Confused- interval training v more calories burnt

This is an interesting question. I hope someone answers it, because I'd like to know, too!

someone better could probably explain it but the basic understanding about HIIT (high intensity interval training), is the afterburn. Your body burns more calories AFTER youve stopped working out. With aerobic exercises (with oxygen), the fat/calories are only being burnt while you exercise, once you stop, the fat burning stops (not quite this simple but its the jist of it). with anaerobic respiration (without oxygen/hiit) calories are being burnt 24-48 hours after youve stopped exercising. So you get the same calorie burn, but in half the time.

so i did a test when i first got my HRM because i kept hearing how you burn some insane amount of calories doing HIIT.
during a non hiit cardio session, i burn something like 400-500 calories per hour.

during the sprint HIIT session (18 minutes including cool down) i only burned about 300 calories. that was the end of my workout. i kept my HRM on for the next 40 minutes and by then i was up to 800 calories.

not bad for less than 18 minutes worth of work, but those were 18 minutes of HELL

i'm kind of addicted to hiit now, but unfortunately it's not something you can do every day if you're doing it right. especially if you're lifting weights too

someone better could probably explain it but the basic understanding about HIIT (high intensity interval training), is the afterburn. Your body burns more calories AFTER youve stopped working out. With aerobic exercises (with oxygen), the fat/calories are only being burnt while you exercise, once you stop, the fat burning stops (not quite this simple but its the jist of it). with anaerobic respiration (without oxygen/hiit) calories are being burnt 24-48 hours after youve stopped exercising. So you get the same calorie burn, but in half the time.

I don't think thats true. Found this article:

http://www.burnthefat.com/high_intensity_interval_training.html

I don't think thats true. Found this article:

http://www.burnthefat.com/high_intensity_interval_training.html

You will always find studies supporting one thing or another.
I have tried both and get far better results with HIIT, that's all the 'science' I need!

I don't think thats true. Found this article:

http://www.burnthefat.com/high_intensity_interval_training.html

You will always find studies supporting one thing or another.
I have tried both and get far better results with HIIT, that's all the 'science' I need!

this is the way i look at it as well. also the only running i did for a month was those 15 second sprint HIIT intervals once or twice a week (6 minutes total of sprinting in an 18 minute session). before that i could maybe run on 4.6 for like 5 minutes before getting too winded. by the end of the month i was up to running at 5.1 for 30 minutes and could have gone longer.

i know i've read research that says HIIT and steady state have no correlation to each other because you are working 2 different types of muscles. i just know that for me that isnt the case. working on sprints helped my endurance at lower intensity

did anyone reason the venuto article? i'd be interested in informed responses.

also is what the op describes really hiit, or just interval training?

Lyle McDonald at www.bodyrecomposition.com has published an excellent series of articles describing the differences between HIIT and steady-state training. His overall discussion is more detailed that Venuto but, in terms of the Tremblay study, is in complete agreement (as am I). I find the Tremblay study and the Tabata studies to be two of the most misinterpreted and misused pieces of research I have ever seen.

HIIT is an excellent form of training. It should be an important part of everyone's routine. But it's not some wonder drug that should be used to the exclusion of all else.

I don't have time to go into detail. Just go to Lyle's site and search "interval vs steady state" and you will get all the information you want and put this whole question into perspective.

You really have to read the details on a lot of these studies because that's where the truth usually lies--not just in the "results". The studies that show the "advantages" of HIIT are usually designed to be isocaloric--that means they are set up so that the participants burn the same number of calories each workout, or in total. You have to do that otherwise you could not compare results. So when doing workouts of equal calorie burn, HIIT definitely wins out. It's probably not the "afterburn" effect--the effect of HIIT seems to be more one of increased catecholamine release (because of the higher effort), which results in greater fat loss.

Again, however, that is comparing workouts that achieve the same calorie burn. For beginners, endurance workouts can burn far more calories than HIIT, even taking the "afterburn" in to account. While there is still variability in study results, a meta analysis of research done a few years ago, suggested that the average "afterburn" effect of HIIT was 14% total calories burned during the workout (vs 7% for steady-state cardio). A typical calorie burn for a HIIT workout might be 300 calories. 14% is a whopping 42 more calories. Even if we go 400 calories, the "afterburn" is 56. Someone burning that many calories in a HIIT workout could typically burn 600-800 in a 45-60 min endurance workout.

Obviously, one of the advantages of HIIT is a shorter workout time. However, many beginners, and even advanced beginners or intermediates cannot work at a high enough level--even for a 15-20 min interval workout--to realize the promised benefits of HIIT. To really do HIIT the right way takes a pretty high level of conditioning and effort. At that level, most people will realize more benefits by still doing a good chunk of FOCUSED steady-state training (not just going through the motions), using higher-intensity interval training as an adjunct to improve performance.

There are lots of different ways to do effective cardio that don't require full-fledged HIIT (and, again, I not criticizing HIIT in any way shape or form). Mostly that includes interval training at different intensity levels, varying durations, and doing tempo training. Whenever I read one of these anecdotes (e.g. Karen Cosgrove) that describes how they were doing all this cardio, but then switched to HIIT and saw these miraculous results, my reaction is always "well, you were doing some crappy cardio all those years".

All types of exercise training have benefits--you should think of them not as a hierarchy, but as tools -- it's not a question of which is "best", it's one of using the right tool for the job.

so i did a test when i first got my HRM because i kept hearing how you burn some insane amount of calories doing HIIT.
during a non hiit cardio session, i burn something like 400-500 calories per hour.

during the sprint HIIT session (18 minutes including cool down) i only burned about 300 calories. that was the end of my workout. i kept my HRM on for the next 40 minutes and by then i was up to 800 calories.

not bad for less than 18 minutes worth of work, but those were 18 minutes of HELL

i'm kind of addicted to hiit now, but unfortunately it's not something you can do every day if you're doing it right. especially if you're lifting weights too

thanks for posting that. I had been thinking about doing the same kidn of experiment but never got round to it.