Does HIIT Produce Results?

emilyvictoria7
emilyvictoria7 Posts: 102 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
With winter coming I'm going to retire my runners for the season and turn towards more indoor training. From April to November I worked from not running at all, and smoking a pack a week to successfully running a 10K the first weekend of November (and I quit smoking back in May!)

What I'm wondering, is does HIIT produce results and is it effective? When I'm running, I'm averaging between 45m and 1h of cardio 3x per week, plus two, 1h days of cross training (Spin classes, and cardio equipment at the gym).

Given that the majority of home HIIT workouts I'm seeing are about 30m and recommend 4-5 days per week of training, this is approximately HALF the amount of fitness I've been engaging in. Is that realistic? Will I continue to notice the changes in my body? Should HIIT be paired with strength training - I've considered doing a HIIT workout at home in the morning and then hitting the gym in the evening a few days a week for strength training but I really hate strength training. I've not yet found the appeal in lifting things up and placing them back down the way I have in the adrenaline of cardio.

Let me know your thoughts :smile:


Replies

  • Jocko808
    Jocko808 Posts: 58 Member
    Everybody’s makeup or metabolism is different but, my personal opinion? Yes it does. Depending on your goals I believe you would see results.

    I was doing HIIT on the regular year’s ago and lost a lot of fat. I wasn’t really bad overweight, just wanted to shred and it happened. Also, I do it occasionally now, about once a week, and it has done more for my cardio then anything else. I can’t run due to a knee injury I got from work so HIIT is most of my cardio and I am doing good with that department.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    if you can do it for 30 minutes, its not HIIT.

    Or more than twice a week. Recovery demands are just too high.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Yes interval training can be very time efficient, it can also be more "entertaining".

    But the reality is that 90% of what is labelled HIIT is just interval training, that doesn't make it bad of course but sure adds a load of confusion. I agree with most of the respondents that raise their eyebrows at 30 minutes of HIIT.
    Intense intervals yes - true HIIT, very doubtful.

    Try to pick a program that matches your goals rather than mix and match random workouts from the interwebz. The workout should align with your goals and hang together with the entirety of your training if you want optimal performance results.

    Generally (real) HIIT shouldn't be paired with strength training, they are both very taxing on the body and require proper recovery. Use sparingly.

    By the way HIIT is a small calorie burner (short duration, small burn during recovery periods) and if you are dropping exercise volume you may have to adjust your intake accordingly.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    emilyvictoria7 wrote: »
    Given that the majority of home HIIT workouts I'm seeing are about 30m and recommend 4-5 days per week of training, this is approximately HALF the amount of fitness I've been engaging in. Is that realistic? Will I continue to notice the changes in my body?

    What you're describing is circuit training, so you're going to be doing less than a third of the CV work that you have been doing. You manage your intake to compensate.

    Notwithstanding that, running benefits from some resistance training anyway, so use the time. Personally I share your views on free weights being dull as Hel, so I do bodyweight training.
  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    This is from a flyer that I saw at a fitness center operated by this company called Corporate Fitness Works. Despite its claim, it most certainly is NOT a HIIT routine. No interval periods or intensity levels are specified, for example. One could do all of these moves really slowly, at a low intensity level, whereas true HIIT requires near-maximal efforts alternating with lower effort periods.

    Also, the exercises that would logically belong in the lower-effort intervals (wall sits, calf raises, etc) don't alternate with the ones that would presumably be used for near-maximal effort. Whoever decided to call this "HIIT" didn't know what the term means.

    ilvi2kjmhl1v.png
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    spartan_d wrote: »
    This is from a flyer that I saw at a fitness center operated by this company called Corporate Fitness Works. Despite its claim, it most certainly is NOT a HIIT routine. No interval periods or intensity levels are specified, for example. One could do all of these moves really slowly, at a low intensity level, whereas true HIIT requires near-maximal efforts alternating with lower effort periods.

    Also, the exercises that would logically belong in the lower-effort intervals (wall sits, calf raises, etc) don't alternate with the ones that would presumably be used for near-maximal effort. Whoever decided to call this "HIIT" didn't know what the term means.

    It's not even a good calisthenics circuit, because there's not enough variety or rest between muscle groups.
  • adixon228
    adixon228 Posts: 2 Member
    For what you're asking, if it's HIIT or Interval Training, for me it's worked better then single machine cardio. I found I had more variation when I did Interval stuff as I was going between weights and different cardio activities and that time went by quicker.

    But! That's for me, you might find that you prefer the steady state and single machine because it's right for you. You should try it, possibly get a personal trainer to try it with you and help you find some things you like, then see if it's something you'd like to incorporate more frequently. Good luck :smiley:
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    You could supplement the time with some treadmill or indoor track, or other cardio classes?
  • HermanLily
    HermanLily Posts: 217 Member
    Yes it can
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    rybo wrote: »
    In layman's terms you could almost call any interval training "high intensity" because that's what makes it an interval. Periods of higher intensity exercise alternated with periods of lower intensity rest/recovery.

    If you watch most people ride a bike, you'll see them pedal then coast, pedal then coast, etc. People tend to use their muscles episodically. That doesn't make a leisurely ride in the park "high intensity interval training."
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    rybo wrote: »
    People argue too much over whether or not something is high intensity when doing intervals, and it derails every discussion about interval training. Especially when most of the people doing the interval training are only doing it to burn calories and not induce a specific training adaptation. In layman's terms you could almost call any interval training "high intensity" because that's what makes it an interval. Periods of higher intensity exercise alternated with periods of lower intensity rest/recovery.

    Personally I do think it's important to know what exercise people are actually doing to give an opinion on it and its suitability for their stated goals. If someone talks about their running then my assumption would be the training is intended to improve an aspect of their running - not just calorie burns.

    Often when the actual exercise is revealed it's not cardio interval training at all - sometimes just circuit training or callisthenics. The above posted "leg strengthening HIIT workout" is a case in point.

    I do interval training on an indoor trainer to help my cycling performance - specific routines appropriate for my cycling goals. Neither circuit training or callisthenics would produce the same results or align with my goals.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    rybo wrote: »
    People argue too much over whether or not something is high intensity when doing intervals, and it derails every discussion about interval training. Especially when most of the people doing the interval training are only doing it to burn calories and not induce a specific training adaptation. In layman's terms you could almost call any interval training "high intensity" because that's what makes it an interval. Periods of higher intensity exercise alternated with periods of lower intensity rest/recovery.

    but... but... but... forests and trees tho.
  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    rybo wrote: »
    People argue too much over whether or not something is high intensity when doing intervals, and it derails every discussion about interval training. Especially when most of the people doing the interval training are only doing it to burn calories and not induce a specific training adaptation. In layman's terms you could almost call any interval training "high intensity" because that's what makes it an interval. Periods of higher intensity exercise alternated with periods of lower intensity rest/recovery.

    HIIT is more than just "interval training at an intensity level that could be considered high." It has a very specific meaning. Your argument illustrates what was said earlier -- that much of what is called "HIIT" really isn't.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    spartan_d wrote: »
    rybo wrote: »
    People argue too much over whether or not something is high intensity when doing intervals, and it derails every discussion about interval training. Especially when most of the people doing the interval training are only doing it to burn calories and not induce a specific training adaptation. In layman's terms you could almost call any interval training "high intensity" because that's what makes it an interval. Periods of higher intensity exercise alternated with periods of lower intensity rest/recovery.

    HIIT is more than just "interval training at an intensity level that could be considered high." It has a very specific meaning. Your argument illustrates what was said earlier -- that much of what is called "HIIT" really isn't.

    It would be akin to doing 5 sets of 5 curls, tricep kickbacks and bosu ball knee bends with little pink dumbbells and saying you're running a 5x5 strength program. In a purely literal sense, sure you are. In the sense of how a 5x5 program is generally defined, no you're not. At all.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    spartan_d wrote: »
    rybo wrote: »
    People argue too much over whether or not something is high intensity when doing intervals, and it derails every discussion about interval training. Especially when most of the people doing the interval training are only doing it to burn calories and not induce a specific training adaptation. In layman's terms you could almost call any interval training "high intensity" because that's what makes it an interval. Periods of higher intensity exercise alternated with periods of lower intensity rest/recovery.

    HIIT is more than just "interval training at an intensity level that could be considered high." It has a very specific meaning. Your argument illustrates what was said earlier -- that much of what is called "HIIT" really isn't.

    Conversely, very few people ever need to do “true HIIT”, so, while you have to be cautious about overstating the benefits, it makes no practical difference for most people.

    You are absolutely correct that “true HIIT” provides very specific benefits that “higher intensity interval/circuit training does not. I’ve given up trying to make the point because it really has little practical significance for the average person.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories