HIIT

mosesgun

I'm fairly new to regular exercise so I'd appreciate your advice please. I've been jogging for a few months now mainly on the treadmill I have at home. I'm at a stage now where I can manage 5k in about 32 minutes with no stops.
I have started to incorporate some HIIT sessions (for weightloss reasons) and am wondering what your opinions on this are. Am I doing it right? I started tonight with a 5 minute warm up walk at approx 4mph. Then run 60 secs at 8.8mph (it's the maximum speed on my treadmill) I have to manually adjust the treadmill speed so this reduces the high intensity duration to 50 seconds. I do this 10 times in a row and then did a 10 minute cool down walk at 4.2mph. Total distance approx 3 miles. Is the high intensity at 8.8mph fast enough to get the benefits? Any advice would be very welcome.

Hanley

HIIT -v- long distance runs is one of the smaller things to worry about. Your nutrition is FAR more important.

mosesgun

Hanley wrote: »

HIIT -v- long distance runs is one of the smaller things to worry about. Your nutrition is FAR more important.

Thanks but would the speed I'm doing be considered sufficient for HIIT or do I need to go faster?

Hanley

mosesgun wrote: »

Thanks but would the speed I'm doing be considered sufficient for HIIT or do I need to go faster?

CAn you go faster? HIIT is supposed to be all out effort.

And doing it for that long isn't HIIT. It's interval training maybe, but not high intensity.

mosesgun

Hanley wrote: »

CAn you go faster? HIIT is supposed to be all out effort.

And doing it for that long isn't HIIT. It's interval training maybe, but not high intensity.

You see the treadmill only goes to 8.8mph that's why i'm asking is it fast enough.

metamorphosis

mosesgun wrote: »

You see the treadmill only goes to 8.8mph that's why i'm asking is it fast enough.

Yes but again the speed is irrelevant it's about effort level, hiit should be balls to the wall, got no more to give right now so to speak. Can you gt to that effort with That speed allowance? Why not try it outdoors like a park or a track?

mosesgun

metamorphosis wrote: »

Yes but again the speed is irrelevant it's about effort level, hiit should be balls to the wall, got no more to give right now so to speak. Can you gt to that effort with That speed allowance? Why not try it outdoors like a park or a track?

Thanks a lot. No, if I'm being honest it's not completely balls to the wall at that speed. I'm fairly wrecked but not in a total heap. Perhaps I should try it outdoors. I live in a rural area so on these dark nights the treadmill is dead handy. upping the incline on the treadmill would probably help too I suppose.

Mellor

If you goal is weighloss then you be best to just keep the 5km runs going. Get the time dien a bit, add a bit of distance.
There are benefits to HIIT but overall it's not going to burn much more energy than a steady run.

BlueIsland

Mellor wrote: »

If you goal is weighloss then you be best to just keep the 5km runs going. Get the time dien a bit, add a bit of distance.
There are benefits to HIIT but overall it's not going to burn much more energy than a steady run.

Really? Not saying you incorrect. just genuinely curious. thought general advice would be opposite to the above!

Hanley

BlueIsland wrote: »

Really? Not saying you incorrect. just genuinely curious. thought general advice would be opposite to the above!

"general advice" is usually bullsh*t misinformation from incorrectly interpreted studies parroted by the internet.

The "optimal" way to lose fat is...
-have a calorie deficit
-engage in a physical activity that you enjoy and is sustainable
-try to pick activities that are easy enough to recover from given a kcal deficit
-take whatever measures you need to take to ensure a nutrition program is sustainable

From a purely metabolic standpoint, HIIT probably isn't any more effective than LIT. It works "better" because people do it more, stay on track with nutrition better because they're training "hard" and there's an element of satiety generated from HIIT that doesn't appear to exist with LIT.

....BUT none of that speaks to a specific tangible advantage of HIIT.

So once again I say - do whichever one works best for you, but you don't HAVE to do one.

BlueIsland

Hanley wrote: »

"general advice" is usually bullsh*t misinformation from incorrectly interpreted studies parroted by the internet.

The "optimal" way to lose fat is...
-have a calorie deficit
-engage in a physical activity that you enjoy and is sustainable
-try to pick activities that are easy enough to recover from given a kcal deficit
-take whatever measures you need to take to ensure a nutrition program is sustainable

From a purely metabolic standpoint, HIIT probably isn't any more effective than LIT. It works "better" because people do it more, stay on track with nutrition better because they're training "hard" and there's an element of satiety generated from HIIT that doesn't appear to exist with LIT.

....BUT none of that speaks to a specific tangible advantage of HIIT.

So once again I say - do whichever one works best for you, but you don't HAVE to do one.

Yeh i would have thought most of the above. just weird the way longer distance training has become somewhat of a bastion of poor training in the eyes of many!

Hanley

BlueIsland wrote: »

Yeh i would have thought most of the above. just weird the way longer distance training has become somewhat of a bastion of poor training in the eyes of many!

Another thing that really f*cks me off is the "hey look at this marathon runner and now look at this sprinter" and it shows 2 world class athletes.

FOR.F*CK.SAKE!! None of us will ever look like EITHER of them.. They're the genetic elite of their sport and are in that pic because they're destined to look that way. They're found a sport that works for them, one doesn't try the others sport and then suddenly completely change shape.

AND 3-4x 45 to 60 minute runs a week isn't even fecking long distance training anyway.

BlueIsland

Hanley wrote: »

Another thing that really f*cks me off is the "hey look at this marathon runner and now look at this sprinter" and it shows 2 world class athletes.

FOR.F*CK.SAKE!! None of us will ever look like EITHER of them.. They're the genetic elite of their sport and are in that pic because they're destined to look that way. They're found a sport that works for them, one doesn't try the others sport and then suddenly completely change shape.

AND 3-4x 45 to 60 minute runs a week isn't even fecking long distance training anyway.

A friend of mine does triathlons. Now he not olympic elite but very very good. Wins a lot of races etc. Completed ironmen races twice. He would be a very slight small guy. People in work always saying oh he is so small cos he trains so so hard! Then stuff their faces cos they couldnt bare having to train like that to be smaller. Im not saying training not one tiny reason he skinny. id say he picked a sport when he was younger that fit his build. Paul o Connell didnt decide on triathlons, wonder why? Some times I think this attitude kinda defeatist!

Mellor

BlueIsland wrote: »

Mellor wrote: »

If you goal is weighloss then you be best to just keep the 5km runs going. Get the time dien a bit, add a bit of distance.
There are benefits to HIIT but overall it's not going to burn much more energy than a steady run.

Really? Not saying you incorrect. just genuinely curious. thought general advice would be opposite to the above!

HIIT will burn energy at a higher rate, but you can keep going for longer doing steady state. So it balanced out. If there is a difference, it's probably pretty negligible when you look at the energy burned over the rest of the week. In all cass, diet will dictate an awful lot more than the choice of HIIT or steady state.

mosesgun

Thanks for all the replies folks. Think I'll mix it up a bit to keep it enjoyable. Some HIIT sessions and some longer runs would seem sensible.

Clearlier

mosesgun wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies folks. Think I'll mix it up a bit to keep it enjoyable. Some HIIT sessions and some longer runs would seem sensible.

Actually that is sensible. Too many people advocate one thing and one thing only. If weight loss is your goal then there's no reason that you shouldn't mix it up a bit more, swimming, cycling or any sport that you enjoy doing. Enjoyment being the key.

If running is your thing you might want to think about entering a race and training for it. Most people do best when they're working towards a goal. If that is the case take a look at the Athletics/Running forum where there are loads of guides for newbies and plenty of helpful posters.

Hanley

Clearlier wrote: »

Actually that is sensible. Too many people advocate one thing and one thing only. If weight loss is your goal then there's no reason that you shouldn't mix it up a bit more, swimming, cycling or any sport that you enjoy doing. Enjoyment being the key.

If running is your thing you might want to think about entering a race and training for it. Most people do best when they're working towards a goal. If that is the case take a look at the Athletics/Running forum where there are loads of guides for newbies and plenty of helpful posters.

Solid post

metamorphosis

+1 ... Shock horror