Interval based training metabolic aftershock
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
I'm differentiating, because people apparently think there's a difference between what this thread was started as (talking about 15 minute HIIT) and something else that is a "true"/"actual" HIIT.
The 15 minute HIIT training that was recommended to me used modified exercises based on a standard set they had, but either way, the summary was that I was supposed to give it my all during 20 second intervals (I was told I should be 100% effort or as close as I could push myself to do, which decreased through the workout as I became exhausted, which is where the 90% came from) to make the workout effective, which is where I got the percentage from above, with short rests between (10-60 seconds depending on whether the set was finished). I gave it my all during those times, and felt like roadkill afterward.
If that isn't HIIT, I guess I must misunderstand. It was enough to make a big difference for me until I was ready/able to get into "real" exercises/strength training. Sorry if that offends someone's sensibilities, but it's what happened for me, and that is why I commented on how some people were shutting things down needlessly. Just because it's 15 minutes doesn't render it ineffective or not worthwhile.
To condemn the possibility of a 15 minute HIIT program existing/being feasible/worthwhile because of one or more marketing ploys out there (again, haven't taken the time to evaluate the specific program, and don't intend to) is very unsporting. Shoot, if a 15-minute program can catch someone's eye and get them moving at full effort, versus not doing anything due to what they feel are time constraints/other obligations, it should be encouraged, at least with the proviso that they'll want to work toward something bigger to make a better long-term difference.
(Edited to correct punctuation.)2 -
It's not HIIT. It's interval training. Most people really have no idea what training to maximum is. If you're not laying down on the floor on a 20/10 interval split, then the intensity is likely under 80%.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.
I'm differentiating, because people apparently think there's a difference between what this thread was started as (talking about 15 minute HIIT) and something else that is a "true"/"actual" HIIT.
The 15 minute HIIT training that was recommended to me used modified exercises based on a standard set they had, but either way, the summary was that I was supposed to give it my all during 20 second intervals (I was told I should be 100% effort or as close as I could push myself to do, which decreased through the workout as I became exhausted, which is where the 90% came from, to make the workout effective, which is where I got the percentage from above), with short rests between (10-60 seconds depending on whether the set was finished). I gave it my all during those times, and felt like roadkill afterward.
If that isn't HIIT, I guess I must misunderstand. It was enough to make a big difference for me until I was ready/able to get into "real" exercises/strength training. Sorry if that offends someone's sensibilities, but it's what happened for me, and that is why I commented on how some people were shutting things down needlessly. Just because it's 15 minutes doesn't render it ineffective or not worthwhile.
To condemn the possibility of a 15 minute HIIT program existing/being feasible/worthwhile because of one or more marketing ploys out there (again, haven't taken the time to evaluate the specific program, and don't intend to) is very unsporting. Shoot, if a 15-minute program can catch someone's eye and get them moving at full effort, versus not doing anything due to what they feel are time constraints/other obligations, it should be encouraged, at least with the proviso that they'll want to work toward something bigger to make a better long-term difference.
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
8 -
In response to the 80%:
If indeed this was 80% as you hypothesize and it makes me feel like keeling over/roadkill, I don't know how I'd ever do 100% for a full sustained 20 seconds. I couldn't do more than I did, so one would think that's 100%. Couldn't begin to contemplate a conversation, let alone attempt at one. I guess I'll never be able to do 100% at this mythical definition you're giving it. The performance level dropped in each progressive set, but only because I couldn't do more.
As a point of comparison, I took a tabata-style water class before, which also had a similar split, but the instructor was telling us to work hard, but then later I was told I was overdoing it and should aim for "7/10." The comparison of effort between someone who saw me in real life and someone making suppositions on the internet who has never met me.... Well, I guess you'll have to forgive me for believing someone I've worked with who has seen what I've done, and what I believe effort is. And based on this information received from the instructor I've seen in person, I was doing
Regardless, even IF I was doing 80%, that does not nullify the chance for someone else to get a good HIIT workout (though short) in 15 minutes, which was the point that started this entire thing. A person can give 100%. Maybe it's not as long as someone would like, but it's not a perfect world (and don't people need to start *somewhere*?). It's still high intensity if done right, it's still intervals if done right.
A brief search of the internet brought up several other sites/threads where people are discussing 15-minute sessions and taking them seriously from a standpoint that indicates knowledge and experience (and experienced people treating forum questions from a mentor perspective rather than a dismissing perspective). It's disappointing that some people aren't doing that here. Adios, I've got better places to spend my time.6 -
If you're working at a 7/10 or 8/10 during the work periods, that's aerobic intervals. It's not HIIT.
The problem doesn't lie in the practitioners, it lies in the industry, which has jumped on the HIIT train because it's trendy right now. They call all kinds of workouts "HIIT" when they're nothing of the sort. The trainers are either misinformed (because they've been sucked in by the hype too and don't know any better), or they're disingenuous (hawking a bogus product because they know it's trendy and popular).
There's nothing wrong with doing aerobic intervals, it's a valid training modality. HIIT can be a valid training modality as well, depending on one's goals and abilities. But no one training modality is mysteriously magical for anybody and everybody. And HIIT is probably the most overhyped of all (except maybe Crossfit, but I digress).4 -
If you're working at a 7/10 or 8/10 during the work periods, that's aerobic intervals. It's not HIIT.
The problem doesn't lie in the practitioners, it lies in the industry, which has jumped on the HIIT train because it's trendy right now. They call all kinds of workouts "HIIT" when they're nothing of the sort. The trainers are either misinformed (because they've been sucked in by the hype too and don't know any better), or they're disingenuous (hawking a bogus product because they know it's trendy and popular).
There's nothing wrong with doing aerobic intervals, it's a valid training modality. HIIT can be a valid training modality as well, depending on one's goals and abilities. But no one training modality is mysteriously magical for anybody and everybody. And HIIT is probably the most overhyped of all (except maybe Crossfit, but I digress).
This^ and what Niner said. I just don't get why some need to think something is HIIT. Intervals are a totally valid and beneficial training protocol. Heck, i do 'em
Nobody is condemning anything. This, I believe, is the influence of Marketing.5 -
This thread is full of unicorns and dragons.2
-
A power meter is a device that measures the rate at which work is done. Basically, it measures energy input, like into a bike. They're highly accurate, and brutally honest. They take all the guess work out of things and tell you exactly where you stand.
Shops rent power meters. Out here, it's $75 for a week. Which is a bargain for the knowledge that provides. You can even rent one over the internet.
For calories, this method is never more than 5% off, and press and individual in the middle of that range. This is the best there is outside a lab.
HIIT doesn't burn many calories compared to a leisurely ride at lower intensity for somewhat more time. It demands much longer recovery periods. It burns mostly glycogen due to the intensity, so it induces more hunger. It's good leading up to a race, but not ideal for weight loss.6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »A power meter is a device that measures the rate at which work is done. Basically, it measures energy input, like into a bike. They're highly accurate, and brutally honest. They take all the guess work out of things and tell you exactly where you stand.
Shops rent power meters. Out here, it's $75 for a week. Which is a bargain for the knowledge that provides. You can even rent one over the internet.
For calories, this method is never more than 5% off, and press and individual in the middle of that range. This is the best there is outside a lab.
HIIT doesn't burn many calories compared to a leisurely ride at lower intensity for somewhat more time. It demands much longer recovery periods. It burns mostly glycogen due to the intensity, so it induces more hunger. It's good leading up to a race, but not ideal for weight loss.
And it has some CNS impact which affects recovery time. One of the reasons it's not recommended to do HIIT more than a couple of times a week.3 -
Agree. HIIT from my perspective is to increase performance in things like sprints, MMA, boxing, swimming, etc.NorthCascades wrote: »A power meter is a device that measures the rate at which work is done. Basically, it measures energy input, like into a bike. They're highly accurate, and brutally honest. They take all the guess work out of things and tell you exactly where you stand.
Shops rent power meters. Out here, it's $75 for a week. Which is a bargain for the knowledge that provides. You can even rent one over the internet.
For calories, this method is never more than 5% off, and press and individual in the middle of that range. This is the best there is outside a lab.
HIIT doesn't burn many calories compared to a leisurely ride at lower intensity for somewhat more time. It demands much longer recovery periods. It burns mostly glycogen due to the intensity, so it induces more hunger. It's good leading up to a race, but not ideal for weight loss.
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 -
Believe what you like. There are lots of journals of science and physiology that have covered this and that's what I'm referring to. Many instructors and trainers INCORRECTLY call something HIIT when it's not possibly to get more people to think they are better than they really are. Kinda like a lot of trainers using hand held bio impedance devices to tell clients that they are "gaining" muscle even if on a hard calorie deficit. Don't buy into all the hype.In response to the 80%:
If indeed this was 80% as you hypothesize and it makes me feel like keeling over/roadkill, I don't know how I'd ever do 100% for a full sustained 20 seconds. I couldn't do more than I did, so one would think that's 100%. Couldn't begin to contemplate a conversation, let alone attempt at one. I guess I'll never be able to do 100% at this mythical definition you're giving it. The performance level dropped in each progressive set, but only because I couldn't do more.
As a point of comparison, I took a tabata-style water class before, which also had a similar split, but the instructor was telling us to work hard, but then later I was told I was overdoing it and should aim for "7/10." The comparison of effort between someone who saw me in real life and someone making suppositions on the internet who has never met me.... Well, I guess you'll have to forgive me for believing someone I've worked with who has seen what I've done, and what I believe effort is. And based on this information received from the instructor I've seen in person, I was doing
Regardless, even IF I was doing 80%, that does not nullify the chance for someone else to get a good HIIT workout (though short) in 15 minutes, which was the point that started this entire thing. A person can give 100%. Maybe it's not as long as someone would like, but it's not a perfect world (and don't people need to start *somewhere*?). It's still high intensity if done right, it's still intervals if done right.
A brief search of the internet brought up several other sites/threads where people are discussing 15-minute sessions and taking them seriously from a standpoint that indicates knowledge and experience (and experienced people treating forum questions from a mentor perspective rather than a dismissing perspective). It's disappointing that some people aren't doing that here. Adios, I've got better places to spend my time.
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
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions