Page 1 of 2
High Intensity Training vs. Long, lower intensity pieces???
Posted: October 11th, 2008, 4:04 pm
by Jim40
I'm relatively new to rowing (erging, actually), and I'm looking to lose weight. I've read many magazine articles on High Intensity Training (HIT) vs long, slow workouts, and they seem to suggest that HIT is the way to go for weight loss.
Does anybody here have any real life experience losing weight using HIT? The Concept2 website seems to support long, less intense sessions for weight loss. Thanks for any opinions.
Posted: October 12th, 2008, 5:07 pm
by Nosmo
Can't tell you from experience, but I understand that variable intensity does burn fat faster but only if you also put in the distance. I'd recommend doing HIIT once or preferable twice a week but make sure you have a long warm up and a good cool down, and put in the long distance other days. Doing more HITT and you will burn out.
Posted: October 13th, 2008, 6:26 pm
by Cynic
This is a three parter. You can get to the other two parts from links in the top of the article.
It's pretty heavy on the science, so take your time:
The Science of HIIT
Posted: November 1st, 2008, 1:03 pm
by lightweight8
For losing weight in general, I tend to believe that longer is better. If you take the erg out of the picture and think about running instead: if you wanted to lose weight, would you go out and do a couple 50m sprints or would you run a couple miles a day? I would say the latter. Same with the erg.
I am rowing to lose weight now, and have built up to 60 mins a day, 5 days a week, about 12k meters. I've lost 15 pounds in 6 weeks (also cutting calories).
About once or twice a week I will do a shorter harder workout, where I mix in power 20 sets every 1k or so. However, I can only stay on the erg for about 35 minutes on those days.
Posted: December 2nd, 2008, 12:22 pm
by tom pinckney
AS a fat boy, but not as fat as I used to be, I can tell you both work.
The old theory: LSD for an aerobic workiout in the "fat burning zone." New theory is that high intensity will burn more calories while you are working out AND at rest due to the carry-over effect.
Usually, when someone needs to lose a lot of weight they are in rotten shape. Those high-intensity workouts are MUCH harder on you and result in burnout or injury quite quickly. You don't need to be gasping for breath to lose weiight. Treat your body gently with aerobic type workouts (I"ve noticed that 45 minutes rather than 30 makes a BIG difference in weight loss). As your workouts become harder - add intervals. Then you get the best of both worlds. A build up of muscel (your body will burn more calories at rest if muscular) AND the time on the erg will burn off calories too.
Eat properly, but give yourself a break once in a while and eat what you want. Diets don't work. Only a lifestyle change works for permanent weight loss.
If you can stick with it for about three months you are setting yourself up to succeed. Good luck
Posted: December 23rd, 2008, 11:24 pm
by Jumpsoda
I like to go long most days of the week ( 60 minutes). One day a week I really push it. My body seems to deal with this better over the long haul as far as injury and being too sore.
Posted: January 12th, 2009, 6:32 pm
by nchasan
tom pinckney wrote:AS a fat boy, but not as fat as I used to be, I can tell you both work. k
The science is totally clear on this point: Interval training is the best mechanism to burn fat. Period. Intensity counts the most, but recovery to rest after an interval where rest is defined as sub maximal exercise is the key. This is very well documented.
As for Intensity vs Duration, the biggest bang comes from intensity, but the secret is repeated high intensity events with sufficient recovery in between sessions to maintain a higher resting heart rate while exercising.
Science rules!
N
Posted: January 24th, 2009, 10:31 pm
by TomR
nchasan wrote:
The science is totally clear on this point: Interval training is the best mechanism to burn fat. Period. Intensity counts the most, but recovery to rest after an interval where rest is defined as sub maximal exercise is the key. This is very well documented.
As for Intensity vs Duration, the biggest bang comes from intensity, but the secret is repeated high intensity events with sufficient recovery in between sessions to maintain a higher resting heart rate while exercising.
whoa! not so totally clear.
Effect of HIIT on lipid oxidation during postexercise recovery
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Feb;41(2):364-74.
Effect of high-intensity interval exercise on lipid oxidation during postexercise recovery.
Malatesta D, Werlen C, Bulfaro S, Chenevière X, Borrani F.
Institute of Sport Sciences and Physical Education (ISSEP), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
davide.malatesta@unil.ch
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine whether lipid oxidation predominates during 3 h of postexercise recovery in high-intensity interval exercise as compared with moderate-intensity continuous exercise on a cycle ergometer in fit young men (n = 12; 24.6 +/- 0.6 yr). METHODS: The energy substrate partitioning was evaluated during and after high-intensity submaximal interval exercise (INT, 1-min intervals at 80% of maximal aerobic power output [Wmax] with an intervening 1 min of active recovery at 40% Wmax) and 60-min moderate-intensity continuous exercise at 45% of maximal oxygen uptake (C45%) as well as a time-matched resting control trial (CON). Exercise bouts were matched for mechanical work output. RESULTS: During exercise, a significantly greater contribution of CHO and a lower contribution of lipid to energy expenditure were found in INT (512.7 +/- 26.6 and 41.0 +/- 14.0 kcal, respectively) than in C45% (406.3 +/- 21.2 and 170.3 +/- 24.0 kcal, respectively; P < 0.001) despite similar overall energy expenditure in both exercise trials (P = 0.13). During recovery, there were no significant differences between INT and C45% in substrate turnover and oxidation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, the mean contribution of lipids to energy yield was significantly higher after exercise trials (C45% = 61.3 +/- 4.2 kcal; INT = 66.7 +/- 4.7 kcal) than after CON (51.5 +/- 3.4 kcal; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that lipid oxidation during postexercise recovery was increased by a similar amount on two isoenergetic exercise bouts of different forms and intensities compared with the time-matched no-exercise control trial.
Posted: January 25th, 2009, 5:40 pm
by nchasan
[/quote]
whoa! not so totally clear.
(n = 12; 24.6 +/- 0.6 yr) FIRST, THE "n"IS TOO SMALL TO BE OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SECOND
METHODS: The energy substrate partitioning was evaluated during and after high-intensity submaximal interval exercise (INT, 1-min intervals at 80% of maximal aerobic power output [Wmax] with an intervening 1 min of active recovery at 40% Wmax) and 60-min moderate-intensity continuous exercise at 45% of maximal oxygen uptake (C45%) as well as a time-matched resting control trial (CON). Exercise bouts were matched for mechanical work output.
SECOND THE METHOD USES 80% OF MAX AEROBIC POWER OUTPUT FOR 1 MINUTE AS A YARDSTICK.
I CAN FILL A ROOM FLOOR TO CEILING WITH DATA THAT USES A LARGER "n', AND SHOWS CONCLUSIVELY WITH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT SHORT BOUT HIGH INTENSITY EXERCISE IS PREFERENTIAL IN LYPOLYSIS. IN A GIVEN TIME FRAME, INTERVAL TRAINING IS CLEARLY GREATER OUTPUT IN WORK LOAD THAN STEADY STATE EXERCISE. THE OTHER FLAW IN YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS STUDY YOU QUOTE MATCHES WORK LOAD...
Switching back to lower case!
OK, so if you try this you will feel the difference...30 minutes at a steady state vs 30 min at a steady state BUT add one sprint for one minute to MAX output (not 80%) every ten minutes...see which one is more work.
Make sense?
N
Posted: January 25th, 2009, 9:11 pm
by TomR
You are missing the point.
The two exercise routine were purposely matched for total work, to determine post-workout fat burning.
The study contradicts the frequent aassertion that intervals are better for fat loss because of elevated post-workout metabolism. (There's some study people are always citing to "prove" their claim.)
Posted: January 28th, 2009, 8:38 am
by raymond.botha
My personal experience is long 1 hr 30 min sessions done at a pace you can communicate at give the most fat loss. I've always exercised using HIT and never felt the same benefit for fat loss.
My feeling is that the body prioritizes immune system recovery over fat loss after HIT, whereas if you train long slow you can train more often and the body doesn't go into shock from the HIT.
I'm not backing this up with science, just my personal repetitive experience with my own body over the last 24 years. I find running up to 50 % better at fat loss for the same calorie count.
I'm still trying to figure that out.
At the end of the day whatever you do will help over time. I believe you can enjoy yourself while achieving your objective.
Ray
perhaps this resolves the issue
Posted: January 29th, 2009, 11:09 pm
by nchasan
So long duration exercise burns the most fat while exercising assuming you exercise at peak fat metabolism HRs. For example, at a HR of 14ob/m, I burn 6 cal of fat per minute while at 150 only 2 fat calories per min.
On the other hand, short bout high intensity exercise builds type II muscle, which is preferential in fat metabolism at rest and will allow increased fat metabolism at rest and also during sub maximal exercise.
So its not wrong to exercise at submaximal levels to burn fat WHILE EXERCISING, and nor is it wrong to exercise at high intensity to burn more fat AFTER EXERCISE if that makes sense.
Neil
Posted: January 30th, 2009, 2:19 am
by raymond.botha
Nicely put Neil.
Subjectively the fat burnt during is a lot more ...
OR, is it the increased metabolism effect. I read a report done on cyclists that showed 1 hour of training (not HIT) accelerated the metabolism for the next 7 hours ?
Ray
Posted: January 31st, 2009, 5:12 pm
by nchasan
[quote="raymond.botha"
OR, is it the increased metabolism effect.[/quote]
Ray, both short bout and long duration exercise increase post exercise metabolism.
During exercise you are depleting glycogen in the muscle. The consumption of fat occurs when triglycerides are broken down into fatty acids and those fatty acids assist in the replenishment of glycogen stores in the muscle. During long duration exercise this process occurs while exercising and after until the glycogen stores are replenished. Short bout exercise occurs anaerobically, and so the fat metabolism occurs mostly after exercise.
The strict benefit to short bout exercise is the growth in type II muscle mass so that the resting metabolic output is increased (think of running a 12 cylinder car vs a 4 cylinder on idle all day long).
One advantage of long bout exercise is that you can burn fat while exercising and if you go long enough and hard enough, you will also deplete glycogen that takes time to be replenished. A fit person replenishes as the rate of 10% per hour while an unfit person replenishes at the rate of 5% per hour. This implies that a rest day is key after two or three days of exercise in an unfit person to allow full restoration of muscle based glycogen.
Just one other point and that is that the heart replenishes first, the muscles second and the liver third.
Hope this all makes sense
Nei
Posted: February 4th, 2009, 3:34 am
by raymond.botha
Well thank you Nei. Nice to speak to someone who has made a career out of such an interesting topic. I appreciate the point by point explanation. I'm glad that at the end of the day there IS a logical explanation to all of this and guess that different training methods are perhaps dictated by personal talent rather than "the only way". I found it quite interesting reading how Lance Armstrong found his personal optimal torque curve / cadence and HR rate combination that produced the results he is now famous for. Yet, Jan Ulrich was unable to duplicate the same results from a similar training approach.
I went to the book store and was reading some of Tim Knoakes "Lore of Running" where he was comparing the type I/II cross section of different black / white runners with similar on track performance. Although totally different in make up he noted how the black runners also had no VO2 max advantage but where able nevertheless to sustain higher work loads before lactate onset, which perhaps gave them an advantage.
This is a fascinating subject of which it appears our understanding is continually unfolding. I do however hold that one can get to know ones own body to ones own advantage, which takes courage in an atmosphere of conflicting training attitudes. Nevertheless we can't reject something unless we've given it "time in the sun".
One such interesting observation is an online "debate" with Tim Knoakes and another equally well know "coach" over thirst demand drinking during long distance racing !
Thanks for your input Nei, I've taken valuable insight from your post.
Ray