HIIT more effective than steady state cardio???

[AlwaysOnFire24]

Everyone says hit is more effective and burns more calories after you are done, compared to steady state cardio. My question is, if I'm burning 450 calories doing steady state for 45 minutes or burning 200 calories doing 20 minutes of HIIT, how many more calories is the after burn from HIIT?

[-Aaron-]

There is so many topics on this subject. Hell, there have been five today alone.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...highlight=HIIT
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...highlight=HIIT
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...highlight=HIIT
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...highlight=HIIT
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...highlight=HIIT

[AlwaysOnFire24]

Thanks, but that doesn't really answer my question. It's a very specific question related to HIIT, and I'm wondering if anyone knows what percentage of additional calories are burned after exercising due to HIIT?

[-Aaron-]

Originally Posted by AlwaysOnFire24

Thanks, but that doesn't really answer my question. It's a very specific question related to HIIT, and I'm wondering if anyone knows what percentage of additional calories are burned after exercising due to HIIT?

You can't judge the afterburn of HIIT. People say it lasts all day, others say it lasts a few hours, other says there is no afterburn.

[arora00]

Its bull!

Do a steady cardio for 45 mins. As far as getting your metabolism up, weight lifting does that for you.

[RaferAlston26]

Originally Posted by arora00

Its bull!

Do a steady cardio for 45 mins. As far as getting your metabolism up, weight lifting does that for you.

This study pitted 20 weeks of endurance training against 15 weeks of interval training:

Energy cost of endurance training = 28661 calories.
Energy cost of interval training = 13614 calories (less than half)

The interval training group showed a nine times greater loss in subcutaneous fat than the endurance group (when corrected for energy cost).

References: http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1526539
Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.

Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.
Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8

As you were saying Arora?

[ScottC]

Originally Posted by RaferAlston26

This study pitted 20 weeks of endurance training against 15 weeks of interval training:

Energy cost of endurance training = 28661 calories.
Energy cost of interval training = 13614 calories (less than half)

The interval training group showed a nine times greater loss in subcutaneous fat than the endurance group (when corrected for energy cost).

References: http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1526539
Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.

Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.
Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8

As you were saying Arora?

Sorry to say, but BLAH BLAH BLAH...that was one study, and yes, for that study it showed that HIIT when done properly, was superior to steady state. Here is from a sticky in the Exercise forum, which does have the same study in it, along with other studies. Here is the summary:

Summing up the research findings

* In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments.
* Fed subjects consistently experience a greater thermic effect postexercise in both intensity ranges.
*In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.
* In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=747976

As you were saying RaferAlston?

*Point being: Just get out and do cardio.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by AlwaysOnFire24

Thanks, but that doesn't really answer my question. It's a very specific question related to HIIT, and I'm wondering if anyone knows what percentage of additional calories are burned after exercising due to HIIT?

That's the rub. Everyone sites one or two studies that suggest 9 times more afterburn than burnt during the HIIT, but I have a really hard time believing that if you work out for 15 minutes and burn 200 calories....you burn another 1800 calories afterward. Not saying it is untrue if a few studies suggest it, but the skeptic in me doesn't buy it. I have done HIIT for a few months with good results, but have seen results as good or better with 45 minutes of 80%. I am sure I will get blasted for this, but until someone can really quantify the after-burn, I am not going to switch. I think the fact that we are doing one or the other is going to benefit us greatly, regardless of which one is more effective. To each his own.

Have a good one.

[RaferAlston26]

Originally Posted by ScottC

Sorry to say, but BLAH BLAH BLAH...that was one study, and yes, for that study it showed that HIIT when done properly, was superior to steady state. Here is from a sticky in the Exercise forum, which does have the same study in it, along with other studies. Here is the summary:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=747976

As you were saying RaferAlston?

*Point being: Just get out and do cardio.

Sorry, that almost meant something because the fact is why didn't the steady state carido group burn more fat then with 5 more weeks? That one study alone gave steady state the benefit of the doubt. Gave it 20 weeks and HIIT 15 weeks yet HIIT still burnt 9 times more fat. 5 MORE WEEKS!

Also, it says HIIT and higher intensity training. Steady state is not high intensity. It's far from being high intensity. Doing steady state cardio at a high intensity defeats the entire purpose of it being that you should be able to do it for a long time therefore you just proved my point. Higher intensity I would classify as something like circuit training. That term is very vauge but I damn well know steady state is far from being "high intensity". If you're running for 40 minutes straight, that is some intensity isn't it?

That's not what people are advocating here. The real high intesnitymentioned in the article is increasing the speed as you go along and then bringing it back down. That's what I'm getting the jest of from bodybuilding as "linear high intensity". Regardless, that's still increasing the speed and that's not steady state. I'm not arguing that HIIT is better then high intesnity cardio. I'm arguing that steady state for 40 minutes compared to 20 minutes of HIIT is not better. Science proves that and the link you provided proves that.

Oh and next you're going to tell me that 60 minutes of steady state is better for retaining mass then 20 minutes of HIIT right? Since steady state is so great at hitting the "fat" storage, how come after a certain amount of time it will begin to use muscle tissue as fuel due to catabolism? That's proven science also.

Research does not back steady state being more efficient then HIIT. Research and science backs that HIGH INTENSITY and HIIT are efficient not low-to-medium intensity for long periods of time to hit the magical fat storage area. It's science and it's proven. You can argue it to death but your link and my research proves that.

[AlwaysOnFire24]

Originally Posted by Hotmoltenlava

That's the rub. Everyone sites one or two studies that suggest 9 times more afterburn than burnt during the HIIT, but I have a really hard time believing that if you work out for 15 minutes and burn 200 calories....you burn another 1800 calories afterward. Not saying it is untrue if a few studies suggest it, but the skeptic in me doesn't buy it. I have done HIIT for a few months with good results, but have seen results as good or better with 45 minutes of 80%. I am sure I will get blasted for this, but until someone can really quantify the after-burn, I am not going to switch. I think the fact that we are doing one or the other is going to benefit us greatly, regardless of which one is more effective. To each his own.

Have a good one.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. It's hard to believe it burns that many calories afterwards, otherwise I'd do it as much as I could. I just don't have time for too much cardio in general, but I really want to lower my bodyfat by summertime. Therefore, I'm trying to figure out what kind of cardio I should be doing to get the best results. Some days I am pressed for time so I will do HIIT. Otherdays, I'd prefer to spend more time at a less intense rate, so I'll do steady state. Best to switch it up I guess.

[RaferAlston26]

Originally Posted by Hotmoltenlava

That's the rub. Everyone sites one or two studies that suggest 9 times more afterburn than burnt during the HIIT, but I have a really hard time believing that if you work out for 15 minutes and burn 200 calories....you burn another 1800 calories afterward. Not saying it is untrue if a few studies suggest it, but the skeptic in me doesn't buy it. I have done HIIT for a few months with good results, but have seen results as good or better with 45 minutes of 80%. I am sure I will get blasted for this, but until someone can really quantify the after-burn, I am not going to switch. I think the fact that we are doing one or the other is going to benefit us greatly, regardless of which one is more effective. To each his own.

Have a good one.

Well it's backed by science and study, so I don't see what your problem is? You don't have to do it no one is asking you. Most people do HIIT wrong anyways. Personally, I had awesome results. I did 30 seconds of 11mph and 2 minutes of 3.5mph walking. Repeat 7 more times. Also, there comes the issue of do you want to keep the muscle? It's been proven that 40 minutes of steady state can start using muscle tissue as fuel. So just because you see the scale go down, doesn't mean it's all fat.

And taking studies and science aside even though it clearly proves high intensity is better (not just HIIT).. look at sprinters VS marathon runners.

Marathon Runner


Sprinter (justin gatlin)


And i'm not discouraging steady state. I believe it SHOULD be coupled with HIIT. Both should be used. But if you're only going to do one, I think high intensity works better especially HIIT. I just reference to people who use intervals as their lives: fighters, hockey players, basketball players, etc. They're all very lean and don't focus a huge chunk on steady state.

[AlwaysOnFire24]

Originally Posted by RaferAlston26

Well it's backed by science and study, so I don't see what your problem is? You don't have to do it no one is asking you. Most people do HIIT wrong anyways. Personally, I had awesome results. I did 30 seconds of 11mph and 2 minutes of 3.5mph walking. Repeat 7 more times. Also, there comes the issue of do you want to keep the muscle? It's been proven that 40 minutes of steady state can start using muscle tissue as fuel. So just because you see the scale go down, doesn't mean it's all fat.

And taking studies and science aside even though it clearly proves high intensity is better (not just HIIT).. look at sprinters VS marathon runners.

Marathon Runner


Sprinter (justin gatlin)


And i'm not discouraging steady state. I believe it SHOULD be coupled with HIIT. Both should be used. But if you're only going to do one, I think high intensity works better especially HIIT. I just reference to people who use intervals as their lives: fighters, hockey players, basketball players, etc. They're all very lean and don't focus a huge chunk on steady state.

It's not really fair to compare the world's best sprinter to a no name marathon runner though, correct?

[RaferAlston26]

Fair enough here are world class marathon runners:

Paul Kosgei (fastest 30km road race)


Saif Saaeed Shaheen (world record holder of 3000m steeplechase):


They're even skinner. Again, I'm not suggesting to take out steady state. I'd never do that. It's beneficial for endurance. But I think running on it for 40 minutes is pointless and BORING. I'll give steady state 20 minutes at a really good pace to improve my endurance but I won't remove HIIT because it's good for my VO2 max which is really good for things like the beep test and 1-2 mile runs etc.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by RaferAlston26

Well it's backed by science and study, so I don't see what your problem is? You don't have to do it no one is asking you.

Look at sprinters VS marathon runners.

Marathon Runner


Sprinter (justin gatlin)

:-)

Re-read my post. I don't have a problem and I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation. The problem with science and studies is that there is never a true consensus on MOST topics, especially when there is only one study that everyone seems to site. You site one study and say that it must be true. I'm just trying to get the debate going......and I will do whatever exercise or diet or routine I want, just like you. I am just discussing it. Much better than posting for newbies about why it is hard to lose fat and gain muscle.....or why can't I drink a twelve pack on the weekends and not lose my gut....:-)

Also, on your marathoners analogy.....I am sorry for boring anyone that read my post yesterday......

I am training for a marathon in October. I am now running 12-15 miles every Saturday, increasing incrementally. I have 195 lbs of LBM and haven't lost any in 6 months of cutting (I have about 15-20lbs fat to drop to get to 15%bf). I do spinning class 4-5 days a week (in addition to lifing weights), cause my feet can't take running 5 days a week. A few months back, I tried running 7-10 miles a day, 5 days a week, but my toes started revolting on me. Just illustrating that some stereotypes can be overcome with adequate diet and\or supplementation (genetics also play a role, I suppose). Most marathoners have naturally skinny, non muscular body types, so it is not a very good analogy to compare all of us to them. It is easier for them to go fast and compete in a marathon with those body types, so that is what you see as the majority of elite marathoners. I do about 9:30 minute miles and am only competing with myself. They have been known to run 5:00-6:00 minute miles. Big difference.

Have a good one.

[mc4_a]

Originally Posted by ScottC

Sorry to say, but BLAH BLAH BLAH...that was one study, and yes, for that study it showed that HIIT when done properly, was superior to steady state.

There have been plenty of other studies including one that evaluated a 8 sec on and 12 sec off routine that came out just a few months ago. The group doing the interval training lost more weight.

[ScottC]

Originally Posted by RaferAlston26

Also, it says HIIT and higher intensity training. Steady state is not high intensity.

LOL! It states "linear" high intensity. Linear = Steady State. Steady state can be low- high intensity.

"In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat."

Again, I am not arguing the point. I am just saying a controlled study, where the participants are doing HIIT correctly, isn't going to prove overall that "joe newbie" is going to get a better benefit form doing their own version of HIIT, as opposed to steady state. I am not for, or against, one form or the other. I am just pointing out the facts that is says "according to some studies..." that HIIT is better at reducing BF. The overall benefits for HIIT and higher intensity steady state are better in the long run.

Besides, as I said, the bottom line is: Doing cardio is beneficial for fat loss, so just do cardio.


...and for the sake of proper debate, don't tell me what point(s) I am going to argue. Just makes you look bad.

...and this, "As you were saying RaferAlston?" was a joke. Obviously, you overlooked the wink & big smile smilies.

[ScottC]

Originally Posted by mc4_a

There have been plenty of other studies including one that evaluated a 8 sec on and 12 sec off routine that came out just a few months ago. The group doing the interval training lost more weight.

You can read my post about controlled studies above. Doesn't mean much if the person isn't doing HIIT correctly with a proper diet, as is the case in controlled studies.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by mc4_a

There have been plenty of other studies including one that evaluated a 8 sec on and 12 sec off routine that came out just a few months ago. The group doing the interval training lost more weight.

Not trying to be a smartass and am sincere when I ask this. Could you point me to the other studies (I have only read two, one of which was posted about earlier)? I would like to read them. I have tried to search for them on bb.com, but I come up with a thousand posts just like this thread, debating which is better. Thanks.

Have a good one.

[Kohanz]

Originally Posted by ScottC

Sorry to say, but BLAH BLAH BLAH...that was one study, and yes, for that study it showed that HIIT when done properly, was superior to steady state. Here is from a sticky in the Exercise forum, which does have the same study in it, along with other studies. Here is the summary:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=747976

As you were saying RaferAlston?

*Point being: Just get out and do cardio.

In RaferAlston's defense, he was responding to someone advising to do 45-minute steady-state cardio. If you are doing cardio for 45-minutes at a steady-state or "linearly", I can assure you it is not "high" intensity.

[ScottC]

Originally Posted by Kohanz

In RaferAlston's defense, he was responding to someone advising to do 45-minute steady-state cardio. If you are doing cardio for 45-minutes at a steady-state or "linearly", I can assure you it is not "high" intensity.

Define "high intensity," complete with scientific backup of HR% and time duration.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by Kohanz

In RaferAlston's defense, he was responding to someone advising to do 45-minute steady-state cardio. If you are doing cardio for 45-minutes at a steady-state or "linearly", I can assure you it is not "high" intensity.

Good point, but what do you or anyone else consider high intensity, as far as heart rate? For me, 190 hb\m is going balls out. If I go 195 hb\m for very long, I have to stop, bend over and catch my breath. I keep my steady-state (running or spinning) at around 175-80 hb\m for 45 minutes. Would you consider that high intensity? I sure as hell do..., cause it burns.....:-)

Have a good one.

[Kohanz]

Originally Posted by ScottC

Define "high intensity," complete with scientific backup of HR% and time duration.

Well, by definition, first of all, intenstiy should have no time duration as part of it's definition, that's just basic physics. Intensity is generally work/time, so it is normalized for time. I hope I don't need to resort to scientific backup for that one.

As far as % of HR, I'm sure different sources state different figures, if you're really wanting me to, I can look for some later on, but I would assume the lowest you'd see would be around 85% HRmax, but I've seen recommendations to try and stay in the 90-95% HRmax range.

However, it's a relative thing too. Is it not common sense that if you could do something for 45 minutes straight, you could do it more intensely for a shorter period of time? Therefore, you are not operating at your highest intensity and to me, in just a general sense, high intensity refers to when you can't go much more intense than what you are currently doing.

[RaferAlston26]

I just don't see how running for 40 minutes is high intensity. Usually HIIT sessions are short because of it's intensity. And this is a bodybuilding site, I'm sur everyone wants to retain muscle mass. 40 minutes won't do anything but use muscle. Scale goes down, yippee lost weight but muscle weight also. My pictures prove my point. Run as long as you want it's pointless. If you run steady state for 20 minutes at whatever speed, I think that's awesome. When you start exceeding 30 I think it's catabolic time.

[Kohanz]

I hope people don't get the impression that I'm a "HIIT or bust!" person from my posts, although it might seem that way.

I actually use both long steady-state runs and HIIT as part of my routine for fat loss. I don't want to look like the marathon runner, I don't want to look like the sprinter, but rather something in between, so it makes sense

[RaferAlston26]

Originally Posted by Kohanz

I hope people don't get the impression that I'm a "HIIT or bust!" person from my posts, although it might seem that way.

I actually use both long steady-state runs and HIIT as part of my routine for fat loss. I don't want to look like the marathon runner, I don't want to look like the sprinter, but rather something in between, so it makes sense

Touche. That's how I feel also but many discredit HIIT for it's effectiveness. They think it's impossible to burn calories afterwards. Thing is HIIT is limitless. There are so many ways to work in intervals. intervals are a great way to freshen up exercise. I mean I don't want to do 20 minutes HIIT or 30 minutes steady state all the time.

There's jump rope, sandbag sprints, wheel barrows, rope climbing, tabata intervals, intervals consisting of body weight exercises, etc. I'm a huge advocate for interval training mainly because you can spice it up so many ways. I just find steady state to be boring. That's just me though but I do use it. I can't deny the benefits.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by RaferAlston26

I just don't see how running for 40 minutes is high intensity. Usually HIIT sessions are short because of it's intensity. And this is a bodybuilding site, I'm sur everyone wants to retain muscle mass. 40 minutes won't do anything but use muscle. Scale goes down, yippee lost weight but muscle weight also. My pictures prove my point. Run as long as you want it's pointless. If you run steady state for 20 minutes at whatever speed, I think that's awesome. When you start exceeding 30 I think it's catabolic time.

With all due respect, you're wrong. I have 6 months of hard data, with measurements, bodyfat and weight loss of my stats that proves that you don't lose muscle with running, with proper TDEE and macro. With the exception of about 6 weeks, when I tried HIIT, I have done nothing but run on the treadmill or spin 5-6 days a week for 45 minutes to an hour. I also lift 3-4 days a week and follow my TDEE to a T, with 40-40-20 macro and a once a week dirty refeed. When I started 6 months ago, I had 187.1 lbs LBM. On my last measurement, I have 195.2 lbs LBM. Most of that is probably newby gains and the addition of creatine, but I have not lost ANY muscle in 6 months of steady state cardio, 5-6 days a week. Am I an exception to the rule. Maybe....., but I doubt I am the only one.

Have a good one.

[RaferAlston26]

Originally Posted by Hotmoltenlava

With all due respect, you're wrong. I have 6 months of hard data, with measurements, bodyfat and weight loss of my stats that proves that you don't lose muscle with running, with proper TDEE and macro. With the exception of about 6 weeks, when I tried HIIT, I have done nothing but run on the treadmill or spin 5-6 days a week for 45 minutes to an hour. I also lift 3-4 days a week and follow my TDEE to a T, with 40-40-20 macro and a once a week dirty refeed. When I started 6 months ago, I had 187.1 lbs LBM. On my last measurement, I have 195.2 lbs LBM. Most of that is probably newby gains and the addition of creatine, but I have not lost ANY muscle in 6 months of steady state cardio, 5-6 days a week. Am I an exception to the rule. Maybe....., but I doubt I am the only one.

Have a good one.

How did you come about calculating your LBM? Through body fat percentage?

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by RaferAlston26

How did you come about calculating your LBM? Through body fat percentage?

Thru 7 point skin fold from my gym's manager (certified PT), done monthly for 6 months. I get a full report on LBM, BF, tape measurements, etc. I should get my own calipers and do it myself, but for $10 a report, I would rather have the expert do it.

Have a good one.

[RaferAlston26]

Originally Posted by Hotmoltenlava

Thru 7 point skin fold from my gym's manager (certified PT), done monthly for 6 months. I get a full report on LBM, BF, tape measurements, etc. I should get my own calipers and do it myself, but for $10 a report, I would rather have the expert do it.

Have a good one.

Well, if you're running 4-5 times a week for 40 minutes as you say that's news to me. I've constantly heard to avoid that kind of timeage on the treadmill. Regardless, if your measurements have been increasing then I guess you have been gaining muscle. But if your measurements haven't and your LBM went up thats because your BF is going down. If you start out at 250lbs and lost 5lbs of fat then your LBM will increase without actually increasing muscle.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by RaferAlston26

Well, if you're running 4-5 times a week for 40 minutes as you say that's news to me. I've constantly heard to avoid that kind of timeage on the treadmill. Regardless, if your measurements have been increasing then I guess you have been gaining muscle. But if your measurements haven't and your LBM went up thats because your BF is going down. If you start out at 250lbs and lost 5lbs of fat then your LBM will increase without actually increasing muscle.

Agreed. As bf goes down, lbm can increase. I may not have actually gained LBM, but I definitely haven't lost much or any. I started out 8 months ago at 295 and 30%+ bf. I am now about 246-ish and about 22% bf. I have no reason to lie to you about my routine. If you were closer, I could show you....:-), otherwise, you will have to trust me......as far as you can trust some dude in another country on the internet.

Thanks for keeping the debate civil. I am just trying to learn here.

Have a good one.