 10 minutes at 140, very vigorous for 5 minutes at 84. I've been ramping the difficulty over time as I got used to it. Currently doing 5 repeats of two minutes at 22 mph on a moderate hill setting with 1 minute at 27 on a higher hill setting. Can't recall what rpm that is but it's something like 92 and 111. My bike generally gives me about 300 cal for a 15 minute session. I do eat back my exercise calories, and I continue to lose weight at or above predicted.
Actual HIIT is no joke. If you are not soaked in sweat and unable to talk after 15 minutes, it's not HIIT. It is definitely not the easy way out or a shortcut.
Either you are a truly exceptional athlete (I've ridden with quite a few) or your calorie estimates are dreadfully exaggerated, 300 in fifteen minutes is astronomical even if that was flat out effort for the full fifteen minutes.
That your weight loss has gone to plan is just a validation that your calorie balance overall has been appropriate, it doesn't validate those burns.
A power meter equipped bike is about the only way to get accurate calorie burns for intervals outside of a sports science lab.
An interesting article which you might like....
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html/
6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
@rheddmobilerheddmobile wrote: »If you're actually doing true high intensity intervals, 15 minutes is a lot, and burns more calories than most folks on this thread seem to think. The primary benefit of HIIT is that it does a lot in a little time. I log my HIIT cycling at 200 cal / 15 minutes, and my weight loss has consistently been higher than predicted - down 96 lbs currently. Sometimes I get sick of doing HIIT and do other cardio instead, and my rate of loss slows. It does work. Just FYI in case any diabetics are reading this, it's also the most effective way I've found of quickly lowering blood glucose levels. Doesn't work for everyone, for some diabetics the stress hormones from high intensity exercise actually raise levels, but for me I can reliably drop my levels from 150 to the high 70s in 15 minutes. The main problem with HIIT is that it's only HIIT if it's high intensity FOR YOU - which means that you must keep upping your intensity as you become better conditioned.
You say you've been doing this for several months - you should have some idea by now of how fast you are losing weight, which should give you a rough idea of how many calories you are burning in a day. Figure out how many you should be burning at your base activity level, factor in your food, and see if there's anything left over.
How are you coming by those calorie estimates?
What are your intervals?
Well, I started from the estimates given by MFP for stationary bike, and averaged them with the actual calorie burn recorded on my bike. MFP has stationary bike, vigorous, 10 minutes at 140, very vigorous for 5 minutes at 84. I've been ramping the difficulty over time as I got used to it. Currently doing 5 repeats of two minutes at 22 mph on a moderate hill setting with 1 minute at 27 on a higher hill setting. Can't recall what rpm that is but it's something like 92 and 111. My bike generally gives me about 300 cal for a 15 minute session. I do eat back my exercise calories, and I continue to lose weight at or above predicted.
Actual HIIT is no joke. If you are not soaked in sweat and unable to talk after 15 minutes, it's not HIIT. It is definitely not the easy way out or a shortcut.
Either you are a truly exceptional athlete (I've ridden with quite a few) or your calorie estimates are dreadfully exaggerated, 300 in fifteen minutes is astronomical even if that was flat out effort for the full fifteen minutes.
That your weight loss has gone to plan is just a validation that your calorie balance overall has been appropriate, it doesn't validate those burns.
A power meter equipped bike is about the only way to get accurate calorie burns for intervals outside of a sports science lab.
An interesting article which you might like....
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html/
It's not my estimate, but the bike's estimate, and MFP's estimate.
I can validate that for me at least, 15 minutes of HIIT biking causes more weight loss than 30 minutes of running or an hour of Zumba.5 -
Hope you realise that's two very unreliable sources.It's not my estimate, but the bike's estimate, and MFP's estimate.
Glad it's working for you though.3 -
I guess my experience doesn't exist, then. I'm OK with living an imaginary life, then.
The short, 15-minute HIIT workouts (or maybe the nay-sayers would be happier if I called it "baby HIIT") were indeed intense for me, but perhaps it wasn't as "horrible" as it should have been since it was modified. Percent intensity is percent intensity, one might argue. My 90% then was a far cry from my 90% now (especially considering I was having trouble with daily tasks by the point where I began), and I'm sure my 90% now won't compare to where I end up. Either way, I suppose it doesn't matter as much now, since I've graduated on to other longer-period forms of improving myself for now. I did enjoy the workouts enough that I'll definitely be looking into the "grown up" version of HIIT (since there's apparently a difference) once I'm stronger.
Kinda funny that some people think it's a disaster or inappropriate for someone like me (or at least where I started out) to do one of these workouts, seeing as it was recommended by one of my doctors. Then again, perhaps that's why it's "Baby HIIT." Even still, there must be something to gain even at that level, if they recommend it.5 -
I guess my experience doesn't exist, then. I'm OK with living an imaginary life, then.
The short, 15-minute HIIT workouts (or maybe the nay-sayers would be happier if I called it "baby HIIT") were indeed intense for me, but perhaps it wasn't as "horrible" as it should have been since it was modified. Percent intensity is percent intensity, one might argue. My 90% then was a far cry from my 90% now (especially considering I was having trouble with daily tasks by the point where I began), and I'm sure my 90% now won't compare to where I end up. Either way, I suppose it doesn't matter as much now, since I've graduated on to other longer-period forms of improving myself for now. I did enjoy the workouts enough that I'll definitely be looking into the "grown up" version of HIIT (since there's apparently a difference) once I'm stronger.
Kinda funny that some people think it's a disaster or inappropriate for someone like me (or at least where I started out) to do one of these workouts, seeing as it was recommended by one of my doctors. Then again, perhaps that's why it's "Baby HIIT." Even still, there must be something to gain even at that level, if they recommend it.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by "baby HIIT". When you say your "90%", are you talking about performing to 90% of max HR? Were you doing something less that full, all out, HIIT? If so, it may not really have been HIIT. (They seem to call everything HIIT these days) It may have been Interval Training but not High Intensity. Might have been Medium Intensity even though it felt like high to you. Still very useful and effective. And much better than sitting on the couch by a long shot!
As an example, I am very fit despite my age, 66. I weight train and I do various cardio, walking, running, intervals. I have done HIIT in the past. Warm up, through 15 minutes of work sets, through cool down it takes about 25 minutes. The work sets, either bike or sprints, are ALL OUT for 20 to 30 seconds. Then rest for 1.5 to 2 minutes. Then go again. By the 4th or 5th one, I feel like I might puke, my legs are burning, my lungs are burning and I'm wondering if I will pass out. That is High IntensityInterval Training. It is done at above 100% max HR.
The difference may be accurate terminology. What your doctor recommended may have been Interval Training and he called it HIIT. Heck, at Gym's these days they say they do 1 hour HIIT classes. If you can do it for an hour, it ain't HIIT.4 -
If it was HIIT for you, it was HIIT for you, even if it wouldn't be for a more fit person. HIIT scales.I guess my experience doesn't exist, then. I'm OK with living an imaginary life, then.
The short, 15-minute HIIT workouts (or maybe the nay-sayers would be happier if I called it "baby HIIT") were indeed intense for me, but perhaps it wasn't as "horrible" as it should have been since it was modified. Percent intensity is percent intensity, one might argue. My 90% then was a far cry from my 90% now (especially considering I was having trouble with daily tasks by the point where I began), and I'm sure my 90% now won't compare to where I end up. Either way, I suppose it doesn't matter as much now, since I've graduated on to other longer-period forms of improving myself for now. I did enjoy the workouts enough that I'll definitely be looking into the "grown up" version of HIIT (since there's apparently a difference) once I'm stronger.
Kinda funny that some people think it's a disaster or inappropriate for someone like me (or at least where I started out) to do one of these workouts, seeing as it was recommended by one of my doctors. Then again, perhaps that's why it's "Baby HIIT." Even still, there must be something to gain even at that level, if they recommend it.
3 -
By the way, you know what doesn't do a lot for weight loss? Steady state cardio.
There are certain aspects of science which people on these forums just can't deal with. This is one of them. I'm fine with all the cardio slaves marking my posts woo, while I keep losing weight, my blood pressure is perfect now, and my resting heart rate is lower and lower. Whatever. If you feel validated by spending hours of torture to get the same results, have at it.11 -
rheddmobile wrote: »By the way, you know what doesn't do a lot for weight loss? Steady state cardio.
There are certain aspects of science which people on these forums just can't deal with. This is one of them. I'm fine with all the cardio slaves marking my posts woo, while I keep losing weight, my blood pressure is perfect now, and my resting heart rate is lower and lower. Whatever. If you feel validated by spending hours of torture to get the same results, have at it.
Lmao someone's defensive4 -
I wouldn't say that. I have lots of older clients that cannot do HIIT of any sort due to joint issues and heart issues and steady state works fine as a way to help with calorie deficit.rheddmobile wrote: »By the way, you know what doesn't do a lot for weight loss? Steady state cardio.
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
2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »By the way, you know what doesn't do a lot for weight loss? Steady state cardio.
There are certain aspects of science which people on these forums just can't deal with. This is one of them. I'm fine with all the cardio slaves marking my posts woo, while I keep losing weight, my blood pressure is perfect now, and my resting heart rate is lower and lower. Whatever. If you feel validated by spending hours of torture to get the same results, have at it.
Come on a Century ride in beautiful countryside with me and see how many calories you can burn - if that's what floats your boat.
Personally I do it because it's a challenge and it's actually enjoyable.
By the way I also do interval sessions, it's a valuable part of my training. Just a part.
And if you use a power meter you can even get realistic estimates because..... Science!
7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »By the way, you know what doesn't do a lot for weight loss? Steady state cardio.
Well actually, the science doesn't support your statement. In the link I posted earlier Schoenfeld covers the actual science of the. Sounds like you would benefit from watching it. It's 50 minutes total but, IIRC, he details the fat burning of the various types of cardio at around the 20 minute mark.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions