HIIT vs. "moderate-intensity cardio"

bump

bump

I alternate both. Typically do 3x a week weights, 4-5x a week cardio.

3 of those cardio days are usually 3mile runs "steady state" cardio and 2 of those are HIIT on the elliptical.

I've read that it is detrimental to do HIIT everyday (and it is HARD to do it everyday if you do it right).

HIIT allegedly continues to burn calories after you are done due to the oxygen output or something sciency like that.

Who has the kind of time to walk for 2.5 hours a day? Well... maybe stay at home or work from home people. but... geez that's a lot lol. I haven't investigated HIIT enough to answer this question. But I'd say I guess it depends on how slow you are walking for those 2.5 hours.... if you're walking at "moderate to intense" where you can still carry on a conversation for 2.5 hours I'd say you're going to get a decent workout....

I'll say that I think HIIT > steady state cardio. Whether 20 mins equals 2.5 hours, I have no idea. I don't log it as anything more than 20 minutes. I do know that i broke through plateaus using HIIT (even when I had been doing 5-7 mile steady stead runs on the regular) and I know that HIIT makes me more tired.

The second question: I have no idea. I don't use a treadmill. It's better to run outside if you can because treadmills don't really make your body move through space. It's different than actually running....

Love HIIT!!! Bump!

Also, I've heard HIIT causes an afterburn effect that stead state doesn't.

You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

A study by Gibala et al.[6] demonstrated 2.5 hours of sprint interval training produced similar biochemical muscle changes to 10.5 hours of endurance training and similar endurance performance benefits. According to a study by King,[7] HIIT increases the resting metabolic rate (RMR) for the following 24 hours due to excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, and may improve maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) more effectively than doing only traditional, long aerobic workouts.[8][9][10][11] Tabata's 1997 study concluded that "intermittent exercise defined by the IE1 protocol may tax both the anaerobic and aerobic energy releasing systems almost maximally."[3]

High-intensity interval training has also been shown to improve athletic performance. For already well-trained athletes, improvements in performance become difficult to attain and increases in training volume can potentially yield no improvements. Previous research would suggest that, for athletes who are already trained, improvements in endurance performance can be achieved through high-intensity interval training. A recent study by Driller[12] showed an 8.2 second improvement in 2000m rowing time following 4 weeks of HIIT in well-trained rowers. This equates to a significant 2% improvement after just 7 interval training sessions. The interval training used by Driller and colleagues involved 8 x 2.5 minute work bouts at 90% of vVO2max, with individualized recovery intervals between each work bout.

[edit] Metabolic benefits

Long aerobic workouts have been promoted as the best method to reduce fat, as fatty acid utilization usually occurs after at least 30 minutes of training.[citation needed] HIIT is somewhat counterintuitive in this regard, but has nonetheless been shown to burn fat more effectively.[13][5] There may be a number of factors that contribute to this, including an increase in resting metabolic rate. HIIT also significantly lowers insulin resistance and causes skeletal muscle adaptations that result in enhanced skeletal muscle fat oxidation and improved glucose tolerance.[13]

Recently it has been shown that two weeks of HIIT can substantially improve insulin action in young healthy men.[14] Similarly, in young women, HIIT three times per week for 15 weeks compared to the same frequency of SSE exercise was associated with significant reductions in total body fat, subcutaneous leg and trunk fat, and insulin resistance.[15] HIIT may therefore represent a viable method for prevention of type-2 diabetes.

all that being said, from experience I'll say HIIT > steady state cardio
But after lifting heavy for a few months, HIIT doesn't feel as powerful and impactful as it used to.

I think a good work out regimine involves heavy lifting three times a week, HIIT for 20 mins three times a week, and a nice steady state run for at least 20 minutes on the days you don't do HIIT, with one day of rest.

I also think a week off from lifting here and there never hurt anyone.

(and the reason I would still do steady state is because it burns calories so i can eat more, and it also is the one and only thing that really seems to affect my mood. it's like anti-depressants/therapy/anti-anxiety meds all in one fun little package! Plus, I love long runs.)

They burn calories in different ways. For fat burning the HIIT is better in the long term because while it doesn't burn a lot of fat while you are doing it (you're mostly burning glycogen while doing high intensity training of any type), the high intensity level causes an elevated calorie burn after the exercise. You'll hear this referred to as EPOC, which is Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption, when the body is bringing itself back to homeostasis after exercise. The higher the intensity of exercise, the longer the EPOC curve and therefore, the more calories you burn after exercise. The same thing happens from heavy weight training. While you are in your normal resting mode, the body is pulling a higher percentage of calories burned from fat. The increase in EPOC means that when those extra calories are burned there is a higher percentage of them from fat. Steady state moderate intensity cardio pulls a much higher percentage of the calories burned from fat at the time, but at lower intensity you aren't burning as many calories and, therefore, may or may not be burning as many fat calories as you would in EPOC from a higher intensity workout. That being said, if you are talking about cardiorespiratory endurance, the steady state cardio is better because it trains those systems for longer duration. Personally, I think we should all do a mix of multiple types of training so that we can get the benefits to all of the various body systems, as well as the fat loss, muscle maintenance or growth, bone strengthening, etc. so I would recommend you add a HIIT day each week to your training and continue with your steady state cardio. And while you're at it, add some resistance and flexibility training for a total body program.

bump for later.

HIIT for me together with good diet was what kicked off my weightloss. Walking never gave me the same effect.
But I think it is important to remember what HIIT is, you really have to work very very hard for the 20 minutes or so that you do it.
Today most of my training is more or less HIIT and my strenght, endurance and speed has become incredibly good in a short time.

all that being said, from experience I'll say HIIT > steady state cardio
But after lifting heavy for a few months, HIIT doesn't feel as powerful and impactful as it used to.

I think a good work out regimine involves heavy lifting three times a week, HIIT for 20 mins three times a week, and a nice steady state run for at least 20 minutes on the days you don't do HIIT, with one day of rest.

I also think a week off from lifting here and there never hurt anyone.

(and the reason I would still do steady state is because it burns calories so i can eat more, and it also is the one and only thing that really seems to affect my mood. it's like anti-depressants/therapy/anti-anxiety meds all in one fun little package! Plus, I love long runs.)

I disagree with this amount of HIIT. HIIT breaks down muscle similar to strength training so if you do too much HIIT you are not giving your muscles enough time repair and rebuild (muscles get bigger and strong during recovery not during the work) I would say 1-2 HIIT, 1-2 Steady State, and 3-4 heavy lifting strength training days focusing on compound moments).

That said, for fat loss, cardio is not needed, you just need a caloric deficit (can be based on diet or a combo of diet and exercise) and must strength train to ensure that the weight loss is mainly fat, not muscle.

I'm finding that I love HIIT and want to learn more and more about the benefits and how to make it work. Keep the information coming.

In 2.5 hours of walking the average person will burn 750 calories. It is physically impossible to burn 750 calories in 20 minutes no matter what you do. So no, they are not equivalent.

I just started doing HIIT which included sprint on the treadmill. What I was instructed to do was Walk fast at 4.0 for 5 minutes.
Run fast at 8.0 for 20 seconds walk fast at 4.0 for 40 seconds....REPEAT 3 TIMES
Run Fast at 7.0 for 30 seconds walk fast at 4.0 for 30 seconds.....REPEAT 3 TIMES
Run at 6.0 for 1 minuted walk fast at 4.0 for 30 seconds......REPEAT 3 TIMES
walk fast at 4.0 for 2 mins, cool down at 3.0/3.5 for 5 minutes.

My heart rate was increased ( I have a HRM) and I was sweating much more then when I try running at 5.0/6.0 on the treadmill for a mile.

I think HIIT is beneficial because you work your heart rate up quickly, bring it down and then work it right back up.