HIIT vs. "moderate-intensity cardio"

2»

Replies

  • spaceys
    spaceys Posts: 58
    Not sure if anyone here uses Fitbit, but I would think HIIT would throw it for a real loop. Which makes me want to go down do "moderate-intensity cardio" with a calorie deficit route.
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    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.
    Thanks for re-affirming this. Fat loss is indeed what I'm after.

    Without question, the dietary calorie deficit is the most important element, but cardio (not strength training, although I do some) seems to help me.
  • EpiGaiaRepens
    EpiGaiaRepens Posts: 824 Member
    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.

    ahh...but there is the afterburm effect.....

    I also just think that if you can't fit 2.5 hours of walking into your day, or you want to maximize the time you do have, it's a good idea to do some HIIT.

    Sometimes, even when i do a long run, I'll do a few HIIT sprints in there just to maximize my burn.

    So while I kinda agree, I kinda dont.
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Not sure if anyone here uses Fitbit, but I would think HIIT would throw it for a real loop. Which makes me want to go down do "moderate-intensity cardio" with a calorie deficit route.

    I have a Fitbit. The running would be registered as a very active period. The steps might not be accurate. I would never let inaccuracy because of Fitbit keep me from a beneficial exercise, but I think I expect much less of Fitbit than some people. For example, I ignore its calorie burned estimates.

    I really enjoy my Fitbit, which was a gift. But it's best for people with a limited activity level who want to make sure they walk a sufficient amount each day.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    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.
    Thanks for re-affirming this. Fat loss is indeed what I'm after.

    Without question, the dietary calorie deficit is the most important element, but cardio (not strength training, although I do some) seems to help me.

    That is because the cardio helps you create your deficit, but that deficit could be obtained from diet alone, but you cannot maintain lean muscle mass doing cardio only (which is why strength training is important)
  • shimewazaMan
    shimewazaMan Posts: 413
    I love HIIT. While I haven't see huge weight loss on the scale, I see a huge difference in the mirror and in the way my clothes fit. I can't vouch for how many caloriess it really burns. I generally put in calisthenics (vigorous effort) as my exercise entry for HIIT since most of the exercises I use are types of calisthenics. I can say that HIIT and tabata training have gotten me in the best shape I have been in in a LONG time. I definitely notice the difference when I am sparring.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    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.

    ahh...but there is the afterburm effect.....

    I also just think that if you can't fit 2.5 hours of walking into your day, or you want to maximize the time you do have, it's a good idea to do some HIIT.

    Sometimes, even when i do a long run, I'll do a few HIIT sprints in there just to maximize my burn.

    So while I kinda agree, I kinda dont.
    The afterburn for 24 hours is something around 50 calories. HIIT is good for several reasons, but it's not the ultimate answer to fitness. It also will never equal the calorie burn that a trained runner can achieve on an easy aerobic run.
  • beachdiva2010
    beachdiva2010 Posts: 180 Member
    Bump for later
  • bagge72
    bagge72 Posts: 1,377 Member
    So I don't know too much about HIIT, it is a new term to me, but I started working in some interval running, because I was getting bored with just running on the treadmill for 35 minutes at the same speed, would this be the same as HIIT. This what I generally do.

    Do a warm up run for 5 minutes at 7MPH
    Run at 8.5MPH for 30 seconds then at 7MPH for a minute
    Run at 9.0MPH for 30 seconds then at 7MPH for a minute
    Run at 9.5MPH for 30 seconds then at 7MPH for a minute
    Run at 10MPH for 30 seconds then at7MPH for a minute

    Then I either do that process in reverse from 10MPH down to 8.5 MPH or I walk at a 15 inlcine at 4MPH for 5 minutes, and then finish off with usually a 8-10 minute run at 7MPH depending on how I feel.
  • bfitnbfab
    bfitnbfab Posts: 79
    Hopefully people aren't getting their calories-burned numbers from the cardio equipment they're using. Those numbers are beyond useless. Even the numbers MFP gives you are pretty suspect.

    Definitely invest in a good HRM. MFP & exercise numbers are way off from my HRM. Just remember to adjust your weight in your HRM as you are losing.
  • bfitnbfab
    bfitnbfab Posts: 79
    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.

    ahh...but there is the afterburm effect.....

    I also just think that if you can't fit 2.5 hours of walking into your day, or you want to maximize the time you do have, it's a good idea to do some HIIT.

    Sometimes, even when i do a long run, I'll do a few HIIT sprints in there just to maximize my burn.

    So while I kinda agree, I kinda dont.
    The afterburn for 24 hours is something around 50 calories. HIIT is good for several reasons, but it's not the ultimate answer to fitness. It also will never equal the calorie burn that a trained runner can achieve on an easy aerobic run.

    You're contradicting now. You're talking about the average person walking, then you're talking about a trained runner running.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    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.

    ahh...but there is the afterburm effect.....

    I also just think that if you can't fit 2.5 hours of walking into your day, or you want to maximize the time you do have, it's a good idea to do some HIIT.

    Sometimes, even when i do a long run, I'll do a few HIIT sprints in there just to maximize my burn.

    So while I kinda agree, I kinda dont.
    The afterburn for 24 hours is something around 50 calories. HIIT is good for several reasons, but it's not the ultimate answer to fitness. It also will never equal the calorie burn that a trained runner can achieve on an easy aerobic run.

    You're contradicting now. You're talking about the average person walking, then you're talking about a trained runner running.

    Not really. Long slow runs for runners are unmatched in their single session calorie burning. The only activities that are even in the ballpark are super long loaded hikes and long bike rides. They don't make energy gels for people doing HIIT. His first point was pointed at the OP's statement directly, pointing out the exaggeration. The second point was about exercise effectiveness and maximum calorie burn. HIIT simply cannot touch the calorie burn of a long slow run for a runner.

    I personally dislike normal HIIT because of the wear and tear on the legs. If I'm going to sprint, I'm going to go proper sprint with 100% effort. If I'm going to do jogging running I do regular speedwork, push myself for time on a middle distance, or do long easy runs. HIIT puts me in a faster than I can handle with good running form area without crossing the line to true sprinting, thus it wrecks my legs in ways that sprinting and slower running do not.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    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.

    ahh...but there is the afterburm effect.....

    I also just think that if you can't fit 2.5 hours of walking into your day, or you want to maximize the time you do have, it's a good idea to do some HIIT.

    Sometimes, even when i do a long run, I'll do a few HIIT sprints in there just to maximize my burn.

    So while I kinda agree, I kinda dont.
    The afterburn for 24 hours is something around 50 calories. HIIT is good for several reasons, but it's not the ultimate answer to fitness. It also will never equal the calorie burn that a trained runner can achieve on an easy aerobic run.

    You're contradicting now. You're talking about the average person walking, then you're talking about a trained runner running.
    If someone cannot walk at an average speed of 3mph then they're not going to be able to do any HIIT either.

    If people just want to burn calories they would be better off training themselves aerobically to be a runner than doing HIIT a couple of times a week. 20 minutes of HIIT is typical and probably about all that anyone can do at high intensity. To equal that calorie burn with easy steady state only would require someone to run an extra 3 or 4 minutes. If you factor in the afterburn then it might be another 2 or 3 minutes. So, at best you might save 5 to 7 minutes doing 20 minutes of HIIT. However, if you are just wanting to burn calories you can continue on for an hour or more with easy steady state and burn 500 to 700 more calories than the HIIT session burned including the afterburn.

    HIIT has its place in building fitness but is vastly oversold as a calorie burning tool.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Recently I heard from someone who seems to know what they are talking about that, if done right, 20 minutes of HIIT (High-intensity interval training) would be the equivalent of 2.5 hours of walking.

    What did they mean by "the equivalent of"? Same calories burned? I think that would totally depend on the intesity of both.
  • countdowntotarget
    countdowntotarget Posts: 108 Member
    BUMP to be read properly !!
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    the difference between HIIT and MIIT for me is more about heart rate and length of intervals than any direct setting on the treadmill.

    for instance for HIIT, i do 15-20 seconds sprinting at the fastest i can go and then spend 10-15 seconds resting. i can only get through 15-18 minutes of that before my legs give out. my heart rate during this entire time is in my anaerobic zone so anywhere from 160-200

    for MIIT, i usually do 2 minutes of active rest (walking at comfortable pace) then 1 minute run. the pace isnt something that i could keep up for a several minutes at a time but it's nowhere near my sprint speed. i can do this for 60 minutes and my heart rate ranges from 130-170..

    i dont know how that works for calorie burn and afterburn but doing a mix of the 2 has been working for me thus far
  • gregpack
    gregpack Posts: 426 Member
    A few weeks ago I started a HIIT protocol on an elliptical. It is 2 minute warm up, then 30 seconds max effort followed by 90 seconds active rest. You repeat for a total of eight sets, then a two minute cool down. total time involved is less than 20 minutes.

    One of the key benefits claimed if done in this fashion and by following some nutritional rules is a dramatic increase (up to 700%) of HGH in the body for two hours post-exercise. HGH is the stuff people are paying big bucks to inject themselves with. The most important nutritional rule is no carb consupmtion during this two hour post workout period. which is supposed to release somatostatin and inhibit HGH production. I assume that only important if you're older (over 35 or so) and want to optimize HGH production.

    I've only been doing this a couple of weeks, but have already taken a minute off my 5K run, I can't say how much the HIIT has played a role, but at this point I think it is worth further experimentation.

    Go to youtube and search "sprint 8" and "peak 8" for more info....
  • spaceys
    spaceys Posts: 58
    Recently I heard from someone who seems to know what they are talking about that, if done right, 20 minutes of HIIT (High-intensity interval training) would be the equivalent of 2.5 hours of walking.

    What did they mean by "the equivalent of"? Same calories burned? I think that would totally depend on the intesity of both.
    I think so. She had mentioned HIIT to me before, but this was the first time I really thought about since now I know I have 50 lbs. of weight to lose after just having a caliper body fat % done. I guess I was trying to avoid doing "talking but not singing" cardio 30 minutes 5x a week, and in explaining HIIT, she was trying to sell the afterburn effect. She used to be into bodybuilding, which I am just your average Joe, not sure what difference that makes though. The HIIT idea certainly piqued my interest but it didn't sound fun.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    How does one do max effort on a machine? I mean, my treadmill can't get close to my sprinting speed, there is absolutely no way it could replicate the acceleration correctly (which is really where you produce peak power), and even if it did it would be incredibly dangerous, as once the C-P system cuts out you noticeably slow which would be very bad on a treadmill. Not to mention I'd be afraid of punching my foot straight through the deck during acceleration.

    Either way, though HIIT seems to be this new thing, anybody that's played American Football at any level in the last...like 40 years or more, knows what a gasser is (interval sprints) and knows that they work to get you in playing shape fast. However they are absolute all out torture.
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    How does one do max effort on a machine? I mean, my treadmill can't get close to my sprinting speed, there is absolutely no way it could replicate the acceleration correctly (which is really where you produce peak power), and even if it did it would be incredibly dangerous, as once the C-P system cuts out you noticeably slow which would be very bad on a treadmill.
    yeah it's tough.. the treadmill sprints are *easier* than the real life sprints for me because my natural stride is much longer than what i can safely do on the treadmill. plus i can go faster in real life BUT i'm not fit enough to do that yet.

    for the acceleration issues what i do is leave the treadmill on whatever the sprint speed is. i run for 15 seconds then hop up on the sides for 15 seconds of rest. not idea, especially towards the end when i'm more likely to be tired and my hands are sweaty it's easy to misstep on that side hop if you're not 100% paying attention

    but for what it;s worth, the treadmill and stairmaster are the only 2 machines i get close to my max effort without having the limitations of the machine itself get in the way
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    the treadmill sprints are *easier* than the real life sprints for me because my natural stride is much longer than what i can safely do on the treadmill. plus i can go faster in real life BUT i'm not fit enough to do that yet.

    You'd be surprised, sprinting is a very natural activity. After 15+ years of never having run beyond a light jog for a few seconds, it took a few months for jogging to get really comfortable with it, sprinting OTOH felt as natural on the first run as it did as a kid when I ran track.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Recently I heard from someone who seems to know what they are talking about that, if done right, 20 minutes of HIIT (High-intensity interval training) would be the equivalent of 2.5 hours of walking.

    What did they mean by "the equivalent of"? Same calories burned? I think that would totally depend on the intesity of both.
    I think so. She had mentioned HIIT to me before, but this was the first time I really thought about since now I know I have 50 lbs. of weight to lose after just having a caliper body fat % done. I guess I was trying to avoid doing "talking but not singing" cardio 30 minutes 5x a week, and in explaining HIIT, she was trying to sell the afterburn effect. She used to be into bodybuilding, which I am just your average Joe, not sure what difference that makes though. The HIIT idea certainly piqued my interest but it didn't sound fun.

    I don't think that HIIT would necesarily give a longer afterburn than steady state cardio. I like and do both. HIIT is fun for me because it reminds me of playing. If you've ever watched kids at play they seem to have endless energy, but they are constantly moving fast, then slow, then fast, etc. This, I think, is probably the most natural way for humans to exercise. I'm not sure what type of HIIT was recommended but there are many ways to do it.
  • gregpack
    gregpack Posts: 426 Member
    How does one do max effort on a machine? I mean, my treadmill can't get close to my sprinting speed, there is absolutely no way it could replicate the acceleration correctly (which is really where you produce peak power), and even if it did it would be incredibly dangerous, as once the C-P system cuts out you noticeably slow which would be very bad on a treadmill. Not to mention I'd be afraid of punching my foot straight through the deck during acceleration.


    Try it on an elliptical. You have no problems accelerating to full capacity and you won't fall off. It's easy on your joints. You can even incorporate your arms in the activity. The Sprint 8 people also recommend a recumbent bike as another suitable piece of equipment.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories