HIIT Vs Cardio for quick fat burn
VaishnaviMohanSharma
Posts: 4 Member
Hi.. I am Vaishnavi.. I am a new user โ๏ธ๐...
I wanna lose weight as fast as I can.. I suffer from inconsistency issues.. I have an event very soon.. I wanna look good and feel good.. Quick results can motivate me I guess ๐ฅน
I wanna lose weight as fast as I can.. I suffer from inconsistency issues.. I have an event very soon.. I wanna look good and feel good.. Quick results can motivate me I guess ๐ฅน
0
Replies
-
HIIT IS cardio. It's just a form of cardio. Weight loss comes primarily from a calorie deficit, not exercise.
You can't outrun/outwalk a bad diet.
If you suffer from inconsistency issues........be more consistent. There is no other solution.
Super-quick weight loss is not a good idea in any case, it can wreak havoc physically. Gallstones, for one.5 -
Lisa's right. To lose weight, managing the eating is the major factor for most of us, and fast weight loss is bad for health.
If you're appearance focused, fast weight loss can also cause hair loss a few weeks down the road, haggard look, poor skin tone, and more.
To burn the most calories in total, longer mild to moderate cardio is usually the best contributor.
Maximum intensity steady cardio burns the most calories per minute. Sounds good, right? Nah, keep reading.
HIIT, since it includes a mix of less intense work between stages of very intense work, burns fewer calories per minute across a whole session than maximum intensity steady cardio.
But if someone trying to maximize total exercise calorie burn, here's where the problem comes in: Maximum intensity literally can't be sustained very long by anyone for hardwired physiological reasons. It's self limiting in duration.
Because of some lower intensity intervals between the maximum intensity intervals, HIIT can be sustained somewhat longer than maximum intensity steady state . . . but still not super long. It's also physiologically self- limiting.
We can do low to moderately intense cardio for a much longer session time, and more often, because it's less self-limiting. It burns fewer calories per minute, sure . . . but there can be lots more minutes.
On top of that, high intensity steady state or HIIT have another physiological downside: They're disproportionately fatiguing.
That means we carry fatigue into the rest of our day. We drag though the day, subtly moving less, resting more, burning fewer calories doing daily life stuff than we would if well-rested and energetic.
Since the overwhelming majority of people burn more calories doing daily life stuff like job and home chores than we burn in intentional exercise, this is meaningful. The fatigue effectively wipes out a chunk of the exercise calories from high intensity work, including HIIT.
If the goal is maximizing total calorie burn, for most people the sweet spot will be low to moderate intensity steady state cardio, done for as long as possible and as frequently as possible without incurring endurance-related fatigue.
Make an exercise time budget, the amount of time you can spend on exercising to burn calories. Find the intensity you can do that whole time and feel energized, not fatigued, for the rest of the day. Pretty much guaranteed it'll be low to moderate intensity, unless your time budget is truly tiny, and you're already very fit.
You didn't mention EPOC, but if that's in your thought process, forget about it. It's a percent of calories burned in the exercise session. Twice as many EPOC calories from HIIT, percentage wise? Maybe, but meh. A bigger percent of a small number of calories (because of the short session) is a smaller EPOC calorie number than a small percent of a bigger number. Because exercise in general burns fewer calories than most people imagine, EPOC differences are pretty trivial in practice.
I'm not dissing intense cardio. I do some pretty intense cardio. But I do it for athletic performance reasons, not to maximize calorie burn. I don't do it in fatiguingly big chunks, or every session, because excess fatigue is counter productive for performance, too.
Here's a more radical thought: Exercise is for health, performance and FUN . . . not calorie burn. That's just my opinion, I admit, but I think that mindset is results in a happier, more balanced life than worshipping at the altar of the almighty calorie burn.
Also: If appearance is your motivation, spend part of your time budget lifting weights. That won't burn many calories, but for most people will do more for looking good than pure cardio. Stick with lower intensity cardio alongside, though, if weight loss is high importance. Lifting also causes fatigue, and it's total fatigue that matters.
TL;DR: Manage your eating to lose weight. Don't lose weight fast unless you want to sacrifice heath and appearance. Do low to moderate intensity FUN steady state cardio for your whole exercise time budget to eat a few more calories while losing at the same sensibly moderate rate.
Make a smart plan, and I wish you great results from pursuing it.5 -
HIIT IS cardio. It's just a form of cardio. Weight loss comes primarily from a calorie deficit, not exercise.
You can't outrun/outwalk a bad diet.
If you suffer from inconsistency issues........be more consistent. There is no other solution.
Super-quick weight loss is not a good idea in any case, it can wreak havoc physically. Gallstones, for one.
Though I completely agree with the majority of your points, HIIT being "a form of cardio" is really the twisting of the original HIIT type workouts to include more things and call them HIIT. By nature, most of the earlier workouts required efforts that reached the anaerobic level of effort, thus creating an oxygen deficit and improving oxygen uptake.
Over the years the term has been watered down to include many types of exercise. But the original Tabata IE1 protocol required "work" periods of no less than 170% of VO2Max. And as surprising as it is, most humans can push beyond that for very short intervals.
I personally think the entire use of the HIIT acronym these days is just becoming a way to say "exercising fairly hard" and many of those exercises won't ever resemble the earlier days of the way those protocols were designed.
But I agree... without proper diet and deficit you could do HIIT every day and gain weight. Likewise you could sit on the couch every day and lose weight if you control your eating. And for most of us, there is rarely if ever a time to justify really rapid weight loss.
4 -
I recently read an article about the TV program "The Biggest Loser." I have not watched the program, but the paper said they got them through gruelling training and calorie reduction. The funny thing is that they cannot organise reunions after programs have ended, as everyone regained their original weight.
I agree with everyone's advice before mine.
I have started this journey and have not yet seen the results, but I am building up something I could later maintain.
If you want to lose fat, eat better and healthier. Exercise and build muscle (the muscles mostly feed on products produced by burning fat).
By the way, the body and the mind can be funny and going through significant calorie reduction and intense workouts has got many people into developing eating disorders.
Best wishes!1 -
robertw486 wrote: ยปHIIT IS cardio. It's just a form of cardio. Weight loss comes primarily from a calorie deficit, not exercise.
You can't outrun/outwalk a bad diet.
If you suffer from inconsistency issues........be more consistent. There is no other solution.
Super-quick weight loss is not a good idea in any case, it can wreak havoc physically. Gallstones, for one.
Though I completely agree with the majority of your points, HIIT being "a form of cardio" is really the twisting of the original HIIT type workouts to include more things and call them HIIT. By nature, most of the earlier workouts required efforts that reached the anaerobic level of effort, thus creating an oxygen deficit and improving oxygen uptake.
Over the years the term has been watered down to include many types of exercise. But the original Tabata IE1 protocol required "work" periods of no less than 170% of VO2Max. And as surprising as it is, most humans can push beyond that for very short intervals.
I personally think the entire use of the HIIT acronym these days is just becoming a way to say "exercising fairly hard" and many of those exercises won't ever resemble the earlier days of the way those protocols were designed.
While I wouldn't say "watered down" necessarily, I agree that the HIIT label is now applied to many exercise type that don't fit the original definition. I've even seen the cardiovascular benefits of original-definition HIIT claimed as benefits from some of these extended-definition exercise types, but I don't think the research supports that claim.
Nonetheless, some of the current-definition HIIT workouts can be useful exercise, for the right goals and current fitness level.
I admit to serious concern about some of the fast-paced, high-rep, low-resistance forms done with weights/resistance - dumbbells or whatever - in a group setting, sometimes with energetic music. The combination of fast pace and high reps makes fatigue more likely, and in-session fatigue tends to make form suffer. Poor form increases injury risk, and the minimal supervision - sometimes minimal instructor expertise - in these group settings can increase that risk.
Some of that risk exists even with fast-paced individual exercise, like the calisthenics-y HIIT, so-called functional fitness formats of HIIT, etc. Fast pace + high intensity + complex movement patterns = increased injury risk.
In my mind, that makes those kinds of exercise an especially poor choice for relative fitness beginners, who are less likely to know proper form in the first place among other issues. Unfortunately, relative beginners may also be more likely to be hooked by the gee-whiz marketing that sometimes accompanies these programs.
As an aside, I'd say something similar about original-definition HIIT. Yes, humans can reach 170% of VO2max, and anyone can exert what they consider maximal cardiovascular effort . . . but people who don't have a reasonable cardiovascular fitness base really shouldn't be doing either one, IMO, at least not without medical clearance.
Definitionally - and this is another thing that makes me scratch my head a bit about the OP - HIIT isn't an exercise type. It's a pacing strategy. Any exercise I know of can be done at high intensity, or done in an interval format. We get questions here periodically about how to determine calorie burn for HIIT. It's an unanswerable question, because calorie estimating depends materially on the exercise type, and HIIT can be nearly anything.
HIIT by any definition is over-hyped these days IMO. If it were as magical as the marketing suggests, elite athletes would be doing it every day or many times a week, as some enthusiastic amateurs are. But the elites - who have the best professional advice money can buy about improving fitness - don't do that. High intensity work tends to be a small fraction of elites' total training load, at least in my strength-y cardiovascular sport. If elites don't train that way, I don't see why us regular duffers would get the claimed huge benefits from it.
Yes, this is a rant. I'm very irritated by HIIT marketing; it's kind of a pet peeve. It's just another one of those things that tries to exploit the public's lack of knowledge of exercise science to pull in revenue . . . not that I'm any big expert. It doesn't take a lot of expertise to question the marketing claims, though.
But I agree... without proper diet and deficit you could do HIIT every day and gain weight. Likewise you could sit on the couch every day and lose weight if you control your eating. And for most of us, there is rarely if ever a time to justify really rapid weight loss.
2 -
I have been doing a mix of the hiit program on the exercise bike and steady state cycling plus strength training workouts- focusing on upper body, abs, lower body on different days. I've lost about 12 pounds so far with calorie deficit and focusing on protein. I'm sure some of it is water weight, but there is a clear difference in progress photos and its only been 2 1/2 weeks....I have had some low blood pressure a couple times. I'm not sure if this is recommended but I started drinking a little salt water a couple times a day. Seems to be helping.2
-
Thank you guys.. Your suggestions helped me a lot ๐๐0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions