Who's doing HIIT?

[nikolai_bolkov]

But in the end both ways will work on condition of one thing and one thing only - consistency.

Do cardio any way you want to every day for 2 months...your gonna lose some fat

 

[anthrax]

But in the end both ways will work on condition of one thing and one thing only - consistency.

Do cardio any way you want to every day for 2 months...your gonna lose some fat

Agree !

BTW doing cardio for losing fat is not Rocket Science

Try by yourself and see what works best for you

 

[~SC~]

I was going to comment more about HIIT vs. longer duration cardio, but realized that everyone is looking for what they want to hear. I'll keep utilizing what keeps me ripped, muscular, and what delivers the exact same results to my clients.

(BTW, longer duration cardio is NOT catabolic, if anything, the burning of fat during the session while NOT burning stored glycogen (due to the correct target heart rate) IS assurance that you will help yourself to be anti-catabolic at this time by NOT touching muscle. As well, HOW YOU EAT over the course of the day, 24/7, IS what determines if you are catabolic OR NOT! Catabolism is a result of lack of adequate nutrition, not a result of burning stored bodyfat in an intelligent manner.)

To each his own however, I've solidified my plan.

~SC~

 

[variation]

As well, HOW YOU EAT over the course of the day, 24/7, IS what determines if you are catabolic OR NOT!

Everyone should read that, it's a very important part.

in regards to effectiveness, they both work, but for myself, others and throughout scientific study HIIT has been shown time and time again, a more effective method to an array of aspects in fitness, health and body composition.

Let's take look at a couple studies here:

Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8. Related Articles, Links

Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.


Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.

Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

The impact of two different modes of training on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism was investigated in young adults who were subjected to either a 20-week endurance-training (ET) program (eight men and nine women) or a 15-week high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program (five men and five women). The mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ, whereas the corresponding value for the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program. When corrected for the energy cost of training, the decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds induced by the HIIT program was ninefold greater than by the ET program. Muscle biopsies obtained in the vastus lateralis before and after training showed that both training programs increased similarly the level of the citric acid cycle enzymatic marker. On the other hand, the activity of muscle glycolytic enzymes was increased by the HIIT program, whereas a decrease was observed following the ET program. The enhancing effect of training on muscle 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) enzyme activity, a marker of the activity of beta-oxidation, was significantly greater after the HIIT program. In conclusion, these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure, vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent than exercise of low to moderate intensity. Moreover, the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the HIIT program appear to favor the process of lipid oxidation.


especially take note to the part that says:

"When corrected for the energy cost of training, the decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds induced by the HIIT program was ninefold greater than by the ET program."

9 fold greater than by the ET program, yes, that means the subcutaneous fat loss from HIIT was infact 9 times as great as it was from endurance training. And if you missed it the first time take another look at it, HIIT was run for 15 weeks, and endurance training for 20.

and not only for fatloss; but for health:


STUDY DESIGN: Pre-post training intervention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training intensity on physical capacity, lipid profile and insulin sensitivity in early rehabilitation of spinal cord injured (SCI) patients, and to assess the correlation between peak aerobic capacity (VO(2Peak)) and insulin sensitivity. SETTING: Spinal Cord Rehabilitation Unit, Sunnaas Hospital, Nesoddtangen, Norway. METHOD: Six recently injured SCI individuals participated in the arm training intervention and were randomly admitted to a high-intensity (HI; 70-80% heart rate reserve (HRR)) and low-intensity (LI; 40-50% HRR) group. The 1 h interval training consisted of 3 min exercise bouts interspersed with 2 min of rest, three times a week for 8 weeks. In addition, a correlation coefficient was obtained between VO(2Peak) and insulin sensitivity in 11 SCI patients. RESULTS: The 8-week training program resulted in a significant increase in VO(2Peak) and maximal power output (PO(Max)) for the group as a whole (P<0.05). VO(2Peak) increased significantly more and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TC/HDL-C) ratio and triglycerids decreased significantly more in the HI group than in the LI group (P=0.05). Training-induced changes in insulin sensitivity were significantly different between the groups (P=0.05), which was due to a nonsignificant decline in insulin sensitivity in the HI group and a nonsignificant improvement in the LI group. A significant positive correlation was found between VO(2peak) and insulin sensitivity (r=0.68, P=0.02). CONCLUSION: The interval arm training protocol as used in the present study enables recently injured SCI patients to do substantial work at a relatively high intensity. Results indicate that improvements in physical capacity and lipid profile were more pronounced in response to high-intensity training. The significant correlation between maximal oxygen consumption and insulin sensitivity indicates that, as in the able-bodied population, peak aerobic capacity is a predictive value with regard to insulin sensitivity in SCI. Future studies with larger groups assessing the role of exercise intensity on insulin sensitivity in SCI are suggested.


Not to mention, it's quite useful for athletes, far greater than that of low intensity.


Izumi Tabata and his colleagues at the National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Tokyo, Japan, compared the effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on V02max and anaerobic capacity. (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (1996) 28, 1327-1330). Interestingly, the high-intensity protocol had been used by major members of the Japanese Speed Skating team for several years; it's a real-world training plan. As you will see, however, the protocol is unique among aerobic training programs for its intensity and brevity.

Many studies have been done on the effect of training on V02max, but little information has been available about the effect on anaerobic capacity. That's because until recently methods for measuring anaerobic capacity have been inadequate. This study used accumulated oxygen deficit to measure anaerobic energy release, and is one of the first to measure the effect of training on both aerobic and anaerobic capacity.

Notice that the duration of the moderate-intensity and the high-intensity protocols are drastically different: (excluding warm-ups) one hour compared to only about 4 minutes per training schedule

Tabata's moderate-intensity protocol will sound familiar; it's the same steady-state aerobic training done by many (perhaps most) fitness enthusiasts.

Here are the details (stay with me on this): In the moderate-intensity group, seven active young male physical education majors exercised on stationary bicycles 5 days per week for 6 weeks at 70% of V02max, 60 minutes each session. V02max was measured before and after the training and every week during the 6 week period. As each subject's V02max improved, exercise intensity was increased to keep them pedaling at 70% of their actual V02max. Maximal accumulated oxygen deficit was also measured, before, at 4 weeks and after the training.

A second group followed a high-intensity interval program. Seven students, also young and physically active, exercised five days per week using a training program similar to the Japanese speed skaters. After a 10-minute warm-up, the subjects did seven to eight sets of 20 seconds at 170% of V02max, with a 10 second rest between each bout. Pedaling speed was 90-rpm and sets were terminated when rpms dropped below 85. When subjects could complete more than 9 sets, exercise intensity was increased by 11 watts. The training protocol was altered one day per week. On that day, the students exercised for 30 minutes at 70% of V02max before doing 4 sets of 20 second intervals at 170% of V02max. This latter session was not continued to exhaustion. Again, V02max and anaerobic capacity was determined before, during and after the training.

In some respects the results were no surprise, but in others they may be ground breaking. The moderate-intensity endurance training program produced a significant increase in V02max (about 10%), but had no effect on anaerobic capacity. The high-intensity intermittent protocol improved V02max by about 14%; anaerobic capacity increased by a whopping 28%.

Dr. Tabata and his colleagues believe this is the first study to demonstrate an increase in both aerobic and anaerobic power. What's more, in an e-mail response to Dick Winett, Dr. Tabata said, "The fact is that the rate of increase in V02max [14% for the high-intensity protocol - in only 6 weeks] is one of the highest ever reported in exercise science." (Note, the students participating in this study were members of varsity table tennis, baseball, basketball, soccer and swimming teams and already had relatively high aerobic capacities.)

The results, of course, confirm the well-known fact that the results of training are specific. The intensity in the first protocol (70% of V02max) did not stress anaerobic components (lactate production and oxygen debt) and, therefore, it was predictable that anaerobic capacity would be unchanged. On the other hand, the subjects in the high-intensity group exercised to exhaustion ,and peak blood lactate levels indicated that anaerobic metabolism was being taxed to the max. So, it was probably also no big surprise that anaerobic capacity increased quite significantly.

What probably was a surprise, however, is that a 4 minute training program of very-hard 20 second repeats, in the words of the researchers, "may be optimal with respect to improving both the aerobic and the anaerobic energy release systems."

 

[~SC~]

Very neat.....HIIT has it's place yeah. Sport specific types of cardio seem to include a lot of HIIT. Seems when it's bodybuilding, those I've learned from did the low-medium variety of cardiovascular exercise.

There are also studies which support the longer duration/lower intensity (65-75% MHR) so as with any subject, there are two sides to each "story" as it were. No I don't have them to post here, but I'm sure everyone realizes there are such studies.

As everyone is different, it's best each choose his/her own form. I know that HIIT does nothing for me but make me flat and stringy, and in what I do I need to strip fat, and keep an aerobic activity (cardio) just that, aerobic, NOT anaerobic. I'm not interested in increasing any type of endurance for sports or similar activity.
The programs that I contruct all revolve around the lower intensity version, as I've built my nutritional programs around that type of activity. That's a key as well, eat for your type of activity. The results I deliver from my programs and that are the "norm", are not attainable with HIIT. So, this is not to say HIIT totally sucks, but for what I do and those I assist, it's not in the plans.

So, all in all, to hell with studies I'd say, and do what works for you. That's the best bet, as questioning what is right/wrong here is not only impossible, it's time you could use to do cardio, lol......

~SC~

 

[variation]

Very neat.....HIIT has it's place yeah. Sport specific types of cardio seem to include a lot of HIIT. Seems when it's bodybuilding, those I've learned from did the low-medium variety of cardiovascular exercise.

There are also studies which support the longer duration/lower intensity (65-75% MHR) so as with any subject, there are two sides to each "story" as it were. No I don't have them to post here, but I'm sure everyone realizes there are such studies.

As everyone is different, it's best each choose his/her own form. I know that HIIT does nothing for me but make me flat and stringy, and in what I do I need to strip fat, and keep an aerobic activity (cardio) just that, aerobic, NOT anaerobic. I'm not interested in increasing any type of endurance for sports or similar activity.
The programs that I contruct all revolve around the lower intensity version, as I've built my nutritional programs around that type of activity. That's a key as well, eat for your type of activity. The results I deliver from my programs and that are the "norm", are not attainable with HIIT. So, this is not to say HIIT totally sucks, but for what I do and those I assist, it's not in the plans.

So, all in all, to hell with studies I'd say, and do what works for you. That's the best bet, as questioning what is right/wrong here is not only impossible, it's time you could use to do cardio, lol......

~SC~

true, there's usually more than one way to do something, rather than view a specific thing as the best, other factors can make doing that particular thing optimal, and of course it's geared to goals.. so I agree do what works and is geared for your goals.


that's the best bet, as questioning what is right/wrong here is not only impossible, it's time you could use to do cardio, lol......

yep, sometimes I think people spend too much time intellectualizing about things when they just really need to get to work.

 

[~SC~]

~SC~