Burning Fat

bwardrop

This post is a response to a question I was asked in another thread in this forum (EducoGym info)-

"I have to pick your brains on this point - if we have enough energy in our muscles to fuel 2 hours of exercise in the gym - how do we burn fat? I know that EPOC and BMR increases due to hypertrophy play a significant part - but would you care to expand on that point (I'm not challenging, just asking_ I would imagine that after a heavy weights session, if you do 40 mins moderate intensity cardio you are gonna be burning fat as you have depleted your glycogen stores?"

I'll try to keep the answer simple and in plain English - I am not trying to be patronizing - but if anything needs clarification, just ask. I hope the answer reads well...

I'll be using one or two abbreviations out of habit. Carbohydrate is made of Carbon, Hydrogen & Oxygen and will be referred to as CHO in this post.

First and foremost, our bodies do not burn CHO, fat or protein directly for energy. Our bodies use a substance called adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to fuel all activity in the body. CHO & fat are converted to ATP in order to provide energy. Understanding this conversion allows us to see what is being used as fuel.

For those of you who did / can remember biology in school, this equation should be familiar:

C6H12O6 + 6 O2 → 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + Energy

In English this is:

Glucose + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide + Water + Energy

This equation demonstrates the breakdown of glucose (a type of CHO) in the presence of oxygen to produce energy. The energy released is ATP - specifically, there are 36 molecules of ATP produced. Carbon dioxide and water are the waste products. This is known as aerobic metabolism.

Palmitic acid is a type of fat found in the human body which is often used to demonstrate the breakdown of fats to produce ATP. That equation looks like this:

C16H32O2 + 23 O2 → 16 CO2 + 16 H2O + Energy

Again, in English:

Fat + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide + Water + Energy (ATP)

The oxidation of palmitic acid (fat) produces over 100 ATP's - way more than from the oxidation of glucose. However, if you look back between the 2 equations you will see that the conversion of glucose consumes 6 molecules of oxygen, whereas the conversion of fat requires 23 molecules of oxygen. Fat needs more oxygen to convert it to energy.

I hope you are still with me here....!!!

If we take a closer look at the equations the following is also apparent:

Ratio of carbon dioxide produced : oxygen consumed for glucose is:

6 carbon dioxide / 6 oxygen = 1.0

Ratio of carbon dioxide produced : oxygen consumed for fat is:

16 carbon dioxide / 23 oxygen = 0.7

During exercise this ratio is known as the respiratory exchange ratio (RER). If we measure oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production (in the lab) we can tell what our body is being used to fuel any given activity. If the ratio is closer to 0.7 we are using 100% fat, if it is closer 1.0 we are using 100% CHO.

At rest, RER is about 0.85 and we will be using roughly 50% CHO and 50% fat. During exercise the value will vary - a general rule of thumb is that the more intense the activity, the closer this value will be to 1.0 (CHO as fuel).

It may surprise you how much energy is store in your body...

Body stores of CHO and Fat in a typical Irish male (80kgs, 18% body fat):

CHO:
Liver glycogen: 110 grams / 451 calories
Muscle glycogen: 275 grams / 1,100 calories
Glucose in body fluids: 15 grams / 62 calories
Total : 400 grams / 1,613 calories

Fat:
Subcutaneous (skinfold): 14,000 grams (14.4kgs) / 129,600 calories
Intramuscular:161 grams / 1,465 calories
Total: 14,161 grams / 131,065 calories

Total calories stored: 132,678 calories

For the majority of people, when they are aiming to lose weight, their workout will focus on aerobic work in the gym - burning calories on the treadmill etc. For the majority, a run on the treadmill (say 6 - 7 mph) will elicit an RER of about 0.9 (I am just basing that on my own experience testing people - I have no reference to back it up... just have faith in me!!). This = 66% CHO & 34% Fat.

This means that they will be using a mixture of CHO and fat - but it will be predominantly CHO. Say the run lasts about 45mins and they burn 500 calories. 66% of this will have come from CHO (330 calories) and 34% will have come from fat (170 calories). 1 gram of CHO = 4 calories & 1 gram of fat = 9 calories. Therefore the run will have 'burned' 82.5 grams of CHO and 19 grams of fat (you would have to repeat this run 185 times and have a perfect diet to lose the 3.5kgs of fat EducoGym claim you can lose in 3 weeks with them)... :eek:

During a weights session, you will predominantly use CHO as an energy source. 45 mins of a typical weights may feel tougher than the run, but it will not burn as many calories.

The human body has about 350 grams of glycogen on reserve - very few people will deplete this store in the gym.

So - am I ever going to answer the original question... How do we burn fat? We are burning fat most of the time - just not very much. A run after a weights session will not significantly affect how much fat you burn.

If you want to maximise your fat burning, you need to exercise at lower intensities (<60% max) for extended durations. To estimate this subtract your age from 220, then multiply the answer by 0.6. This will estimate your heart rate when working at 60% of max.

E.g. 20 year old: 220 - 20 = 200 x 0.6 = 120 beats per minute.

Your heart rate should not exceed this during your work out if you want to maximise fat burning (in theory). To lose fat, this must be accompanied by a proper diet - there is no point burning it off, then putting it back in.

Your muscles are your body's engine. As with a car, the bigger your engine the more fuel you will use. Regular weight training will increase your muscle mass and mean that you will be using more calories all the time. It may not seem instinctive, but following a resistance training program aimed at increasing muscle mass will actually help you to lose weight.

Right - I've had enough for now. I will re-read and edit later... work in progress!! Feedback appreciated!!

celestial

bwardrop wrote: »

This post is a response to a question I was asked in another thread in this forum (EducoGym info)-

"I have to pick your brains on this point - if we have enough energy in our muscles to fuel 2 hours of exercise in the gym - how do we burn fat? I know that EPOC and BMR increases due to hypertrophy play a significant part - but would you care to expand on that point (I'm not challenging, just asking_ I would imagine that after a heavy weights session, if you do 40 mins moderate intensity cardio you are gonna be burning fat as you have depleted your glycogen stores?"

I'll try to keep the answer simple and in plain English - I am not trying to be patronizing - but if anything needs clarification, just ask. I hope the answer reads well...

I'll be using one or two abbreviations out of habit. Carbohydrate is made of Carbon, Hydrogen & Oxygen and will be referred to as CHO in this post.

First and foremost, our bodies do not burn CHO, fat or protein directly for energy. Our bodies use a substance called adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to fuel all activity in the body. CHO & fat are converted to ATP in order to provide energy. Understanding this conversion allows us to see what is being used as fuel.

For those of you who did / can remember biology in school, this equation should be familiar:

C6H12O6 + 6 O2 → 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + Energy

In English this is:

Glucose + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide + Water + Energy

This equation demonstrates the breakdown of glucose (a type of CHO) in the presence of oxygen to produce energy. The energy released is ATP - specifically, there are 36 molecules of ATP produced. Carbon dioxide and water are the waste products. This is known as aerobic metabolism.

Palmitic acid is a type of fat found in the human body which is often used to demonstrate the breakdown of fats to produce ATP. That equation looks like this:

C16H32O2 + 23 O2 → 16 CO2 + 16 H2O + Energy

Again, in English:

Fat + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide + Water + Energy (ATP)

The oxidation of palmitic acid (fat) produces over 100 ATP's - way more than from the oxidation of glucose. However, if you look back between the 2 equations you will see that the conversion of glucose consumes 6 molecules of oxygen, whereas the conversion of fat requires 23 molecules of oxygen. Fat needs more oxygen to convert it to energy.

I hope you are still with me here....!!!

If we take a closer look at the equations the following is also apparent:

Ratio of carbon dioxide produced : oxygen consumed for glucose is:

6 carbon dioxide / 6 oxygen = 1.0

Ratio of carbon dioxide produced : oxygen consumed for fat is:

16 carbon dioxide / 23 oxygen = 0.7

During exercise this ratio is known as the respiratory exchange ratio (RER). If we measure oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production (in the lab) we can tell what our body is being used to fuel any given activity. If the ratio is closer to 0.7 we are using 100% fat, if it is closer 1.0 we are using 100% CHO.

At rest, RER is about 0.85 and we will be using roughly 50% CHO and 50% fat. During exercise the value will vary - a general rule of thumb is that the more intense the activity, the closer this value will be to 1.0 (CHO as fuel).

For the majority of people, when they are aiming to lose weight, their workout will focus on aerobic work in the gym - burning calories on the treadmill etc. For the majority, a run on the treadmill (say 6 - 7 mph) will elicit an RER of about 0.9 (I am just basing that on my own experience testing people - I have no reference to back it up... just have faith in me!!). This = 66% CHO & 34% Fat.

This means that they will be using a mixture of CHO and fat - but it will be predominantly CHO. Say the run lasts about 45mins and they burn 500 calories. 66% of this will have come from CHO (330 calories) and 34% will have come from fat (170 calories). 1 gram of CHO = 4 calories & 1 gram of fat = 9 calories. Therefore the run will have 'burned' 82.5 grams of CHO and 19 grams of fat (you would have to repeat this run 185 times and have a perfect diet to lose the 3.5kgs of fat EducoGym claim you can lose in 3 weeks with them)... :eek:

During a weights session, you will predominantly use CHO as an energy source. 45 mins of a typical weights may feel tougher than the run, but it will not burn as many calories.

The human body has about 350 grams of glycogen on reserve - very few people will deplete this store in the gym.

So - am I ever going to answer the original question... How do we burn fat? We are burning fat most of the time - just not very much. A run after a weights session will not significantly affect how much fat you burn.

If you want to maximise your fat burning, you need to exercise at lower intensities (<60% max) for extended durations. To estimate this subtract your age from 220, then multiply the answer by 0.6. This will estimate your heart rate when working at 60% of max.

E.g. 20 year old: 220 - 20 = 200 x 0.6 = 120 beats per minute.

Your heart rate should not exceed this during your work out if you want to maximise fat burning (in theory). To lose fat, this must be accompanied by a proper diet - there is no point burning it off, then putting it back in.

Your muscles are your body's engine. As with a car, the bigger your engine the more fuel you will use. Regular weight training will increase your muscle mass and mean that you will be using more calories all the time. It may not seem instinctive, but following a resistance training program aimed at increasing muscle mass will actually help you to lose weight.

Right - I've had enough for now. I will re-read and edit later... work in progress!! Feedback appreciated!!

Hey dude,

Well, I'm sorry I asked now!:D

Thanks for taking the time to write that all out - especially as I presume you're hungover if you had a stag last night?:eek:

Anyway, if you look at what's out there on the internet/magazines these days you'll see a lot of people have jumped on the HIIT bandwagon (including a fair few folks on here, it seems). The argument goes as follows:

60 mins of aerobic activity in the fat-burning zone will burn let's say, 500 kcals and the majority of this comes from fat.

25 mins of HIIT (say on a rowing machine) will burn let's say 350 kcals, but the majority coming from carb stores. However, in the period immediately after the exercise your body's metabolism has surged, and requires more kcals than it would require if you had trained in the fat burning zone. So, the theory goes that you burn more fat overall using HIIT, and so this is the more effective option for fat-burning.

Personally I'm not convinced about the HIIT hype, and feel it may be 6 of one, half dozen of the other. I think what you eat and drink has a far greater bearing than whether you choose HIIT or training in the fat burning zone. You often see runners who do marathons and they still have flabby guts!

What is your take on what I've discussed above?

In any case, I feel that weight training and a strict nutrition plan is the way to go, and I'm seeing good results with that - more muscle = more fuel required = less chance of fat storage.

bwardrop

Hey Celestial,

After any exercise your metabolic rate will be increased. During that time, you are likely to be pottering about or close to rest. This allows your body to tap into the fat stores. As mentioned previosuly, under normal circumstances at rest, your body is using about 50 : 50 carbs and fat as fuel.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17323070?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This study used different exercise protocols (constant intensity & altering intensity in 3 different ways). Overall, time was controlled so the same number of calories were burned in each trial.

Results indicated that following the exercise trial where intensity was changed up and down, metabolic rate was raised to a greater extent.

Looking through the research, there seems to be credible support for HIIT training in order to increase fat loss. Needs to be structured and controlled well though - and of course, accompanied by the all important diet!!

And finally, increasing muscle mass is still my number one way to lose fat. HIIT training will be even better for each person if they are training with a bigger engine!

cavanmaniac

Thanks for taking the time to make that hefty post bwardrop.

I'm currently trying to lower my bodyfat and at my last assessment had dropped from 23 to 20% with a weights programme and a cardio regime involving about 25-30 mins per session working at 80% of my HR on a variety of machines. The rest of the cardio I do is just warmup and coodown at lower rates etc.

Your research indicates that longer periods of exercise at a much lower heart rate, in my case about 115bpm, is more effective for burning fat. I tried this form of cardio for a while and I actually put on body fat, so I'd be very nevous about trying it again in case my gains are reversed. But at the same time I know my diet and all round game has improved alot since the time I tried it. If there was a more effective way of burning fat out there I'd obviously be keen to use it, but I do have reservations.

What sort of durations are you looking at for cardio using this method?

bwardrop

Cavanmaiac - how was your body fat determined?

Irish_Army01

For What It's Worth, An exercise guru (Tom Venuto) is stating the following regarding a new study;

"High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT for short, has been promoted as one of the most effective training methods ever to come down the pike, both for fat loss and for cardiovascular fitness. One of the most popular claims for HIIT is that it burns
"9 times more bodyfat" than conventional (steady state) cardio.
This figure was extracted from a study performed by Angelo Tremblay at Laval University in 1994.

But what if I told you that HIIT has never been proven to be 9 times more effective than regular cardio... What if I told you that the same study actually shows that HIIT is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio??? Visit the link below to read on and see the proof for yourself."

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archiv...proven_5_x.php

Macha

I have to say - HIIT works for me and with LIT I just put on body fat.

celestial

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

For What It's Worth, An exercise guru (Tom Venuto) is stating the following regarding a new study;

"High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT for short, has been promoted as one of the most effective training methods ever to come down the pike, both for fat loss and for cardiovascular fitness. One of the most popular claims for HIIT is that it burns
"9 times more bodyfat" than conventional (steady state) cardio.
This figure was extracted from a study performed by Angelo Tremblay at Laval University in 1994.

But what if I told you that HIIT has never been proven to be 9 times more effective than regular cardio... What if I told you that the same study actually shows that HIIT is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio??? Visit the link below to read on and see the proof for yourself."

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archiv...proven_5_x.php

I was going to post that article.

I think there will be always debate over which is more effective - primarily because there is no clear winner - but I'll say what I've said once or twice before - it's not what works - it's whatever works for you. If one method were truly more effective than another we would have seen that already - and it is likely that one would almost certainly have been prescribed as the exclusive method for fat loss. The analysis in the link above shows how flawed these so called studies really are - and how never to take these results at face value, as there are so many variables at play. Studies are done and magazines and websites take the dubious result, blow it up out of proportion to sell whatever it is they are selling, and rubbish all other methods (think Turbulence Training - the guy glorifies HIIT and does down LIT all the time). I'm not saying HIIT doesn't work, of course it does, but that doesn't mean LIT doesn't have its place. Tom Venuto actually recommends both, and when dropping fat himself in preparation for a competition will actually go for 45 mins LIT with his weight training.

Hanley

That's a really interesting post Bwardrop. It's funny that all the guys I know who's "job" (well to an amateur level) it is to lose bodyfat use a combination of hours of LIT cardio during the week and a diet low in kcals (bodybuilders), but all the weekend warriors seem to know the real secret and do HIIT because that's what's popular now..


My question to those who claim LIT makes them "put on bodyfat".... How? Is it just as simple as you eating too many kcals in the first place? Does HIIT inhibit this in someway that LIT doesn't? Is it fair to say LIT is the reason you're putting on bodyfat when infact it's a result of your diet?

justsomebloke

using the calcs from this http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm for a 130lb and the 50% split and the 1/3 split described above

running for an hour at 7.5 = 738 kcals. 34% of this is 250 kclas of fat

running for an hour at 5 = 472 kcals. 50% of this is 236 kcals of fat

so it is more a case of where you want the cals to coem from yes you will use a higher % of fat at a lower pace but you will lose more fat overall at the higher pace

bwardrop

Hey Guys - thanks for the comments. Although this stuff is my day job - I don't read any of the fitness mags or websites (with the exception of crossfit.com). Our bodies have not changed in hundreds of thousands of years and it is unlikely that someone is going to discover "the secret" to fat loss in them.

It is a simple balance: too much in = weight gain. Low intensity training is not going to make you gain body fat. Low intensity training over too short a duration coupled with a high calorie intake will. It is all about balance. Any activity will help you get that balance back in check. Celestial put it well - "whatever works for you"

There is a superb book called "Survival of the Fittest" by Dr. Mike Stroud. In it he tells the stories of his own personal feats of endurance (walking across the south pole, the marathon des sables, 7 marathons on 7 continents in 7 days etc) combined with some really interesting (and easy to read) science. He explains how our bodies have evolved and what they are capable of. Very inspiring and educational stuff.

Put very simply, our ancestors evolved to survive on very little food and had to travel long distances (long duration, low intensity training). Our fat stores provided insulation against the elements (when we lost our fur) and provided a store of energy for periods of travel / hunger. The fat we have on our body is there for the same reason - to be used to fuel long duration low intensity exercise.

Any exercise is good for you and will help you shed calories. What you eat is equally, if not more important - remember it is all about balance.

t-ha

Hanley wrote: »

That's a really interesting post Bwardrop. It's funny that all the guys I know who's "job" (well to an amateur level) it is to lose bodyfat use a combination of hours of LIT cardio during the week and a diet low in kcals (bodybuilders), but all the weekend warriors seem to know the real secret and do HIIT because that's what's popular now..

I think I was one of the first to recommend HIIT around here & it was from first hand experience. It's the shiz niz at burning off fat and making your body race through calories. Just for clarification, I'm talking the proper, sprint interval type training with very short rest periods lasting under 10mins in total as opposed to the 'go kind of fast & then sort of slow for about half an hour' kind of thing that some people have in mind when they talk about HIIT.

The simple answer as to why people who need to get ripped use LIT and low calories are because they can't take chances with their diet and need to have a low calorie intake. Because of that a high intensity training regime like HIIT several times a week mighten't be possible. For people who have other training to do that could also be a reason, LIT doesn't add much to your training load whereas HIIT does. In my own experience, as your bodyfat levels drop it gets harder and harder to get rid of the fat indirectly through EPOC or whatever and just doing alot of LIT on a low calorie intake is the dead-cert way of getting where you need to go.

bwardrop

Salad Boy wrote: »

using the calcs from this http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm for a 130lb and the 50% split and the 1/3 split described above

running for an hour at 7.5 = 738 kcals. 34% of this is 250 kclas of fat

running for an hour at 5 = 472 kcals. 50% of this is 236 kcals of fat

so it is more a case of where you want the cals to coem from yes you will use a higher % of fat at a lower pace but you will lose more fat overall at the higher pace

What is the 50% & 33% split you are discussing? Sorry if I am just being dumb...!!!

javaboy

bwardrop wrote: »

What is the 50% & 33% split you are discussing? Sorry if I am just being dumb...!!!

I think it refers to where your body is getting it's energy from at different intensities of exercise. e.g. at rest 50% of the fuel comes from fat whereas during higher intensity exercise, the percentage of 'fuel' provided by fat is lower. That's the theory and one of the reasons a lot of people do very low intensity cardio.

The poster was making the point that the extra calories burned by higher intensity exercise will 'outweigh' the relative reduction in fat used.

Hanley

t-ha wrote: »

I think I was one of the first to recommend HIIT around here & it was from first hand experience. It's the shiz niz at burning off fat and making your body race through calories. Just for clarification, I'm talking the proper, sprint interval type training with very short rest periods lasting under 10mins in total as opposed to the 'go kind of fast & then sort of slow for about half an hour' kind of thing that some people have in mind when they talk about HIIT.

Haha too true. It's become so far removed from what it actually is that it's not the same thing anymore.

What is proper HIIT? Not being a smart ar$e, I'm genuinely curious, just so I have another tool to take out of the box should I need it.

The simple answer as to why people who need to get ripped use LIT and low calories are because they can't take chances with their diet and need to have a low calorie intake. Because of that a high intensity training regime like HIIT several times a week mighten't be possible. For people who have other training to do that could also be a reason, LIT doesn't add much to your training load whereas HIIT does. In my own experience, as your bodyfat levels drop it gets harder and harder to get rid of the fat indirectly through EPOC or whatever and just doing alot of LIT on a low calorie intake is the dead-cert way of getting where you need to go.

Very good points again. I just don't think I'd be up for HIIT if I was squatting and deadlifting heavy during the week. It'd be too much for me anyway.

For someone looking to only lose fat HIIT might be good, BUT, I don't think alot of people have what it takes to push themselves to the verge of collapse for 10 minutes... to start sprinting again when it feels like you're already about to puke. Of course some will have this discipline, but they'll be in the minority.

I've done alot of interval work training for soccer and GAA and everyone on the team used to dread it. We loved the competition aspect of it, but feared the inevitable wretching that would follow it.

I think your point was to get the results with HIIT you have to go absolutely balls to the wall? I dunno if most people can handle that, that's one of the main reasons I think LIT is a better option!

flogen

I'm interested in the advantages of HIIT but I don't really have any question relating to it; that said I do have one question in relation to what you're saying (or what I think you're saying).

If I understand correctly, the scenario is that cardio is the best way to burn fat/calories in the short term (as in during that actual workout) but muscle-building exercise is the best way to burn fat/calories in the long term (as the more mass your body has to "power" the more energy [calories] it's going to need to do so). Is that a fair (if extremely simplified) assessment?

celestial

flogen wrote: »

I'm interested in the advantages of HIIT but I don't really have any question relating to it; that said I do have one question in relation to what you're saying (or what I think you're saying).

If I understand correctly, the scenario is that cardio is the best way to burn fat/calories in the short term (as in during that actual workout) but muscle-building exercise is the best way to burn fat/calories in the long term (as the more mass your body has to "power" the more energy [calories] it's going to need to do so). Is that a fair (if extremely simplified) assessment?

Yep you got it!

Low intensity cardio - burn fat during exercise, not much afterwards
High intensity interval training cardio - burn some fat during, more aftewards
Weight/resistance training - burn afterwards and all day long!

t-ha

Hanley wrote: »

What is proper HIIT? Not being a smart ar$e, I'm genuinely curious, just so I have another tool to take out of the box should I need it.

Well, supposedly it's any activity done balls to the wall but I've always found that sprinting is the best way. Basically, I'd head out to a field/football pitch and just jog for two minutes to warm up, then I'd sprint all out as far as I could (generally I'd last about 13 - 15s, though maybe as high as 17s if I was on the creo!) and then jog for 30s before sprinting again. I'd start out with 6 intervals and work up to 8. Then I'd go back to 6 again but with 25s rest periods. Even with the warm-up, the intervals and a little cool-down/wretching period it doesn't come to more than 10 minutes, but you feel the effects of it for a long time. I used to feel much more energetic all day after doing it.

For me, the really important bit was the initial kick-off, making it as powerful an acceleration as possible. Also keeping the quality of the sprinting up. The in-between jogs don't really matter, you can walk it if you want.

Hanley wrote: »

Very good points again. I just don't think I'd be up for HIIT if I was squatting and deadlifting heavy during the week. It'd be too much for me anyway.

Definitely, I think it's most useful for someone who's fairly fit but has no particular training goals other than losing some weight (and getting fitter). For someone coming back to a team sport or something a couple of weeks of it before the season starts would be a good option.

Hanley wrote: »

I think your point was to get the results with HIIT you have to go absolutely balls to the wall? I dunno if most people can handle that, that's one of the main reasons I think LIT is a better option!

Yeah, it's horses for courses really. I can mentally convince myself to do HIIT much sooner than LIT because I can keep telling myself that it's only for a few minutes. I find LIT to be so incredibly boring that I just can't bring myself to do it unless I have to... unless it's a beautiful day like today where I may just go for a run for the hell of it. I understand that some people are the total opposite though.

Hanley

t-ha wrote: »

Well, supposedly it's any activity done balls to the wall but I've always found that sprinting is the best way. Basically, I'd head out to a field/football pitch and just jog for two minutes to warm up, then I'd sprint all out as far as I could (generally I'd last about 13 - 15s, though maybe as high as 17s if I was on the creo!) and then jog for 30s before sprinting again. I'd start out with 6 intervals and work up to 8. Then I'd go back to 6 again but with 25s rest periods. Even with the warm-up, the intervals and a little cool-down/wretching period it doesn't come to more than 10 minutes, but you feel the effects of it for a long time. I used to feel much more energetic all day after doing it.

For me, the really important bit was the initial kick-off, making it as powerful an acceleration as possible. Also keeping the quality of the sprinting up. The in-between jogs don't really matter, you can walk it if you want.

BAH! Creatine. I knew you were one of those.

Looks like I was along the right lines with what I thought HIIT was anyway... When I did something similar I used to do it for distance, so maybe sprint half a pitch, walk half, sprint across, walk to the half way line, sprint down to the end, walk across etc.... In retrospect the sprints may have been too short. It worked well for my general fitness levels if nothing else tho.

LegacyUser

Spinning is HIIT right?

I have great results using HIIT before...i'd jog for 30 secs then sprint on 20kph (fastest on the thread mill) for a minute. and repeat. I'd end up being able to sprint about max 30 seconds after the first 5 minutes...and sometimes my jogs would be longer than 30 seconds...but having said that, that worked for me, got my in great shape. I reckon as long as you are putting the effort in, and working hard, and ensuring your heart is always beating fast and you are sweating like a mad man, then you will be doing ok...

t-ha

cheesedude wrote: »

Spinning is HIIT right? ...

I think spinning is more like the 'go quite fast for a bit and then slow down for a bit' stuff than what I have in mind by HIIT, but some people call it HIIT yeah.

cheesedude wrote: »

I have great results using HIIT before...i'd jog for 30 secs then sprint on 20kph (fastest on the thread mill) for a minute. and repeat. I'd end up being able to sprint about max 30 seconds after the first 5 minutes...and sometimes my jogs would be longer than 30 seconds...but having said that, that worked for me, got my in great shape.

It sounds good, but for me you just can't get that initial burts of acceleration on a treadmill and you don't have the room to swing your limbs out and really sprint all out (plus setting the speed would be a problem). That's why if at all possible I'd do it outside on a pitch or somewhere you have alot of space to run.

cheesedude wrote: »

I reckon as long as you are putting the effort in, and working hard, and ensuring your heart is always beating fast and you are sweating like a mad man, then you will be doing ok...

Agreed.

iregk

I've used spinning classes myself and a for of hiit. They work great providing you put the necessary work in and get a good instructor. Some will have a class running a way too medium a level for extended periods where you never really feel your hitting your max. This is where doing it on your own comes into play.

What also really annoys me in spinning classes are the tourists. Those that go in, spin the legs, never touch the resistance and come out convinced they have had a super workout all while taking up a space for someone who wants it. I'm a very keen cyclist (not commuting, a stretch lycra type cyclist) so I put everything into a spin class and almost fall off the bike at the end of some classes. Really annoying seeing the person beside you not even breaking a sweet or breathing heavy.

cavanmaniac

bwardrop wrote: »

Cavanmaiac - how was your body fat determined?

Hi again, it was taken using calipers. I'd increased body weight from the previous assessment and dropped BF so I was fairly pleased to tell the truth! The next one will tell a tale as to whether it's still working I guess.;)

Water Sprite

Great information here! I've hit a wall recently with my cardio, but based on these posts, I think I need to try HIIT to shake things up a bit.

What's a good way to start that kind of training on a treadmill?

BossArky

Water Sprite wrote: »

What's a good way to start that kind of training on a treadmill?

There should be a button with "interval" on your threadmill (It took me 9 months to notice this in my gym). Set a low speed like 10kmph, and then a top speed of like 16kmph (or whatever)

Start running at 10kmph, then press the button when you want to sprint at 16kmph, then press again to get back to 10kmph. Work-out what timings between fast and slow work for you, plus experiment with different speeds.

Water Sprite

Any suggestions for duration of those intervals? I'm not a beginner to cardio - but my workouts have usually been more of the sustained variety.

BossArky

I usually measure it in distance rather than time. Something as follows...

400m @10kmph
400m @16kmph
400m @10kmph
400m @16kmph.....etc etc...al the way up to 5km or target distance.

Just mix it up and make it challenging for yourself. If that is too easy / hard then adjust accordingly

xebec

As an alternative to BossArky's workout, I do HIIT on the crosstrainer. My workout is:

4 mins warm-up at low level - can skip this if already warmed up.
30 secs maximum effort - pushed the resistance up as high as I can manage and really push it, want to fall over at the end!
30 secs at lowest resistance
30 secs max
30 secs low
repeat until ready to collapse (for me that's about 7 mins at the moment)

It's not something I do very often, but I enjoy the buzz of it when I do it.

Water Sprite

Thanks to both of you. I hit the little button thingy...not sure what it means, but what the heck! : )

I think my gym uses LifeStride treadmills so I'll look for an interval button. If it doesn't have one, I guess I can compensate by just manually adjusting the speeds as I go.

Thanks for the cross-trainer tip too - I use those quite a bit as well.

Clive

I find that fiddling with the controls gives people too much of an excuse not to push themselves - "my rest period doesn't start until I get down to 6km/hr", and is a knightmare towards the end of a session, when really you should only be thinking about not falling off.

I just set the treadmill to whatever the "sprint" speed is, and hop on and off the sides for rest.

figroll

Definately going to give HIIT another go, it know i can even feel my heart rate's raised for hours after it. However, i know when i go and sprint all out for 10-15seconds, jogging just isn't an option after about the second sprint and i have to walk to get my breath back and the control of my legs.

SO, the question is, is it ok to walk? What is the difference between walking to recover or jogging to recover - am i cheating myself somehow by walking? Or should i definately walk just to make sure i can sprint all-out again to ensure i can do it for the 10mins?

Eyepoke

Thanks for the info

Water Sprite

One more question? (Okay, I'm lying - I'll probably have a lot more. lol )

Once I've completed the HIIT cardio (which should last maybe 10 minutes, total?), should I then proceed to a sustained-type cardio workout? Or vice versa?

xebec

Water Sprite wrote: »

Once I've completed the HIIT cardio (which should last maybe 10 minutes, total?), should I then proceed to a sustained-type cardio workout? Or vice versa?

From what I've read, and from my own experience: if HIIT is done properly you shouldn't be able for a long cardio workout afterwards, you should really be putting everything you've got into it. Personally I go for HIIT after my weight sessions (which are started with cardio), but that's mainly because I like to work up one last sweat and get my heart rate even higher before I leave the gym.

Hanley

Water Sprite wrote: »

One more question? (Okay, I'm lying - I'll probably have a lot more. lol )

Once I've completed the HIIT cardio (which should last maybe 10 minutes, total?), should I then proceed to a sustained-type cardio workout? Or vice versa?

Sure.... if you can drag yourself up off the floor of a cold shower!!

If you're pushing HIIT as hard as it should be pushed you'll want to do nothing but lie down. Any less and you're half a$$ing it (and proving my point to T-Ha about it not always being suitable for people who don't know where their absolute limits are and can consistently push as close to them as possible.)

So either way, one of us wins!!

Water Sprite

Hanley wrote: »

Sure.... if you can drag yourself up off the floor of a cold shower!!

Wow! You were right about that!

I almost PASSED OUT!! lol

I think I need to do a lower intensity, high intensity work-out.

SprostonGreen

bwardrop wrote: »

E.g. 20 year old: 220 - 20 = 200 x 0.6 = 120 beats per minute.

Your heart rate should not exceed this during your work out if you want to maximise fat burning (in theory). To lose fat, this must be accompanied by a proper diet - there is no point burning it off, then putting it back in.



Right - I've had enough for now. I will re-read and edit later... work in progress!! Feedback appreciated!!

I havent been doing much cardio recently, just weights only.

But I tried this during the week. According to the figures I should be working out at 112bpm(34 yrs old), I did this on a stationary bike and it didnt feel intense at all. It was a real struggle to keep my heart rate that low.

Do you think its worth trying this a couple of times a week?

I'm not by any means saying its wrong, but if I dont break a sweat it doesnt feel worth while.

celestial

I don't want to get into the merits of steady state cardio versus HIIT - but what I would say is what do you enjoy most, weights or cardio? If it's weights then continue with that, make sure it's intense and you're lifting heavy (you can actually get a great cardio (HIIT-like) workout from lifting weights) and throw in a good hard sweaty cardio session once or maybe twice a week. Plus watch your diet. I think that the harder the session the greater the fat burning potential, for a number of reasons. So get sweating whatever you do!

Mikel

That's a very interesting post, it raises a couple of questions for me:

bwardrop wrote: »

Glucose + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide + Water + Energy

Fat + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide + Water + Energy (ATP)

Ratio of carbon dioxide produced : oxygen consumed for glucose is:
6 carbon dioxide / 6 oxygen = 1.0

Ratio of carbon dioxide produced : oxygen consumed for fat is:
16 carbon dioxide / 23 oxygen = 0.7

That strikes me as a very simplistic model, for a start it assumes that we are dealing with a closed system (I have no idea if that's true), also since the determing factor is oxygen to co2, this seems to imply that your rate of breathing determines the energy source.
Take for eg a heavy deadlift. If I take one deep breath in and exhale it as i'm lifting does that differ in energy source from a lift where I struggle to get it up and take 6 - 8 breaths to lock it out?

...a general rule of thumb is that the more intense the activity, the closer this value will be to 1.0 (CHO as fuel).

Also, is this consistent with the theory that it takes 20 mins activity to activate the fat burning mechanisms?

Another thing, does it really matter anyway? If I eat a meal a couple of hours before training but train in the 'fat burning zone' will my body ignore that readily available energy and go for the fat stores? And if it does, will the meal not just get stored as fat anyway? Net effect negligible?

One last one, I read that high intensity training has the effect of producing cortisol which encourages fat storage, shouldn't that be taken into consideration?

Personally, I think the net effect of one over the other is probably small, but it's interesting all the same

pokergroupie

This seems to be the place to ask the question of high fat/protein intake and weight lifting...as you may know it is the plan that Educogym is peddling...it just seems sooooo wrong:eek:. I am trying it out but i am the forever sceptic...

However, i am sure i normally eat far tooooo much carbs... I could live on Special K and toast etc my whole life if i needed to ...

So what i am asking is that i would love a little healthy advice on how to lose upperbody weight (and all over weight if im honest). If it is the educogym style, the special K 3 bowls a day way or somewhere inbetween, I will do it...I just dont want to waste any more time...

Im 24, 154lbs, 5ft 7in, play hockey when in season and hate my arms/shoulders.... Any advice for me?

Please?

celestial

pokergroupie wrote: »

This seems to be the place to ask the question of high fat/protein intake and weight lifting...as you may know it is the plan that Educogym is peddling...it just seems sooooo wrong:eek:. I am trying it out but i am the forever sceptic...

However, i am sure i normally eat far tooooo much carbs... I could live on Special K and toast etc my whole life if i needed to ...

So what i am asking is that i would love a little healthy advice on how to lose upperbody weight (and all over weight if im honest). If it is the educogym style, the special K 3 bowls a day way or somewhere inbetween, I will do it...I just dont want to waste any more time...

Im 24, 154lbs, 5ft 7in, play hockey when in season and hate my arms/shoulders.... Any advice for me?

Please?

List out your full day's diet on a typical day and what exercise you do in any given week.

cardio,shoot me

SprostonGreen wrote: »

I havent been doing much cardio recently, just weights only.

But I tried this during the week. According to the figures I should be working out at 112bpm(34 yrs old), I did this on a stationary bike and it didnt feel intense at all. It was a real struggle to keep my heart rate that low.

Do you think its worth trying this a couple of times a week?

I'm not by any means saying its wrong, but if I dont break a sweat it doesnt feel worth while.

i dont believe in that tbh, id keep my heart rate above 150 at the least!, 112 bpm is like walking up a hill