High Intensity Training??

[tbartman]

I have to disagree with jamesg:

(say >2W/kg and/or HR >2x rest?), which is all we can expect from the erg if we use it

My 30 second HIIT bursts are about 4W/kg and I approach my max HR (>4x rest)

Short high intensity is no different (though long HI would be), in the sense that if you do adequate warm-up (>20') and cool down, it is in reality low intensity too

My HIIT is 5' at about 2:10/500m, then 30s <1:30/500m + 90s ~2:20/500m times 5-8, then 5' cooldown. About a 25 minute total workout.

Anectodally, I lost a lot of weight doing long steady state rows (40-50 minutes). Last spring I decided to almost entirely stop cardio (running, rowing) and do lifting instead. I was terrified that I would put on weight, possibly quickly. Lifting for 30-40 minutes about 4 times per week, I kept the same weight with the same diet, for over 6 months. What is more "interval"-like than lifting? Put on a HR belt, and do 4 sets of 12 squats, with 90 seconds rest between. Your HR profile will be just like HIIT on the erg. I would go from a HR of 60 to >150 in 30s flat, and then recover to about 100-110. Apparently, I didn't need "long steady state" work to maintain my weight.

[zen cohen]

....What is more "interval"-like than lifting? Put on a HR belt, and do 4 sets of 12 squats, with 90 seconds rest between. Your HR profile will be just like HIIT on the erg. I would go from a HR of 60 to >150 in 30s flat, and then recover to about 100-110. Apparently, I didn't need "long steady state" work to maintain my weight.

That's interesting and a bit similar to my experience. My typical workout nowadays is 30 mins to 10km on the C2, then about 30-40 mins of minimal-rest weights. I do a fullbody workout with as little as 10 seconds between sets. For some reason my heartrate shoots up most precipitously when I do shoulder exercises, and less so than on the larger muscle groups. Sometimes my HR will go from around 100 to over 160 (about 90% of my max) in one set.

BTW, I've been told if you're going to do weights/cardio in one session it's better to do weights first, but I find I get a more intense workout and usually have a higher avg HR when I do cardio (ie, C2) first.

[mikvan52]

weight loss is accomplished best at low intensity

this is established scientific fact

=Stoneboat=

Mik, do you have any references on this?


- Iain

here's a quick reference

click here

btw: I googled the following:

intensity of exercise and fat burning

[aussiequadrider]

here's a quick reference

click here

btw: I googled the following:

intensity of exercise and fat burning
[/quote]

If you want to believe that sales info, well then "I can see Russia from my house"



The source of fuel ratio definitely changes in relation to intensity.
You do burn a higher percentage of fat compared to sugar at lower intensity, and as the intensity is increased the percentage of fat burning is decreased. BUT when you are training at a higher intensity even though the percentage of fat compared to sugar burning is decreased, the higher intensity of training you will burn an increased amount of fat and sugar.

In conclusion, for weight loss, it doesn't matter where the fuel comes from, as long as you are burning more calories than your ingesting, you will lose weight.

Geoff.

[Nosmo]

If you want to believe that sales info, well then "I can see Russia from my house"

If you actually read that "sales info" it does not support the statement that "weight loss is accomplished best at low intensity"

[mikvan52]

Should we not question ourselves:

"As an athlete, what balance of different intensities is sustainable in a long term exercise program?"

to me: "Sustainable" implies more weight loss... for those of that bent


"mostly high intensity" is therefore incompatible weight loss.
High intensity burns you out and will subject your body to injury and staleness.... You then cease exercising.... (hmmmm)

Remember too: (example)
It is clear that 5 x 500m 95% effort burns fewer calories than
40 min medium effort...
I don't know about you but for me 40' at 70% effort is easier than 10' at 95% (day-in, day-out)

I have to admit, though, that my focus is on getting faster at 2k on the erg and 5k on the water. (not weight loss)

Before I started spending more time at lower intensities I was slower. Parenthetically, my weight has never varied... but my volume went up

I USED TO TRAIN AT 200-300K (ERG METERS) PER YEAR => 6:55 2k
I NOW TRAIN AT 3,000-4,000k (ERG AND WATER METERS)=>6:45 2k

I can only sustain this ten-fold increase by adding many many more low intensity meters that improve my form.

I am peculiar in that I've striven throughout my life to maintain weight rather than lose it. I am at 8.8 (lab measured) body fat composition.

One final heads up... I'm not aware of any coaching scheme that recommends regimes of primarily high intensity work at high drag factors.

In all things moderation.........

[badocter]

Should we not question ourselves:

"As an athlete, what balance of different intensities is sustainable in a long term exercise program?"

to me: "Sustainable" implies more weight loss... for those of that bent


"mostly high intensity" is therefore incompatible weight loss.
High intensity burns you out and will subject your body to injury and staleness.... You then cease exercising.... (hmmmm)

Not all would have the same response to this question. I find long slow distance training extremely boring and I have a perfectly good elliptical trainer and treadmill for years that have done nothing but collect dust beyond the week or two of LSD training I did on them immediately after purchase. From the start the C2 was different for me because from the beginning I decided to train hard like I did in college for taekwondo -- when I started training hard is when exercise finally got interesting enough for me to sustain.

Anyway, I'm now going on 17 monthes of constant use of my C2 I'm a lot thinner, a lot faster (6:54 2k now compared to the 8:48 2k of 17 monthes ago ), and with a BIRC now under my belt more fired up than ever. That is by far the longest I have ever used a piece of exercise kit that I bought. In all fairness it was not the other kit's fault - I could have trained hard on them too. My current pattern has been Pete Plan sans recovery rows -- speed intervals, endurance intervals, hard mid-distance session each week. I do very little "recovery intensity" work on the erg beyond warmups and cooldowns (albeit those wu and cd add up to quite a bit - often more than the hard part of the session) and instead find other light to medium physical activities for those recovery days. I am on track to be at 1.4 million meters for this year, and though arguably I might be faster if I spend another 1.5 million doing recovery work, I think the time is better spent doing other physical activities with my 5 and 6 year old kids. After all I started training in the first place because I had a hard time keeping up with them.

Note that Pete Plan stuff while hard is not HIIT. I do occasional HIIT sessions for variety (20x100m rest 80" being one such session I throw in to replace PP speed intervals oaccasionally), but I would not build the core of a regime around them or advocate only doing HIIT sessions. I think HIIT on a rower does carry a higher risk of injury than HIIT either running or cycling because on the rower it becomes a mad thrash with near maximal stress on the lower back. For running and cycling it may still be a mad thrash, but the brunt of the punishment is almost entirely on the legs which frankly are more able to take it and it is more about maximal speed rather than maximal strength. HIIT on a rower is not something a beginner should be contemplating - need to first put in a lot of near 2k race pace meterage and hard restriced rate meterage (30'r20 comes to mind) to strengthen up the back before trying HIIT which is going to be in the neighborhood of 2k-20 pace.

[anthonysemone]

Be careful, guys and gals. While you might in fact lose weight w/ HIIT, unless you have a reasonably reliable measure of BOTH body fat % as well as lean muscle mass, your weight loss may be more accounted for by the latter rather than the former.

Case in point: last year, while training for Crash-B's, I rowed my arse off over a 3 month time period, using Pete Plan Lite. I used my BodyStat 1500 to measure my body composition before beginning training, and then 10 weeks into training. I had lost almost 3#'s of body weight, and it was ALL lean muscle!! At my age, 70, I cannot afford to lose lean muscle.

tony

[Nosmo]

By badoctor's definition 8x500m or 4x1K is not HIIT. I think I've seen people refer to those workouts at HIIT. Are they wrong?

Mike,
I think the statement: "weight loss is accomplished best with high volume sustainable training" is much more accurate statement of your position then "weight loss is accomplished best at low intensity". If you said that no one would have argued.

[mikvan52]

Nosmo:
Your observation is right..
I think there's a hidden meaning in the two answers...
Sustainable high volume can only be most easily done (by older not elite 1 workout-a-day athletes) if you back off to your 2k pace + 21 to 24 sec (per 500m) for 2 out of 6 sessions per week.

I've been finding that, as I get older, that a predominance of more restful rows make me faster and continue to allow me to get PBs.

I know the PBs will end soon... but it is dramatic testimony to my acceptance of lower intensity workouts that I'm able to progress as I have.

I advise others to follow their own stars...~~~> to find whatever works best.

I do insist, however, that a monolithic diet of any one type of workout will terminate your progress.

Weight loss can be achieved in the short to intermediate term... what do you do after that?

For Bad-Doc': I admire your progress and your devotion to your kids. Sounds like you've got a great balance on all fronts...

[badocter]

By badoctor's definition 8x500m or 4x1K is not HIIT. I think I've seen people refer to those workouts at HIIT. Are they wrong?

What sets HIIT apart from other forms of interval training is that the reps are short and at maximal effort from beginning to end. As painful as a 8x500m rest 3:30 session is at 2k-3, it is far short from maximal effort pace which will be in the neighborhood of 2k-20 for the likes of 100m sprints. Pete also makes the distiction between his speed intervals (8x500m,4x1k....)sessions and HIIT sessions (20x100 rest 80")
http://thepeteplan.wordpress.com/sprint-hiit/

At the end of the day, HIIT is often promoted as a quick workout, for example the Tabata intervals ( 8x20" rest 10") are often refered to as the "four minute workout". This is a bit deceptive since it ignores the fact that maximal effort reps require a hefty warmup. The active part of Pete's 20x100m is 5:40, but it has 26 minutes of rests and requires a 20 minute warmup and at least a 2k cooldown, so done properly the total ellapsed time is going to be about an hour with 8k total meterage including the wu and cd.

I think the statement: "weight loss is accomplished best with high volume sustainable training" is much more accurate statement of your position then "weight loss is accomplished best at low intensity". If you said that no one would have argued.

Agreed !

For Bad-Doc': I admire your progress and your devotion to your kids. Sounds like you've got a great balance on all fronts...

Thanks Mike. the kids are the ones who challenged me about my previously unfit state. The honesty of a 5 and 6 year old can be a bit brutal but was in this case what was needed. As for sustainability, I think variety is key and reinventing your workouts or activities when thing do start to feel stale. At the moment I do erging and weightlifting with my wife and karate with the kids (who then are also doing swimming and soccer), so I have plenty of variety, it is time that I am short of.

[kevhughes]

weight loss is accomplished best at low intensity

this is established scientific fact

=Stoneboat=

This is not established scientific fact. It is a decades old assumption that has not only never been verified, it has been outright de-bunked by a large body of research and anecdotal experience. Please see this for an example. There's tons more too if you care to look.

http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.co ... -loss.html

A big part of this discussion should also be body composition. Remember, low intensity exercise has a large muscle wasting component, meaning that we need protein to metabolize body fat, and if we don't get protein from our food, we'll get it from our muscles. Many endurance trained athletes are weak.

Has anyone seen a fat sprinter? There are many fat joggers and cyclists however. I maintain that the only reason many persons do low intensity exercise is because it is easy. That may also be why there are 30 million recreational marathoners in the world, and only 7 recreational 800 meter runners

[jamesg]

Perhaps we should say "weightloss is best accomplished at low intensity... eating". Though of course I'd bet none of George Orwell's miners in "Down the Mine" will have been fat, however much they could get their teeth on.

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/downthemine.htm

[tbartman]

Has anyone seen a fat sprinter? There are many fat joggers and cyclists however. I maintain that the only reason many persons do low intensity exercise is because it is easy. That may also be why there are 30 million recreational marathoners in the world, and only 7 recreational 800 meter runners

I'd echo this. My brother does centuries (100 mi) on his bike, I had a coworker who said she did 1.5 hr/day on her elliptical, and I have an aunt who "exercises" by riding a bike (at a pace where she practically tips over), and they all complain that they can't lose weight the way they want. I'd love to have a heart-rate belt on any of them as they exercise. I'm not arguing against long workouts for weight loss, but everyone needs to understand that unless you are feeling warm, sweaty, and having difficulty carrying on a conversation within 10 minutes of starting, it doesn't count as exercise.

It also goes along with all of those in society who think golf, bowling, etc. are exercise. Do we have some societal aversion to sweating? We all do own showers, don't we?

[zen cohen]

We all do own showers, don't we?

No, Mr Big Shot Out-of-Touch Elitist, we don't all have such luxuries. What's wrong with hosing yourself down in the front yard anyway?