Is HIIT worth it over doing ordinary cardio?

[GrouchyUSMC]

Lots and lots of running is the best for burning fat.

If you can run at least six days a week and do at least 80km each week (so split it up into multiple runs of 10-20km each, as opposed to trying to do a marathon every weekend) then guaranteed you'll burn fat. Even if you eat crap every day.

You will also burn a lot of muscle running 50 miles a week.

I'm a big believer in consistent long steady state running for cardio health and performance, but there is far more efficient methods of burning fat than running 7-8+ hours each week.

[OldFartTom]

That study doesn't contradict what they said.

That was an article not a specific study, but the subject of the article makes these claims based on a variety of data. It is a controversial opinion for sure!


https://mynutritionscience.com/exerciseweightloss/

Pontzer views exercise as little to no use for weight loss and claims that “weight loss is all about diet”. On pages 166 – 167 of Burn, he states that “increasing daily activity through exercise or other programs will ultimately have little effect on the calories burned per day” and that “…the standard line—that exercise helps us burn more calories—is wrong”, and that “[exercise] just won’t do much for your weight”.

[GeneralSerpant]

You will also burn a lot of muscle running 50 miles a week.

I'm a big believer in consistent long steady state running for cardio health and performance, but there is far more efficient methods of burning fat than running 7-8+ hours each week.

More efficient, but not nearly as pronounced or expedient.

You don’t really burn muscle unless your protein consumption gets overwhelmed. Your body fat weight runs down far ahead of any muscle.

[GeneralSerpant]

That was an article not a specific study, but the subject of the article makes these claims based on a variety of data. It is a controversial opinion for sure!


https://mynutritionscience.com/exerciseweightloss/

Pontzer views exercise as little to no use for weight loss and claims that “weight loss is all about diet”. On pages 166 – 167 of Burn, he states that “increasing daily activity through exercise or other programs will ultimately have little effect on the calories burned per day” and that “…the standard line—that exercise helps us burn more calories—is wrong”, and that “[exercise] just won’t do much for your weight”.

Right. The article doesn’t contradict what they said. 80km a week. The difference between your initial calorie expenditure and your terminal expenditure works more in your favor for fat loss as your appetite stays consistent with how many calories you need.

[GrouchyUSMC]

More efficient, but not nearly as pronounced or expedient.

You don’t really burn muscle unless your protein consumption gets overwhelmed. Your body fat weight runs down far ahead of any muscle.

That's 15 miles over what the average competitor runs per week, and what competitive marathon runners run in their final weeks before the race. That's absolute overkill and looking for an injury. And honestly, who wants the build of an elite runner?



20-25 miles a week combined with strength training is about the limit in my personal opinion. For my 20 mile trail run, I ran three times a week with my longest one being at 12 miles. I still managed a mid 13 minute pace for the whole 20 miles with almost 3000' elevation. And that was while still strength training 3 times a week and getting stronger.

[Funct10n4llyF1t]

You shouldn't be adding work on a cut.

To improve metabolic efficiency, you need to get your metabolism to work a.k.a. exercise. Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss, not just diet. I have heard it advised to continue lifting the same volume on a cut which would not be a work reduction. I have cut over a 100 lbs from gaining phases and my metabolism completely stalled were it not for my version of HIIT, 3 times a week.

[GeneralSerpant]

That's 15 miles over what the average competitor runs per week, and what competitive marathon runners run in their final weeks before the race. That's absolute overkill and looking for an injury. And honestly, who wants the build of an elite runner?



20-25 miles a week combined with strength training is about the limit in my personal opinion. For my 20 mile trail run, I ran three times a week with my longest one being at 12 miles. I still managed a mid 13 minute pace for the whole 20 miles with almost 3000' elevation. And that was while still strength training 3 times a week and getting stronger.

f that's the case though it's still not necessarily better for fat loss even if optimal for competition. What really matters is your overall work load to give you the biggest calorie depreciation allowance. You can only sustain a deficit for so much of your daily expenditure. That deficit appreciates as the proportion of your daily expenditure needs increases. Sustainable practice in training goes a long way. From personal experience I've watched my body burn fat like a furnace by just skipping a meal and half for a day or two.

[GeneralSerpant]

to improve metabolic efficiency, you need to get your metabolism to work a.k.a. Exercise. Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss, not just diet. I have heard it advised to continue lifting the same volume on a cut which would not be a work reduction. I have cut over a 100 lbs from gaining phases and my metabolism completely stalled were it not for my version of hiit, 3 times a week.

a+

 

[GrouchyUSMC]

f that's the case though it's still not necessarily better for fat loss even if optimal for competition. What really matters is your overall work load to give you the biggest calorie depreciation allowance. You can only sustain a deficit for so much of your daily expenditure. That deficit appreciates as the proportion of your daily expenditure needs increases. Sustainable practice in training goes a long way. From personal experience I've watched my body burn fat like a furnace by just skipping a meal and half for a day or two.

So it sounds like your diet made the most difference, which is what OldFartTom is stating is more important. Which it is. If you generally burn 100 calories per mile ran, cutting out 500 calories per day means 35 less miles you need to run. Diet is and will always be the best way to lose fat.

From a strictly performance standpoint you need both types.

[GeneralSerpant]

So it sounds like your diet made the most difference, which is what OldFartTom is stating is more important. Which it is. If you generally burn 100 calories per mile ran, cutting out 500 calories per day means 35 less miles you need to run. Diet is and will always be the best way to lose fat.

From a strictly performance standpoint you need both types.

Dong 50+ miles a week means you have to eat much more.

You're framing it as, "keep your diet the same, start dong cardo, then eat less." The process is more like, "start dong cardo, eat more, then eat more until your appetite runs out, then drop 2 lbs of fat until your body can resume eating more again."

[OldFartTom]

You are luckier than me for sure.
My appetite is always a surplus, eating at maintenance feels like a diet, been that way since tail end of my 30s to mid 40s somewhere round there.

If I wait for my appetite to run out, I'll be waiting a very long time! 😭

[GeneralSerpant]

You are luckier than me for sure.
My appetite is always a surplus, eating at maintenance feels like a diet, been that way since tail end of my 30s to mid 40s somewhere round there.

If I wait for my appetite to run out, I'll be waiting a very long time! ������

Whether it's worth it or not is subjective of course, but yes I believe it speaks for itself in that case.

[GrouchyUSMC]

Dong 50+ miles a week means you have to eat much more.

You're framing it as, "keep your diet the same, start dong cardo, then eat less." The process is more like, "start dong cardo, eat more, then eat more until your appetite runs out, then drop 2 lbs of fat until your body can resume eating more again."

I'm not framing it as that at all. It's a simple numbers game.

If you remove 500 calories from your daily intake and increase your activity by 500 calories, you will be burning 1000 calories per day. That's a 7000 calorie deficit per week, or 2 pounds of loss per week which is the high end of the safest approach to weight loss. If you run 50 miles a week but are eating over 500 calories more than you should each day because you are eating whatever you want, assuming 100 calories burnt per mile your weekly deficit will be 1500 calories, not even half a pound.

Simply telling someone to start running 50 miles per week (especially when you have zero idea of their fitness history or current condition) is just plain silly. The average person likely suffer overuse injuries from going from a casual runner to the top end of marathon prep in a single week. And when you figure they have to run at a Zone 2 pace for most of it, that's 10 hours of running per week for the casual runner. That won't leave time for much else for a busy individual, which includes weight training which is also optimal to have in a fat loss routine.

I hear the same justification from my friend who runs ultras but eats an entire pizza every day as he "can get away with it", but still carries fat around his midsection despite running 50+ miles per week.

[OldFartTom]

It's not just the time taken, at some point... ("Your mileage may vary" as they say) running X miles per week even at a relaxed pace will compete with energy and recovery for other sports. Yes sure the work capacity will improve and different people have different age and ability and running intensity factors into it too. But there will be some mileage that starts to affect your other sports.

If running is your main sport and priority then great, prioritise that. But if it isn't then doing large amounts will impact other goals.

I know what my weekly jogging mileage is that starts to affect lifting (not that much as I'm not a good runner) as I used to run non-competitively half marathon. But YMMV!

I'm never going to argue that the average person shouldn't be doing a lot more running, but a blanket do 50+ miles a week is going to come at the cost of other stuff for the majority of people on this site.

[GeneralSerpant]

It’s not as if telling someone to both start running for 45 minutes and start eating less at the same time is going to likely end up well for them, but I will admit that that is probably a more suitable workout goal.

I was able to boil the frog with 90+ minutes a day at the top of the periodization cycle by gradually building up the endurance while 70 minutes would end up as the beginning of the next cycle. And it’s just that keeping up body fat is a requisite at that point instead of a burden. Gym quality only improved in the meantime, though I’m hardly the strongest person here.

I don’t ever really come across someone online or irl who has comparable bmi and bf%, and I’d guess 12-13% is the max I’d be subjected to. That was for 2.5 years straight with at most 3 days cumulative rest once or twice.

[GrouchyUSMC]

It’s not as if telling someone to both start running for 45 minutes and start eating less at the same time is going to likely end up well for them, but I will admit that that is probably a more suitable workout goal.

I was able to boil the frog with 90+ minutes a day at the top of the periodization cycle by gradually building up the endurance while 70 minutes would end up as the beginning of the next cycle. And it’s just that keeping up body fat is a requisite at that point instead of a burden. Gym quality only improved in the meantime, though I’m hardly the strongest person here.

I don’t ever really come across someone online or irl who has comparable bmi and bf%, and I’d guess 12-13% is the max I’d be subjected to. That was for 2.5 years straight with at most 3 days cumulative rest once or twice.

Strength training will also bring about a caloric expenditure, only about half as much in the same amount of time as running but it still burns fat (almost as much as moderate cardio according to a 2021 study from USNW). Combined with moderate running and you will get the same effect more efficiently and with less overall body stress.

Diet is and will always be the key factor. One really good example is a fellow I like called Max Edwards. He literally only works out 160 minutes per week tops. 4x20 minute sessions of burpees, a 20 minute interval run, a 20 minute run for max distance, and a 40 minute LSS run. That's it. His burpee performance improved dramatically (he worked up to 125 navy seals in 20 minutes which, if you don't know what they are, are a burpee, 3 push-ups, and 2 mountain climbers per rep so they are tough) as did his running (he can run a 5k in under 20 minutes) but his physique didn't change much. He started asking around and learned he needed to get his diet locked in. Once he did (I believe he's an IF guy), his body fat melted away. Not a bad physique for 160 minutes per day and mostly a lot of pushing and running. Has definitely made me consider the efficiency of my own workouts.

[GeneralSerpant]

Strength training will also bring about a caloric expenditure, only about half as much in the same amount of time as running but it still burns fat (almost as much as moderate cardio according to a 2021 study from USNW). Combined with moderate running and you will get the same effect more efficiently and with less overall body stress.

I've been able to track the cumulative effect of resistance tracing while also dong the 90 minutes dally.

Diet is and will always be the key factor. One really good example is a fellow I like called Max Edwards. He literally only works out 160 minutes per week tops. 4x20 minute sessions of burpees, a 20 minute interval run, a 20 minute run for max distance, and a 40 minute LSS run. That's it. His burpee performance improved dramatically (he worked up to 125 navy seals in 20 minutes which, if you don't know what they are, are a burpee, 3 push-ups, and 2 mountain climbers per rep so they are tough) as did his running (he can run a 5k in under 20 minutes) but his physique didn't change much. He started asking around and learned he needed to get his diet locked in. Once he did (I believe he's an IF guy), his body fat melted away. Not a bad physique for 160 minutes per day and mostly a lot of pushing and running. Has definitely made me consider the efficiency of my own workouts.

That makes sense for the regimen you're talking, but that requirement to control your diet is a more a condition of that regimen more so than for what I'm dong. Nutrition will always be the innate factor of body weight, and that's just basic fact. Actually structuring a diet to throttle the signals of your appetite though is not something that's required, and that's even my truncated workout schedule with a full time job.

Skipping a few lunches seldomly isn't really the same as structuring a diet.

[GrouchyUSMC]

I've been able to track the cumulative effect of resistance tracing while also dong the 90 minutes dally.

That makes sense for the regimen you're talking, but that requirement to control your diet is a more a condition of that regimen more so than for what I'm dong. Nutrition will always be the innate factor of body weight, and that's just basic fact. Actually structuring a diet to throttle the signals of your appetite though is not something that's required, and that's even my truncated workout schedule with a full time job.

Skipping a few lunches seldomly isn't really the same as structuring a diet.

Skipping a meal you would normally take is still reducing your caloric intake is the point I am making. By not eating three times a day you’re not getting in as many calories, as you would normally which means you are in a deficit which is what you need for weight loss more than a high mileage weekly running routine.

[GeneralSerpant]

https://youtu.be/ca5r10p5GK0?t=447

Skipping a meal you would normally take is still reducing your caloric intake is the point I am making. By not eating three times a day you’re not getting in as many calories, as you would normally which means you are in a deficit which is what you need for weight loss more than a high mileage weekly running routine.

It was actually one meal per day and change for about 1 or 2 days. It's not really a planned thing, just an incidental example. Otherwise I eat at my normal appetite, some days more some days less, as I feel. The less hungry days mixed with the consistent training leads to body fat drop as well.

[axiom666]

Cheers for all the comments and replies.

Guess to say, I've dropped 3kg in the last month down to 82kg which is my ideal weight. Problem is the hip and belly fat all still there. End of the day, my overall 'figure' so to say is probably the same as when I was at 92-93kg, I'm just proportionally smaller if that makes sense.

No problem, just not going to make it such a major focus of it as part of going to the gym anymore. Will still be going 4x a week, cut the cardio back to 30 minutes (of which 10 minutes on the bike is the interval program as a HIIT-like workout) and keep up on the weights. Just keep fit and healthy overall and just enjoy it.

[fit40strong]

Long story short, over 3 months starting end of last year I put on about 7kg or so in 3 months eating junk. Although, it looked like just about all that extra weight went to the hips and stomach - gross. Stopped eating all that junk and hit the gym 4 days a week and now I've lost all that 7kg. Thing is, it's not really coming off the hip and stomach area... (42 year old, 182cm/87kg)

Anyway, wanted to ask about HIIT though, since 2 or 3 people at the gym are going for that method and I'm wondering how it actually works as I'm really trying to get rid of this stubborn fat around the belly area. You see, I quickly worked up to 45 minutes cardio (see spoiler below) at a pretty decent level, and during that time I burn 13cal a minute according to the machine on these things. I seen a guy doing HIIT burning 15cal a minute going hell for leather then getting off to rest and walk around for a minute or two. Over the course of say, 2 minutes, I've burnt the 26cal to his 15cal... How is HIIT more beneficial in burning fat?

Of course, I know those figures aren't going to be completely accurate, gotta take the machine display with a pinch of salt or they're just a guide - I'm just using it as a basis for this message incase there is some form of truth. Just wondering though, how you can reasonably burn more cal's doing HIIT? How does it work preferably over just doing cardio 'the normal way'? Because I might look into it a bit more if I can start to see more results in that area. Cheers

Spoiler!

15 minutes on rowing machine, then 15 minutes on the bike before doing weights. A further 15 minutes on the rowing machine at the very end. Cover 3.3km, burn 190+cal on the rowing machine in each 15 minute session. 6.8km/160+cal on the bike)

Diet: 40g oats for breakfast, 90g tin of tuna in springwater for lunch. Dinner could use a bit of tightening up, but more often than not rice, veg, steak, chicken, stir fry's, etc... Have 2 or 3 pints of beer as an indulgement on the weekend.

Back in 2019, my wife and I started picking up TABATA, a form of HIIT workout following an experienced instructor. I can also follow his workout live online sessions through social media, which was great for me during those pandemic quarantine period.

At first it was very exhausting. But after several years of following this high intensity training diligently, I can wholeheartedly give it a good thumbs UP. My overall health, mobility, immune system and energy levels improved. My body aches less, and sick less.

Tabata involves 20 seconds of balls-to-the-wall effort followed by 10 seconds of rest (either pare down your effort or stop completely), repeated eight times for a total of four minutes. Every four-minute bout is one complete Tabata.

A typical Tabata session example under my instructor that I would follow involves the following:

Set 1 (consist of 8 movements):
..Jumping Jack (20secs),
___Rest (10secs),
..Butt Kicks (20secs),
___Rest (10secs),
..Burpees (20secs),
___Rest (10secs),
..Plank Jack (20secs),
___Rest (10secs),
..Clap Under Jacks (20secs),
___Rest (10secs),
..Scissor Jump (20secs),
___Rest (10secs),
..Squat Hold Punches (20secs),
___Rest (10secs),
..Modified Mountain Climber (20secs),
___Rest (10secs)

Set 1 repeat twice.
___Rest 1 min

Then a new Set 2 of 8 different movements ensues, also repeat twice.
___Rest 1 min

Then Set 3 x 2 times.
___Rest 1 min

Then Set 4 x 2 times.
___Rest 1 min

Then Set 5 x 2 times.
___Rest 1 min

The above sets will make up a good hour of sweat. At first, it was quite exhausting for my age as a beginner. But after weeks of diligence adherence, I was hooked. I couldn’t do without it. I love the elevated energy levels that it gave me. And I can still feel the burning of energy, hours after each workout.

Is it worth it? Of course, it does!

[nitefeatherz]

To quote my orthopedic surgeon... the reason most people above a certain age find it hard to get better with their physique is that they don't do what they need to get better.

[llordoga]

God’s word tells us the future! tiktok.com/@danarankin96/video/7274643484794195246

[GeneralSerpant]

To quote my orthopedic surgeon... the reason most people above a certain age find it hard to get better with their physique is that they don't do what they need to get better.

Younger people tend to have more of a renaissance factor going on. They are typically moving around more and are in constant development enticing more hunger and protein. Also they are in a natural training mode already with regularized schooling.