Is HIIT worth it over doing ordinary cardio?

[axiom666]

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.

[OldFartTom]

Is it worth doing XYZ...? It depends on your goals

HIIT is a different type of stimulus to LISS (low intensity steady state) and encourages different training adaptions. There is some overlap, but the two give different results.

Just because others do something doesn't guarantee it's ideal for you. Anyone who says you can get the same benefit from only X minutes per day, has cherry picked specific benefits to match their argument - and is talking BS

If you have no idea of your goals or what you'll enjoy the most. Why not try 2 intense intervals short sessions a week and 2 longer (ideally >= 40 minutes) low intensity sessions each week. Whatever your goals you still need to do a bit of both, but what proportion of the two depends on your goals

The high intensity works increases the thickness of the left ventricle of your heart and increases your top speed (vo2 max, recovery speed, and other measures). The low intensity and long duration increases the volume of your heart (lowers resting pulse, gives you longer endurance and more energy throughout the day)

Most of all.... Do the type you ENJOY the most!!

[mtpockets]

The best cardio is the cardio you enjoy. Otherwise it's just a chore.

You won't catch my ass on a machine but my cardio is top notch.

Forget that silly I burned x amount of calories on such and such. It's never right anyway.

The Mirror never lies.

[weiss1967]

The Mirror never lies.

mirror is the biggest liar. Just look for yourself, aren't you beautiful? See all those noobs flexing their non-existent muscles in front of mirror.

[x-trainer ben]

I run experiments on myself to see and observe what happens to me and it messed up my endurance.
I did the bike sprints, the treadmill sprints, and eliptical for 30sec-1min bursts and it was not worth it to me.
Plus i found that i was fried(energy) for a few days after so i couldnt return the next day like i wanted.

wathch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVXL...leIntelligence

[weiss1967]

The best cardio is the cardio you enjoy. Otherwise it's just a chore.

the best cardio is the one you hate, this is where you lagging behind and need to improve.

amount of calories, never exact of course, but a good measure how much it takes to burn off your greasy burger. Counting calories is an awesome reality check, cuts in half all the bs information from bodybuilding forums.

Pretty much everything you just said is not true, pockets. Again.

Now, let see what Tom said. Goals again... we have established there are no different goals, it is all one big goal, and the best training is the one that has no reachable goals.

I am saying all that, because we are responding to a new member with single post. Watch and see, that thing there, already lost its password and will never be seeing here again. Won't even read the responses.

[axiom666]

Cheers for the replies everyone, think I'll stick with what I'm doing currently as it sounds like two sides of the same coin in the end.

I am saying all that, because we are responding to a new member with single post. Watch and see, that thing there, already lost its password and will never be seeing here again. Won't even read the responses.

All good, can see why you'd think that. To be honest, I'm not huge on forums and don't really have the time to read and get involved as much as I'd like to, anyway. Used to have an account on here that I used 10 years ago, but it was hijacked by someone I knew by way of installing a keylogger on my PC. But that's another story...

[GrouchyUSMC]

Do both. It’s always good to have at least one weekly cardio session that’s more anaerobic/aerobic than your usual sessions to become a better athlete. Anaerobic do you can go hard when you need to, aerobic so you can recover more quickly to go hard again. It’s when people do exclusively one over the other where they hold themselves back.

Some folks like Peter Attia think 4 LSS sessions and 1 HIIT session a week is ideal, others think more HIIT and one LSS session per week. It depends on your goals. I have done it both ways and seen great results for both when trained in conjunction.

[TimKridel]

I don't know if it's technically HIIT, but between each set, I jog around for 30 seconds instead of resting. Definitely burns more calories than spending that time checking my phone.

[axiom666]

Ok, after a re-read of the posts here, I'll replace the standard 15 minute rowing session at the end of the workout with a HIIT format until exhaustion and see how I go. Might not last the 15 minutes to begin with, but it'll add a bit of variance and it could be beneficial in the end.

As far as goals by the way, I think short term is definitely getting rid of this stubborn fat. I know it's not the greatest thing to be spending a great deal of focus on, but it's a matter of being a bit more comfortable about the way I look, haha - and I certainly didn't think it'd be taking as long as it has to try and get rid of it. Might be a bit better to spend less time worrying about it and think more about long-term goals. 4-5 months is certainly new as far as getting to where you want to be and things don't happen overnight.

[Bodhy]

I play soccer every week and that is HIIT since you need to rapidly alternate sprinting and light walking. It fuggin works.


The HIIT is a very intense form of cardio and it can build a bit of muscle too, but if you can't stand doing it it will be harder to maintain long term. LISS= burn calories there and not after the session. HIIT= burn calories long after session and develop muscle too.


You could try both together and see if it works.

[GeneralSerpant]

The rule of whether HIIT is right for you comes down to if you're able to do the workout proficiently as if you were doing metabolic weight training. If you're athletically inclined to do sprint sets and jog, then you can do your cardio sets more efficiently in conjunction with the rest of your workout. Your training becomes thus more effective.

[Funct10n4llyF1t]

Steady state cardio is NEVER advised because your metabolism adapts to that level of stress and that becomes your new baseline metabolic rate. If you stop doing steady state cardio your metabolism becomes less efficient in burning fat. I don't do HIIT but I do as intense cardio as possible and I get good results. To summarize, cardio sessions should always be as intense as possible.

[GrouchyUSMC]

Steady state cardio is NEVER advised because your metabolism adapts to that level of stress and that becomes your new baseline metabolic rate. If you stop doing steady state cardio your metabolism becomes less efficient in burning fat. I don't do HIIT but I do as intense cardio as possible and I get good results. To summarize, cardio sessions should always be as intense as possible.

This is not accurate. Sure if you're doing an hour of steady state running and you go exactly the same distance every single time, yeah you could argue your body will eventually adapt to it and never get better. But your body can and will adapt so you will go faster during that time period. Most serious long distance runners recommend most of your training done in Zone 2, which is the lowest intensity you can move while still getting results.

[GeneralSerpant]

The adaptation only has to do with short term water fluctuations and not body fat level. The results in the mirror slow down while your body continues to get rid of fat gradually.

You actually have to raise your calories when doing more work, but when your body adapts to a regimen your appetite will prescribe less calories to get away with the same work thus it turns to body fat.

[Payton1221]

I enjoy those type workouts, but whether real or perceived, it stimulates my appetite like crazy for the rest of the day. For this reason, if I do a HIIT workout I do it late in the evening which doesn't affect my sleep (thanks to Unisom and melatonin).

[axiom666]

Well, since this thread has had some more recent posts, I thought I'd give an update. I haven't really been doing HIIT to be honest. Overall, I'm only 1kg down on the 87kg I was in the opening post, but have seen small improvements on the fat in the hip area, maybe not so much on the stomach, althought can't really tell by the naked-eye on that one. I really should be using a measuring tape! But, for now I do feel like there is some small, gradual improvements.

You actually have to raise your calories when doing more work, but when your body adapts to a regimen your appetite will prescribe less calories to get away with the same work thus it turns to body fat.

Sorry, I'm not following what you mean by this?

[weiss1967]

Sorry, I'm not following what you mean by this?

I think I know what he meant, GS will correct me. Body adapts to higher workload. It is like when you introduce cardio, or start lifting weights, there is an initial weight loss, followed by adaptation. Adaptation = weight loss stops, and might even change to gaining some, because what used to be calorific deficit becomes a surplus. The reason is not obvious, elusive adaptation mechanism where you subtly move less throughout the day and you learnt to move more efficiently while doing cardio, i.e. burning less calories while covering same distance for example.

[air2fakie]

Well, since this thread has had some more recent posts, I thought I'd give an update. I haven't really been doing HIIT to be honest. Overall, I'm only 1kg down on the 87kg I was in the opening post, but have seen small improvements on the fat in the hip area, maybe not so much on the stomach, althought can't really tell by the naked-eye on that one. I really should be using a measuring tape! But, for now I do feel like there is some small, gradual improvements.

Do whatever cardio you want, but if your #1 goal is to get rid of belly fat just eat less instead of trying to figure out what "type" of cardio works best to lose fat. This is like a "which split will build the most muscle" thread.

This is your issue below... when people looking to lose fat say stuff like this it means the reality is worse.

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

[axiom666]

I think I know what he meant, GS will correct me. Body adapts to higher workload. It is like when you introduce cardio, or start lifting weights, there is an initial weight loss, followed by adaptation. Adaptation = weight loss stops, and might even change to gaining some, because what used to be calorific deficit becomes a surplus. The reason is not obvious, elusive adaptation mechanism where you subtly move less throughout the day and you learnt to move more efficiently while doing cardio, i.e. burning less calories while covering same distance for example.

Cheers for that!

Do whatever cardio you want, but if your #1 goal is to get rid of belly fat just eat less instead of trying to figure out what "type" of cardio works best to lose fat. This is like a "which split will build the most muscle" thread.

This is your issue below... when people looking to lose fat say stuff like this it means the reality is worse.

I haven't really lied about my diet if that's what you're insinuating. 7 days a week it's 50g oats for breakfast and 90g tin of tuna for lunch. Maybe twice a week in-between breakfast and lunch, and after the gym I'll grab a small sushi roll. Maybe at night after dinner sometime I'll have a handful of 10 almonds or so. What I meant by "tightening up" dinner, is that alongside a steak and veg there'll be chips. Alongside a stir fry there'll be 2 slices of garlic bread etc... I'm not calorie counting, but I'd have assumed that I'm most definitely on a deficit. Yeah, the 2 or 3 pints aren't ideal, but on the balance of what I'm intaking during the course of a week I didn't think it was the worst thing. But, maybe it is time to sacrifice those as well considering how slow results are.

[air2fakie]

Cheers for that!




I haven't really lied about my diet if that's what you're insinuating. 7 days a week it's 50g oats for breakfast and 90g tin of tuna for lunch. Maybe twice a week in-between breakfast and lunch, and after the gym I'll grab a small sushi roll. Maybe at night after dinner sometime I'll have a handful of 10 almonds or so. What I meant by "tightening up" dinner, is that alongside a steak and veg there'll be chips. Alongside a stir fry there'll be 2 slices of garlic bread etc... I'm not calorie counting, but I'd have assumed that I'm most definitely on a deficit. Yeah, the 2 or 3 pints aren't ideal, but on the balance of what I'm intaking during the course of a week I didn't think it was the worst thing. But, maybe it is time to sacrifice those as well considering how slow results are.

I wasn't insinuating that you were deliberately "lying", but most people aren't honest with themselves about their nutrition when they make statements like that and aren't seeing the results that they want, especially when they aren't counting calories or "assume" they're in a deficit which is something that can be easily tracked and managed.

Regardless, your focus shouldn't be on what type of cardio is best for losing fat. It should be your calorie intake.

[GeneralSerpant]

I think I know what he meant, GS will correct me. Body adapts to higher workload. It is like when you introduce cardio, or start lifting weights, there is an initial weight loss, followed by adaptation. Adaptation = weight loss stops, and might even change to gaining some, because what used to be calorific deficit becomes a surplus. The reason is not obvious, elusive adaptation mechanism where you subtly move less throughout the day and you learnt to move more efficiently while doing cardio, i.e. burning less calories while covering same distance for example.

No correction needed really per my point.

That being said, the whole thing about it becoming a surplus a bit more of a long term issue. This calorie spread is not what your body is expecting, to which point it will adapt either by losing steady mass or you just calming down on some level to balance the stress that the deficit and the work creates.

[Funct10n4llyF1t]

This is not accurate. Sure if you're doing an hour of steady state running and you go exactly the same distance every single time, yeah you could argue your body will eventually adapt to it and never get better. But your body can and will adapt so you will go faster during that time period. Most serious long distance runners recommend most of your training done in Zone 2, which is the lowest intensity you can move while still getting results.

You are advocating for LISS while using non LISS workout methods as your argument. You don't run in steady state. LISS is people that get on a treadmill for thirty minutes to an hour and do nothing but walk. That is all they do every time they go to the gym and their metabolism is totally adapted and actually less efficient. LISS is more zone 1 or 55% of their maximum heart rate.

I would only advise steady state cardio for a complete beginner like an elderly person that just needs to move at all. They should progress out of steady state ASAP to minimize adaptations.

[hantaba]

The effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) versus traditional steady-state cardio depends on your fitness goals, preferences, and overall health. Both HIIT and ordinary cardio have their benefits, and the best approach for you will depend on several factors.

1. Time Efficiency: HIIT is known for its time efficiency. Since it involves alternating between intense bursts of exercise and short recovery periods, you can get a full workout in a shorter amount of time compared to traditional cardio. If you have a busy schedule, HIIT might be a more practical option.

2. Calorie Burn: HIIT can lead to a higher calorie burn during the workout itself compared to steady-state cardio. The intense intervals push your body to work harder and burn more calories in a shorter time. However, afterburn, also known as excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), can cause your body to continue burning calories at an elevated rate even after the workout is over. This effect is more pronounced in HIIT compared to regular cardio.

3. Cardiovascular Benefits: Both HIIT and steady-state cardio can improve cardiovascular fitness, but they affect the body differently. Traditional cardio is more focused on sustained aerobic effort, while HIIT challenges the cardiovascular system through intense intervals. For people looking to improve overall endurance, traditional cardio might be preferred, but for those seeking quick improvements in cardiovascular fitness, HIIT can be more effective.

4. Muscle Building: HIIT can help preserve or even build muscle mass, as it involves short bursts of resistance-type movements. Regular cardio may have less of a muscle-building effect in comparison, but it can still contribute to overall body toning.

5. Impact on Joints: HIIT often involves higher-impact movements, which may not be suitable for everyone, especially those with joint issues. Traditional cardio, such as walking or swimming, can be gentler on the joints.

6. Enjoyment and Motivation: The most effective exercise routine is the one you enjoy and can stick to consistently. Some people may find HIIT more engaging and exciting, while others prefer the steady pace of traditional cardio.

In summary, both HIIT and ordinary cardio have their merits. If you're short on time, looking for a more intense workout, and have no joint issues, HIIT could be a great option. On the other hand, if you prefer a steady and less intense exercise routine or have joint concerns, traditional cardio might be more suitable.

To achieve the best results and minimize the risk of injury, it's always a good idea to mix different forms of exercise and consult with a fitness professional or healthcare provider to determine the most appropriate approach based on your individual needs and goals.

[GeneralSerpant]

You are advocating for LISS while using non LISS workout methods as your argument. You don't run in steady state. LISS is people that get on a treadmill for thirty minutes to an hour and do nothing but walk. That is all they do every time they go to the gym and their metabolism is totally adapted and actually less efficient. LISS is more zone 1 or 55% of their maximum heart rate.

I would only advise steady state cardio for a complete beginner like an elderly person that just needs to move at all. They should progress out of steady state ASAP to minimize adaptations.

The idea with LISS is that you can keep a moderately consistent diet plan while the added calories requirement isn’t begged as strongly.

The more intense and prolonged your work is the more you will need to raise your calorie level for day-to-day activity.

[Funct10n4llyF1t]

The idea with LISS is that you can keep a moderately consistent diet plan while the added calories requirement isn’t begged as strongly.

The more intense and prolonged your work is the more you will need to raise your calorie level for day-to-day activity.

I am not familiar with a need to add calories because of increased energy expenditure, while cutting. Unless you are bulking, which is not what this thread is about.

[GeneralSerpant]

I am not familiar with a need to add calories because of increased energy expenditure, while cutting. Unless you are bulking, which is not what this thread is about.

You shouldn't be adding work on a cut.

[Caldef]

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.

[OldFartTom]

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.

No it isn't

https://www.science.org/content/arti...lories-and-why

Take a read of this article , then research it for yourself. This goes against a lot of what people (certainly myself) always thought and is unintuitive, but is based on study and empirical evidence.

To a large extent as the body becomes accustomed to exercise, like regular running, it decreases calories burned on other things (like uncoupled respiration for example) and the end result is that you end up with roughly the same TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) whether you are a couch potato or a running enthusiast for example. Once accustomed to an exercise regimen... ... the TDEE is dominated by the subject's sex age and bodyweight, not how much exercise they do

This is astonishing but there is a lot of research behind this. It was certainly a shock to me when I heard about it, it just seems very wrong and unintuitive, but as mentioned it's based on empirical research.

It's not popular research though, because it calls "Bull****" on a lot of the exercise industry shills and personal trainers.

Enjoy!

[GeneralSerpant]

No it isn't

That study doesn't contradict what they said.