HIIT is dangerous (according to the media)

[RevolutionFF]

Andrew Marr, a TV presenter had a stroke following a high intensity session on a rowing machine in his home. This is after following the recent advice in the media that HIIT is more beneficial than LISS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...cise-dangerous

I think the problem is people are reading the HIIT stuff in the media and jumping straight into it without any aerobic conditioning base. Similar to trying to squat 100kg + in your very first gym workout. Or he had some problems with his CV system without knowing it.

Will the media now jump on the "HIIT is dangerous" bandwagon?

[Murdok1741]

Andrew Marr, a TV presenter had a stroke following a high intensity session on a rowing machine in his home. This is after following the recent advice in the media that HIIT is more beneficial than LISS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...cise-dangerous

I think the problem is people are reading the HIIT stuff in the media and jumping straight into it without any aerobic conditioning base. Similar to trying to squat 100kg + in your very first gym workout. Or he had some problems with his CV system without knowing it.

Will the media now jump on the "HIIT is dangerous" bandwagon?

The media is frustrating to say the least when it comes to exercise and nutrition. But no, I don't think it'll catch on. HIIT, in principle, is similar to just about any sport we play that entails moments of low intensity mixed with short bouts of high intensity. And yes, the presenter most likely jumped into it without the prior training to establish a good cardiovascular base. Plus, we know nothing about his health history, so it makes absolutely no sense to say HIIT causes strokes.

[WoofieNugget]

The media will do whatever they need to in order to create controversy and sell. No big surprise there. 99% of the time their reports aren't based on anything at all beyond conjecture.

[Footballa_19]

Warning! High Intensity body movements can lead to extremely high heart rates! Possibly Causing strokes in some cases!

What a load of sht this guy is just trying to cover up the fact that he looks like a big p****

[SFT]

Andrew Marr, a TV presenter had a stroke following a high intensity session on a rowing machine in his home. This is after following the recent advice in the media that HIIT is more beneficial than LISS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...cise-dangerous

I think the problem is people are reading the HIIT stuff in the media and jumping straight into it without any aerobic conditioning base. Similar to trying to squat 100kg + in your very first gym workout. Or he had some problems with his CV system without knowing it.

Will the media now jump on the "HIIT is dangerous" bandwagon?

This is a rare thing in my opinion. Overdoing high intensity cardiovascular exercise might have contributed, but there was probably something else going on. I only listened to the first 20 seconds, but it sounds like he had a hemorrhagic stroke. In any case, I don't think HIIT has to be done at 110% to be effective. For most clients interested in general health, it might be best to have the high intensity portion be perceived as hard, but not very hard. Hard would represent an intensity that is greater than that seen in everyday life.

[rdferguson]

The less conditioned you are, the more likely you are to have serious negative reactions to intense physical activity. The more pre-existing health problems you have, the more likely you are to have serious negative reactions to intense physical activity. One you are healthy and are properly conditioned, intense physical activity significantly reduces the risks of serious negative reactions to any level of activity. So work on basic health and conditioning before you do HIIT. It's pretty simple. A lot of stupidity may come of this event, but it may also result in people becoming less stupid and participating in/designing more sensible progressions.

[Kataz]

Andrew Marr, a TV presenter had a stroke following a high intensity session on a rowing machine in his home. This is after following the recent advice in the media that HIIT is more beneficial than LISS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...cise-dangerous

I think the problem is people are reading the HIIT stuff in the media and jumping straight into it without any aerobic conditioning base. Similar to trying to squat 100kg + in your very first gym workout. Or he had some problems with his CV system without knowing it.

Will the media now jump on the "HIIT is dangerous" bandwagon?

I'd say its more pointless if you've never worked out much. Jumping immediately into zone 3 and 4 will just make you burn carbs and cause a blood sugar crash after. No fat burned, no point.

[JohnSmeton]

The media is frustrating to say the least when it comes to exercise and nutrition. But no, I don't think it'll catch on. HIIT, in principle, is similar to just about any sport we play that entails moments of low intensity mixed with short bouts of high intensity. And yes, the presenter most likely jumped into it without the prior training to establish a good cardiovascular base. Plus, we know nothing about his health history, so it makes absolutely no sense to say HIIT causes strokes.

The media will do whatever they need to in order to create controversy and sell. No big surprise there. 99% of the time their reports aren't based on anything at all beyond conjecture.

agreed the media uses scare tactics playing on peoples emotions like using death as a scare tactic. That said hitt is for more advanced people and people who have been training a while in my opinion

[RevolutionFF]

Good conversation.

This is the point I was trying to get at - most people are not fit enough aerobically to either a) get benefit from or b) safely carry out properly executed HIIT training.

HIIT has been a big talking point in the media here recently - after a doctor made a TV program about the benefits of tabata type protocols. A few of my clients had started talking about it too after the program.

There are a lot of great exercise protocols out there - just not everyone is ready to use them

[Steve27]

I believe that HIIT isn't good for you. Our bodies and hearts may be able to 'cope' with high intensity training, but does that mean its good for us? Our bodies are amazing at coping with many things, e.g. You could drink a case of beer a day or smoke 3 packets of cigarettes each day, our bodies can cope with it for a period of time, until something gives way, however does that mean its ok to do it? If you look at all the populations around world, and use longevity as a marker for health...there are some places in Japan and Italy where many people make it to 100 years old. Do they do HIT? I dont think so, do they do any form of planned exercise? I highly doubt it. They don't push and stress their bodies to extreme levels, they maintain a 'balanced' lifestyle in all aspects. Their activity levels come mainly from 'activities of daily living' not from doing high intensity sprints or running marathons where the human body is pushed to its absolute limits. It cant be good for the heart, even though the heart can 'cope' with it. Also while most of us may not have a heart condition, some people may, and in some cases people dont find out until later in life that they have some sort of heart condition....so you could be gambling with your life by excessively stressing the heart.

[SFT]

I'd say its more pointless if you've never worked out much. Jumping immediately into zone 3 and 4 will just make you burn carbs and cause a blood sugar crash after. No fat burned, no point.

Are you suggesting that HIIT doesn't help fat loss because it exclusively burns carbohydrates? Will I also keel over as a result of a blood sugar crash?

I agree that HIIT might not be optimal for new trainees. However, I use reasonably programmed interval training with beginners all the time. Interval training can be effective at improving cardiovascular fitness and potentially in less time. I also find it to be not as boring. We don't have to kill people with interval training. For some reason, it always seems to go that way because that's what a lot of people want. They take pride in the pain. For the average trainee, interval training gets them working at a higher intensity than they are used to in everyday life. For this reason, it is also more promotes improved function in older adults. Older adults tend to get lazy in my experience if you have them doing steady state work for too long.

[Footballa_19]

I believe that HIIT isn't good for you. Our bodies and hearts may be able to 'cope' with high intensity training, but does that mean its good for us? Our bodies are amazing at coping with many things, e.g. You could drink a case of beer a day or smoke 3 packets of cigarettes each day, our bodies can cope with it for a period of time, until something gives way, however does that mean its ok to do it? If you look at all the populations around world, and use longevity as a marker for health...there are some places in Japan and Italy where many people make it to 100 years old. Do they do HIT? I dont think so, do they do any form of planned exercise? I highly doubt it. They don't push and stress their bodies to extreme levels, they maintain a 'balanced' lifestyle in all aspects. Their activity levels come mainly from 'activities of daily living' not from doing high intensity sprints or running marathons where the human body is pushed to its absolute limits. It cant be good for the heart, even though the heart can 'cope' with it. Also while most of us may not have a heart condition, some people may, and in some cases people dont find out until later in life that they have some sort of heart condition....so you could be gambling with your life by excessively stressing the heart.

Wth are you talking about, HIIT has been documented for showing improvement in stroke volume, resting heart rates, and overall cardio ouput in people who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Eating sht and leading sedentary lifestyles is why we are all dying, not because we exercise too hard. Your point in moot, if you need the studies msg me and i'll send one to ya, or simply do some research.

[SFT]

I believe that HIIT isn't good for you. Our bodies and hearts may be able to 'cope' with high intensity training, but does that mean its good for us? Our bodies are amazing at coping with many things, e.g. You could drink a case of beer a day or smoke 3 packets of cigarettes each day, our bodies can cope with it for a period of time, until something gives way, however does that mean its ok to do it? If you look at all the populations around world, and use longevity as a marker for health...there are some places in Japan and Italy where many people make it to 100 years old. Do they do HIT? I dont think so, do they do any form of planned exercise? I highly doubt it. They don't push and stress their bodies to extreme levels, they maintain a 'balanced' lifestyle in all aspects. Their activity levels come mainly from 'activities of daily living' not from doing high intensity sprints or running marathons where the human body is pushed to its absolute limits. It cant be good for the heart, even though the heart can 'cope' with it. Also while most of us may not have a heart condition, some people may, and in some cases people dont find out until later in life that they have some sort of heart condition....so you could be gambling with your life by excessively stressing the heart.

There is something to be said about quality of life. I'd rather live to 80 and enjoy every day then live to 100 and not be able to do anything. Again, there is a continuum with interval training. We don't have to kill ourselves every workout. If anything, it is probably even counter productive to do so. This also doesn't mean we should stick to LISS lest we blow up our heart. Stressing any tissue is a positive thing given adequate recovery.

Rehab for cardiac patients often progresses to walking 25-150ft. followed by resting for a few minutes. That doesn't sound an awful lot like LISS, so it must be bad for us right? In fact, by the end of that walk, they are often tired. We must immediately get them on a bike so they can generate 1 watt of power for 45 minutes. That will make them ready for walking.

[Murdok1741]

I believe that HIIT isn't good for you. Our bodies and hearts may be able to 'cope' with high intensity training, but does that mean its good for us? Our bodies are amazing at coping with many things, e.g. You could drink a case of beer a day or smoke 3 packets of cigarettes each day, our bodies can cope with it for a period of time, until something gives way, however does that mean its ok to do it? If you look at all the populations around world, and use longevity as a marker for health...there are some places in Japan and Italy where many people make it to 100 years old. Do they do HIT? I dont think so, do they do any form of planned exercise? I highly doubt it. They don't push and stress their bodies to extreme levels, they maintain a 'balanced' lifestyle in all aspects. Their activity levels come mainly from 'activities of daily living' not from doing high intensity sprints or running marathons where the human body is pushed to its absolute limits. It cant be good for the heart, even though the heart can 'cope' with it. Also while most of us may not have a heart condition, some people may, and in some cases people dont find out until later in life that they have some sort of heart condition....so you could be gambling with your life by excessively stressing the heart.

FYI, just as in Japan and Italy, there are people that live to 100 in the US as well.

[Kataz]

Are you suggesting that HIIT doesn't help fat loss because it exclusively burns carbohydrates? Will I also keel over as a result of a blood sugar crash?

I agree that HIIT might not be optimal for new trainees. However, I use reasonably programmed interval training with beginners all the time. Interval training can be effective at improving cardiovascular fitness and potentially in less time. I also find it to be not as boring. We don't have to kill people with interval training. For some reason, it always seems to go that way because that's what a lot of people want. They take pride in the pain. For the average trainee, interval training gets them working at a higher intensity than they are used to in everyday life. For this reason, it is also more promotes improved function in older adults. Older adults tend to get lazy in my experience if you have them doing steady state work for too long.

A blood sugar crash doesn't cause you to keel over. It causes you to get hungry. Getting hungry causes you to eat more to balance your blood sugar.

And no, I wasn't "suggesting that HIIT doesn't help fat loss because it exclusively burns carbohydrates." I was stating that in untrained & sedentary individuals, their R values shoot up like a rocket in HIIT classes and they end up burning barely any fat, followed by a craving for more sugar post-workout to balance their blood sugar. Are you untrained and sedentary? If not, then you're body would likely still be able to utilize fat as you approach your anaerobic threshold, and thus your blood sugar won't nose dive (or at least not as bad).

Having a client who is untrained enter zone 3 and 4 immediately upon training might make them feel better about their workout, but its scientifically stupid to do.

[soren_xavier]

A blood sugar crash doesn't cause you to keel over. It causes you to get hungry. Getting hungry causes you to eat more to balance your blood sugar.

And no, I wasn't "suggesting that HIIT doesn't help fat loss because it exclusively burns carbohydrates." I was stating that in untrained & sedentary individuals, their R values shoot up like a rocket in HIIT classes and they end up burning barely any fat, followed by a craving for more sugar post-workout to balance their blood sugar. Are you untrained and sedentary? If not, then you're body would likely still be able to utilize fat as you approach your anaerobic threshold, and thus your blood sugar won't nose dive (or at least not as bad).

Having a client who is untrained enter zone 3 and 4 immediately upon training might make them feel better about their workout, but its scientifically stupid to do.

Source for all this?

I don't see why HIIT would not have the same fat-burning effects in an untrained person that it has in a trained person.

[MrMichael1392]

So one incident one time to one person, suddenly it's the worse thing on earth? Riiiiiiight

[RSMultiFitness]

HIIT is my preferable choice of cardio for majority of clients I take on. I remember reading this story in the metro the other day and thinking exactly whats been mentioned previously is this thread, or he was holding his breath during the intense bursts.

[RevolutionFF]

Source for all this?

I don't see why HIIT would not have the same fat-burning effects in an untrained person that it has in a trained person.

1) an untrained person will not have the anaerobic capacity to work at high power outputs for sustained periods.
2) They will not have the same ability to recover between the high intensity periods, further lowering their power output.

I believe in building a decent aerobic base before performing HIIT.

Interval training can be used in a walk/jog format to build aerobic capacity. HIIT is a different ball game for the untrained person.

[PeteratCastle]

Meh, this entire article is a bit of a joke. Essentially the author says nothing against HIIT specifically. She says something against extreme exertion (including marathons). Ann Robinson (who wrote the article) is a GP and they are notoriously lacking when it comes to exercise knowledge (which is why 2 of my clients are doctors)

[RevolutionFF]

Meh, this entire article is a bit of a joke. Essentially the author says nothing against HIIT specifically. She says something against extreme exertion (including marathons). Ann Robinson (who wrote the article) is a GP and they are notoriously lacking when it comes to exercise knowledge (which is why 2 of my clients are doctors)

Yep, exactly Peter - it's all sensationalist writing to sell more - generally backed up with little evidence or completely one sided 'research'

[PeteratCastle]

Yep, exactly Peter - it's all sensationalist writing to sell more - generally backed up with little evidence or completely one sided 'research'

Indeed. People still think GPs are a credible source when it comes to exercise advice and it's really starting to get to me. They know all about getting you well enough to sit in front of the telly and not die, that is cool as that's their job but they have no idea about exercise other than "You have to do it occasionally".

Really, of all my clients the GPs and nurses I have are the most ignorant about exercise..but they are happy enough to let me worry about all that stuff as they'll readily admit it.