HIIT or Meduim paced?

[kylewoods]

what cardio do you guys think works best, HIIT cardio or medium paced cardio for 45-60mins?

iv heard differnt views on this. some say that HIIT only burns carbs and not fat, im not sure what this means. other says its really good.

wot about medium paced cardio?

 

[KhorneDeth]

A lot of opinions from a lot of different people on this question.... you can search all day and all night and probably still not come up with a REALLY definitive answer.

But I approach it like this -- if you're a couch-potato just now getting off your ass, you're likely not in any sort of condition to put in any all-out HIIT sprinting/biking/whatever. So, even if it's just to build a decent level of fitness, walking and jogging and running for a length of time at a sustainable pace is good enough. Then, once you can run down the block and back without puking up yesterday's breakfast, you can break into some honest HIIT workouts.

After all, check out a couple pics of elite runners: those that do 10k's or marathons, and then those that do 100-400m sprints. You'll notice a drastic difference in build/body composition. Which do you want to look like?

Make your choice, and train the way they do.

-- KhorneDeth

 

[Madcow2]

I wouldn't consider any pace that can be maintained for an hour as medium or moderate. Think of intensity as speed. Your best 40 is going to be about 100%. Your best 400 is going to be a good bit less. Now I don't know how far you can run in an hour but it certainly isn't going to be anywhere near either of these and likely to be far far down the scale although. Now think about weight training with intensity as a percentage of a single rep max (i.e. max single is 100%, triple is 90%, 5 is 85% and so on). What intensity do you think is going to enable you to do reps for 5 minutes straight? How about 60 minutes? Now, which cardio stimulus do you think is most aligned with weighttraining? And do you still think 60 minutes is moderate intensity or pace?

There's a lot of area where you can run intervals that are not at 100% and get a ton of benefit (probably better to not run 100% all the time - sprinters certainly don't train like that) but constant pace running for long time periods is just about the polar opposite stimulus to weight training.

 

[silver_shadow]

with hiit i've noticed results very quickly. also, i'm asthmatic so if anyone says long slow cardio is better... i've found hiit to do alot of good things for my lung capacity. in short, hiit is better for fat burning and fitness IMHO.

 

[KillahBee]

I actually do a combo of both and it seems to work fine.

 

[silver_shadow]

I actually do a combo of both and it seems to work fine.

anything more specific? do u think there is an advantage to this approach?

 

[KillahBee]

anything more specific? do u think there is an advantage to this approach?

I think it all depends on goals. mine are not simply weight/BF loss. I am training for a 100-mile bike ride, so I am trying to work on my endurance and my short sprint power. so the combo of both work best for me in that aspect. I also get very bored with cardio, so switching it up like this works best for me. It also all comes down to diet for me.

 

[silver_shadow]

I think it all depends on goals. mine are not simply weight/BF loss. I am training for a 100-mile bike ride, so I am trying to work on my endurance and my short sprint power. so the combo of both work best for me in that aspect. I also get very bored with cardio, so switching it up like this works best for me. It also all comes down to diet for me.

oh ya... i forgot that your training for a 100-miler. best of luck on that.

 

[KillahBee]

oh ya... i forgot that your training for a 100-miler. best of luck on that.

thanks. I gotta do something to push myself with the back injury since I can't really lift heavy.

 

[nelmsjer]

KB, good luck on your race and get better, bud.

 

[HunterUk]

From a purely fat-burning standpoint I've read that a HIIT approach will burn less fat during the actual activity (be it running, cyling, etc.) but will raise you metabolism sufficiently to make you burn overall more calories throughout the day. More time spent on the actvity at a slow, steady pace will burn more calories on the spot but your metabolism doesn't get raised nearly as much causing less of an overall improvement.

 

[coolcolj]

HITT is far more effective! if you do it right, and it's not catabolic, will build better fitness and muscle as well

if you combine explosive moves, unstable whole body exercises with short rest periods (30sec to 1min), combined with a clean diet and gallons of ice cold water, you should be pleased with the results
Working well for me so far, down 3+lbs in 19days, and gained some muscle ontop to boot

see my journal for details

read

http://www.alwyncosgrove.com/Energy-System-Training.html

some examples of workouts - there are plenty more from tmag, I rember one from Poliquin, Davies and a few from Don Alessi

http://www.mensfitness.com/fitness/22

http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle...F401A786E9EB441.hydra?article=06-005-training

the key is generate a ton of lactic acid and keep the heart rate in overdrive, plus lots of sweat. More carbs burnt = more heat, = more metabolic disruption

 

[Topside]

I think interval training is the most effective, for myself anyway; in a work:relief ratio of either 1 to 1 or 2 to 1. So basically i sprint for a min or 2 then i walk for a min. Really kick ass imo.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

I'm not going to read the replies, simply because this has been discussed time and again. I'll simply throw out to you what I know:

Calories in vs. calories out. If you burn enough calories, regardless of the activity used, you will lose weight.

Now, if you search pubmed, HST forums, or hypertrophy-research, you'll find studies showing that HIIT is likely optimal. This is because it's very good at partitioning nutrients and burning away the subcutaneous fat (the bad stuff we don't want) when compared to steady-state cardio.

Aside from that, HIIT is also quicker. It's "cost effective", if you will. Not to mention you can likely cut a squatting session out once a week (assuming you're doing it 3x) and let sprints (again, making the assumption you'll sprint for HIIT) replace them. The entire lower body will respond well to sprints.

The only issues with them are recovery and form. Sprints can take their toll on a body whose muscles are not firing properly, or whose form is lacking. Not to mention sprinting + lifting can be a bitch to bounce back from. Finally, sprints can hurt the lower back if you're not able to absorb the force properly. Remember, 4-6x your bodyweight is what you're dealing with every stride. That's excessive force, especially if you've got a back problem to begin with.

 

[psychedout]

I'm not going to read the replies, simply because this has been discussed time and again. I'll simply throw out to you what I know:

Calories in vs. calories out. If you burn enough calories, regardless of the activity used, you will lose weight.

Now, if you search pubmed, HST forums, or hypertrophy-research, you'll find studies showing that HIIT is likely optimal. This is because it's very good at partitioning nutrients and burning away the subcutaneous fat (the bad stuff we don't want) when compared to steady-state cardio.

Aside from that, HIIT is also quicker. It's "cost effective", if you will. Not to mention you can likely cut a squatting session out once a week (assuming you're doing it 3x) and let sprints (again, making the assumption you'll sprint for HIIT) replace them. The entire lower body will respond well to sprints.

The only issues with them are recovery and form. Sprints can take their toll on a body whose muscles are not firing properly, or whose form is lacking. Not to mention sprinting + lifting can be a bitch to bounce back from. Finally, sprints can hurt the lower back if you're not able to absorb the force properly. Remember, 4-6x your bodyweight is what you're dealing with every stride. That's excessive force, especially if you've got a back problem to begin with.

What is your opinion on doing HIIT cardio in the AM? Or AM cardio just in general? I tend to do 15-20 minutes of AM cardio every day of the week when dieting at 3.5mpg @ 10% incline. Nothing hard by any means but it gets the job done for shedding fat. I would consider a HIIT type session though. Maybe 3 min warmup then 5 minutes of sprints and 2 mintues of cool down.

Last question, how about using other machines for HIIT cardio? Bike, elyptical, stepper, etc. I know the treadmill burns the most calories, but with the aformentioned issues its something that crossed my mind.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

I'm not a fan of AM cardio in any fashion, but especially not intervals. Low intensity stuff? Okay, it's not terrible. HIIT on an empty stomach? No way. Fat loss has nothing to do with cardio really - it's a matter of eating less calories. The best part about HIIT is that it helps you burn off subcutaneous fat (the kind we don't want) as opposed to visceral fat. There's a whole reason this happens, and I'll dig up some stuff from Jules over on the HST boards if you want.

HIIT is also shorter-lived, so it gets the job done quicker and easier. Plus, just ask CCJ - you'll see lower body and possibly erector growth, even if you alreadu squat & deadlift.

I'd do a 5-10 minute light warmup with dynamic stretches prior to sprints. You wouldn't sprint for 5 minutes straight, but I think you know that already. Not that it's even possible - you'd just be doing, say, 30 seconds of sprinting, 60 seconds of walking or light jogging, and going back and forth. You can either do it for time (i.e., 5 minutes total) or "sets" (5 sprint sets, so that'd be 4 walking sets in between each set of sprints).

You can do anything with HIIT. Swimming is crazy with it, but you'll look like a retard once you start flailing about, which you likely will as you push yourself when you get tired. Just hope no one notices and throws you water wings.

Vicious recommended to me once, the versaclimber. Never tried it myself, but he said it's wicked for HIIT, since it utilizes the whole body. It's a very effective way at increasing your ability at tantric love-making, as well.

You'll probably burn more with the versaclimber, honestly. Plus, don't worry about what you burn during the activity. The majority of it comes later, after you're stopped and your metabolism is revved up.

 

[psychedout]

I'm not a fan of AM cardio in any fashion, but especially not intervals. Low intensity stuff? Okay, it's not terrible. HIIT on an empty stomach? No way. Fat loss has nothing to do with cardio really - it's a matter of eating less calories. The best part about HIIT is that it helps you burn off subcutaneous fat (the kind we don't want) as opposed to visceral fat. There's a whole reason this happens, and I'll dig up some stuff from Jules over on the HST boards if you want.

HIIT is also shorter-lived, so it gets the job done quicker and easier. Plus, just ask CCJ - you'll see lower body and possibly erector growth, even if you alreadu squat & deadlift.

I'd do a 5-10 minute light warmup with dynamic stretches prior to sprints. You wouldn't sprint for 5 minutes straight, but I think you know that already. Not that it's even possible - you'd just be doing, say, 30 seconds of sprinting, 60 seconds of walking or light jogging, and going back and forth. You can either do it for time (i.e., 5 minutes total) or "sets" (5 sprint sets, so that'd be 4 walking sets in between each set of sprints).

You can do anything with HIIT. Swimming is crazy with it, but you'll look like a retard once you start flailing about, which you likely will as you push yourself when you get tired. Just hope no one notices and throws you water wings.

Vicious recommended to me once, the versaclimber. Never tried it myself, but he said it's wicked for HIIT, since it utilizes the whole body. It's a very effective way at increasing your ability at tantric love-making, as well.

You'll probably burn more with the versaclimber, honestly. Plus, don't worry about what you burn during the activity. The majority of it comes later, after you're stopped and your metabolism is revved up.

Excellent post. I do believe your word but would still like to see the studies if you have time. I laughed pretty hard imagining the swimming scenario LoL. I would assume you are pretty busy with school and/or work (as am I). I could always wonder over HST too. I have maybe 30 posts over there. Next time dieting I am going to NOT do AM cardio and do exclusively HIIT and see how that goes. Its only about 4-5 weeks away anyway.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

I gotta dig them up, so give me a bit. Might not be until tomorrow.

No school right now, but work is a bitch.

 

[siamesedream]

I've been doing ghost-pale knock-you-on-your-balls HIIT 3x a week and it's been doing jack for fat-loss for me. I'm going to start trying 45 minute cardio at low to medium intensity and see how that goes.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Stop eating so fucking much then, that's why you're not losing weight.

And I doubt you're going balls to the wall intensity 3x a week. It's rare for anyone to tolerate that, unless you're doing nothing else.

 

[silver_shadow]

I gotta dig them up, so give me a bit. Might not be until tomorrow.

No school right now, but work is a bitch.

GIMME! I WANT THOSE STUDIES! I WANT THOSE STUDIES!