"Why HIIT is NOT Better For Fat Loss"

[KCBiggs]

Just read this article about HIIT vs. Steady state cardio, http://stronglifts.com/hiit-interval-training-fat-loss/.

Cliffs:
- 30mins HIIT: burns 324kcal (incl 14% EPOC)
- 45mins steady state cardio: burns 481kcal (incl 7% EPOC)

I did 45mins of cardio yesterday and was bored outta ma face. I thought about doing HIIT but after reading this I might just push through 45mins cardio instead, just because it could be more beneficial for my goals.

Thought it was an interesting read anyways. Enjoy!

[kazr]

i agree, i did 60 mins on the treadmill and burned 950cals

the speed was 6.4km and incline at 12

boring as phuck but the cals burnt are definately worth the effort

[th3pwn3r]

i did 60 mins on the treadmill and burned 950cals

the speed was 6.4km and incline at 12

I have a hard time believing this. I can't see a guy as large as you are running that speed for that long.

[Spanishdream]

I have a hard time believing this. I can't see a guy as large as you are running that speed for that long.

And at that incline for 60 minutes!

[Photostic]

I have a hard time believing this. I can't see a guy as large as you are running that speed for that long.

It's only 4MPH. That's a brisk walk.

[Noviceplus]

Did anyone believe that it was better for fat loss?

Can't really agree with the article when it said that doing 5x5 with 3x 20minute HIIT will stall you. I think that belongs in the the general "it depends" (experience, genes, etc.) category.

[mpipes]

do both, get the benefits of both, don't worry about calorie burn because you're not contributing much to that either way.

When you can do 3-4 hours on a daily basis, then you're contributing a significant calorie burn through exercise.

[Noviceplus]

do both, get the benefits of both, don't worry about calorie burn because you're not contributing much to that either way.

It's about 500 calories for the 45 minute session. That's equal to the common diet deficit of -500 per day. So, it literally doubles your deficit. How is that not a big contribution?

[ryan2921]

just eat less and avoid cardio altogether?

[jsmoor09]

I'm too lazy to research it in detail right now, so just correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't HIIT raise your metabolism when you're not running? I mean at the very least, for a while after you quit, but I thought even people that did it chronically have an elevated metabolism from it.

[Serpentarius]

HIIT is generally 16-20 mins, preferably the lower end of that. On a recumbent bike using intervals of 45 seconds moderate intensity, and 15 of going "all out", my glutes are on fire 6 minutes in, its physically impossible to go past 20 minutes if you are really pushing yourself and gasping for air near the last couple of minutes. My heart is still pumping fast about 2-3 hours later FWIW. There are many arguments on fat oxidation, but at the end of the day its something so trivial worth worrying about that keeping your calorie deficit and macros in check is far more important. You cannot see what is happening on a cellular level and its not worth even worrying about, and not everyone will have the same results.
If someone can do HIIT for half an hour, they arent being honest with their intensity levels or effort.

[drewsedg]

The difference in the two methods is going to be negligible so it isn't worth arguing over.

The only significant difference is that you can push steady state cardio for longer periods whereas true HIIT should have you on your ass inside 25 minutes. By pushing your steady state cardio to an hour or more you could start to use significantly more energy.

[th3pwn3r]

i agree, i did 60 mins on the treadmill and burned 950cals

the speed was 6.4km and incline at 12

boring as phuck but the cals burnt are definately worth the effort

It's only 4MPH. That's a brisk walk.

Lol, good point. I had my mind focused on KG to LB conversion. It's 1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers. I'm still very doubtful he burned nearly 1k calories from that.

[KCBiggs]

just eat less and avoid cardio altogether?

It's a lot more difficult for a girl eating 1400kcals a day just to lose 1/2lb a week . Cardio will be my life saver, it'll stop me from being starving hungy all day!

[iamme8170288778]

I have a hard time believing this. I can't see a guy as large as you are running that speed for that long.

I can do it.

I do it at 4.0mph on a 15% incline.

Thats not everyday.

Daily I do 3.5mph on a 8% incline


counter on the treadmill at 4.0 with 12% incline reads 986 for my weight burned per hour and at 15% its 1215 cals per hour

[321s]

I have a hard time believing this. I can't see a guy as large as you are running that speed for that long.

Same here wtf

[DUALForces]

I'm too lazy to research it in detail right now, so just correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't HIIT raise your metabolism when you're not running? I mean at the very least, for a while after you quit, but I thought even people that did it chronically have an elevated metabolism from it.

this

[Trackthlete]

Hahahahaaha, that's because 99% of you are NOT doing actual HIIT. I'm in Track, and have been for 3 years, and I can tell you that doing 6 x 400's at ~70 (my Pr is 53 seconds) seconds WILL burn more calories and get you in better shape than running a mile and a half. The difference is incredible. Your heart is working harder, to the point were you feel like you are going to curl up and die. It feels like you are having a heart attack every time, 99% of the people I know that do "hiit" are just sprinting around 40m or so.

Look at the physique of Sprinters versus distance runners. After finishing a decent workout in track, I can hardly walk, my legs are hot, and I am extremely sore the next day to the point where I can hardly walk. If your doing it right, you will get a great workout and make great gains.

[Blooms]

Worrying about calories burnt during cardio is like worrying about how much muscle you've put on in a single gym session, its during the recovery that really matters

[Noviceplus]

...doing 6 x 400's at ~70 (my Pr is 53 seconds) seconds WILL burn more calories and get you in better shape than running a mile and a half.

No one here is arguing that. For equal active calorie expenditure (in this case, equal distance) the higher intensity form will burn more calories. That's not the point here. The comparison here is between a longer session where you burn far more calories and a HITT session where you're burning less. For weight loss, assuming time isn't tight, the choice is rather obvious.

[Restraint]

It's only 4MPH. That's a brisk walk.

you walk hella fast

[jon1995]

hitt raises metabolism throughout the day, collectively burning more calories.

My answer:
Simplistically
As you move from lwo intensities to higher intensities, the amount of fat vs. carbs burned shifts from one to the other

At low intensities, you may burn near 100% fat
At the highest intensiy (acually just about anything above lactate threshold), you burn 100% carbs

at any intensity between, you burn a proportion of the two. As you move from lower to high intensity, you burn proportionally less fat and proportinally more carbs until you reach a point taht the body can only burn carbs.

The issue with the 'fat burning zone' concept is that people confuse %ages with absolutes

Say you're walking at 3mph and burning 5 cal/min, but you're burning 100% fat. That's 5 cal/min of fat.

Say you're running at 6 mph and burning 10 cal/min but you're burning 50% fat.

Ruh roh, that's less fat, isn't it? No, it's not. 10 cal/min * 50% 5 cal/min of fat. It's the same amount of fat in absolute terms although it's a lower percentage. But you're also burning 5 cal/min of carbohydrates.

Say that at 6 mph you're burning 10 cal/min but still 65% fat. That's still lower by %age than at 3mph. But yo'ure burning 6.5 cal/min of fat which is higher. And you burn more total calories. And you deplete some of the carbohdyrate in your muscle.

Some studies have shown that that maximum absolute amount of fat burned occurs right around the lactat tehreshold (the highest, hardest, most painful intensity that you can sustain for an extended period) although it depends on training status and some other factors

When you deplete muscle glycogen (via burning it during exercise and/or carbohdyrate restriction), this increases whole body fat oxidation. And, for the most part, what you burn during exercise is less relevant than than what you burn the rest of the day and none of this matters if you aren't in a deficit). So say you do a hard session where you burn a combination of fat and carbs. Not only did you burn those calories, by depleting muscle glycogen

a. your body will burn more fat for the rest of the day (I'm not saying more in terms of 'metabolic rate' is increases, but more in terms of the proportions used)
b. incoming carbohdyrates tend to go to refilling muscle glycogen instead of being used for energy

Which is why, to a certain degree, it doesn't matter what you do as long as the calorie burn is roughly similar

Low intensity activity is sort of a direct fat burner, you burn mostly fat for fuel but that's all you get out of it.

Higher intensity burns some proportion of fat/carbs but impacts more greatly on what you burn later in the day

Intervals burn only carbs during training but the glycogen depletion and other factors may make you burn more fat later in the day

I think the bigger issue is that, if you do too much high intensity activity too frequently, you get overtrained and that causes too many problems.

Elite athletes do 75% or more of their volumes at low intensities, what makes fitness people think that they can handle more than this?

[LazyDawg101]

I still think the monitors on cardio equipment is not so great. Most are probably accurate but there's no way the monitor can track how many calories your body is really burning. Only thing it tells me is that this is what I burned minus the calories that my body uses by default.

[Guitarguru9909]

HIIT is generally 16-20 mins, preferably the lower end of that. On a recumbent bike using intervals of 45 seconds moderate intensity, and 15 of going "all out", my glutes are on fire 6 minutes in, its physically impossible to go past 20 minutes if you are really pushing yourself and gasping for air near the last couple of minutes. My heart is still pumping fast about 2-3 hours later FWIW. There are many arguments on fat oxidation, but at the end of the day its something so trivial worth worrying about that keeping your calorie deficit and macros in check is far more important. You cannot see what is happening on a cellular level and its not worth even worrying about, and not everyone will have the same results.
If someone can do HIIT for half an hour, they arent being honest with their intensity levels or effort.

i agree with you 100% here. I do hiit for 15-20 on an eliptical 30 sec intense 15 sec rest, with a 2 min warmup 2 min cooldown. I do this post workout about 4x a week, and im completely gone when i start my cooldown. How the hell can someone do this for 30-45 minutes?

[jsmoor09]

i agree with you 100% here. I do hiit for 15-20 on an eliptical 30 sec intense 15 sec rest, with a 2 min warmup 2 min cooldown. I do this post workout about 4x a week, and im completely gone when i start my cooldown. How the hell can someone do this for 30-45 minutes?

People read about HIIT and started doing regular interval training, which still has its benefits. You could argue that "so hard you vomit" is highest intensity, where as something a little less intense is "high." Idk, I get what you guys are saying, I just think it's not worth arguing with someone about.

[nlite2000]

I hate this stupid argument. Just move your ass and do which one you like. I run 5 miles times a week, and mix in some sprints when I hit hills (they are tough to come by in manhattan, but there are a few). Am I doing it right or wrong?

Who cares.

[wanaBsedated]

do both, get the benefits of both, don't worry about calorie burn because you're not contributing much to that either way.

When you can do 3-4 hours on a daily basis, then you're contributing a significant calorie burn through exercise.

I wonder how good you were at math LOL....

You can easily burn 500 calories in one hour... during my running days 1,200 an hour was pretty normal. You can do even more than that depending on hills, speed, weight.

Anti-cardio people are ridiculous.

Your body becomes more efficient at using fuel, it's not all about calories at the moment.

[andyboi]

As Lyle Mc Donald says "worrying about how many calories are burnt while doing cardio is like worrying about how much muscle is attained while lifting"

Just do the cardio, track macros, make adjustments when weight loss stalls and GTFO of the gym.

[roybatty6]

I have a hard time believing this. I can't see a guy as large as you are running that speed for that long.

I agree.

I walk 6.5 kph at a Incline varying between 3 and 6% at 200 pounds for 30 mins and am struggling.

Could not imagine 60 mins @12 Incline.

[Hardworker123]

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539

http://www.simplyshredded.com/fit-wi...te-cardio.html

I'd choose HIIT anytime over SS. Think about it. What was the body made to do?

Push, Pull, Squat, Lunge, and Sprint. Cavemen needed to push stuff out of their way, pull themselves up a tree to avoid being eaten by an animal, squat to take a siht, lunge when leaning over a cliff to grab a piece of forbidden fruit, and sprint the fuk out of there when the sabertooth wanted dinner.

http://members.rachelcosgrove.com/public/505print.cfm