HIIT after workout when exhausted?

[BjsAust]

I realise this is similar to McCarley's thread, but figured it was different enough to warrent a separate thread.

I normally do my HIIT and workouts separately. If not separate days, then at least do the HIIT a few hours after the workout. Yesterday I was running a bit behind schedule, so took a pair of runners with me, and after a few minutes break at the end of my workout tried to do my HIIT workout. I could barely maintain my normal jogging speed. I stopped before I got to the sprint stage, but would not have been able to sprint anywhere near the same speed for the same time.

So I'm wondering. Is HIIT about just doing the most effort you can at the time? I.e., if I'm giving it the same amount of effort, but going much slower because I'm exhausted, do I still get the same result? Or is it better to give it time and do it at full capacity?

Obviously this question depends on someones ability to do them separately, but just out of interest does it make much difference? I ended up waiting 2 hrs and went back down and did my usual HIIT workout in this case.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by BjsAust

I realise this is similar to McCarley's thread, but figured it was different enough to warrent a separate thread.

I normally do my HIIT and workouts separately. If not separate days, then at least do the HIIT a few hours after the workout. Yesterday I was running a bit behind schedule, so took a pair of runners with me, and after a few minutes break at the end of my workout tried to do my HIIT workout. I could barely maintain my normal jogging speed. I stopped before I got to the sprint stage, but would not have been able to sprint anywhere near the same speed for the same time.

So I'm wondering. Is HIIT about just doing the most effort you can at the time? I.e., if I'm giving it the same amount of effort, but going much slower because I'm exhausted, do I still get the same result? Or is it better to give it time and do it at full capacity?

Obviously this question depends on someones ability to do them separately, but just out of interest does it make much difference? I ended up waiting 2 hrs and went back down and did my usual HIIT workout in this case.

HIIT is about maximal performances in a given time bracket, per capability. If it fluctuates, then it fluctuates. Assuming you're after body-composition results, as opposed to performance, then all that matters is the anaerobic metabolism, not the actual effort.

That said: HIIT tends to be a CNS-intensive modality. I'm not sure I'd feel ok throwing it in on off days, but that's context-dependent.

[Hunter]

I'm just curious, but why would you do HIIT right after a weight workout, or even on the same day as a weight workout?

I'm assuming your goal is fat loss (or why else would you subject yourself to HIIT?) If your lifting weights to create a metabolic disturbance and increase EPOC, your metabolism will be elevated for the next 24-36 hours. Doing HIIT within a couple of hours seems redundant. I thought that doing HIIT on non-lifting days was the way to go because you keep the metabolism high between lifting sessions.

That's my interpretation of the info presented in this article: The Hierarchy of Fat Loss TESTOSTERONE NATION

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I'm just curious, but why would you do HIIT right after a weight workout, or even on the same day as a weight workout?

I'm assuming your goal is fat loss (or why else would you subject yourself to HIIT?) If your lifting weights to create a metabolic disturbance and increase EPOC, your metabolism will be elevated for the next 24-36 hours. Doing HIIT within a couple of hours seems redundant. I thought that doing HIIT on non-lifting days was the way to go because you keep the metabolism high between lifting sessions.

That's my interpretation of the info presented in this article: The Hierarchy of Fat Loss TESTOSTERONE NATION

1) I don't use weight training as a primary means of "metabolic disturbance" from the get-go.

2) HIIT, depending on modality, is generally a very centrally (CNS) stressful approach to use. Recovery is at a premium on a diet, so I feel no need to have someone beating themselves into submission day after day under those conditions. Consolidating it into fewer stressful days is a better approach if you *must* do training like this.

Personally I'd skip the HIIT except in the preliminary stages of a diet. Trying them as you get leaner will become an exercise in anabolics more than dieting.

I just don't see metabolic work as being *that* important to begin with; have you looked at the metabolic elevation from EPOC? It's like 2%. Skip 100 calories and you've done more from a fat loss standpoint.

In other words, you have to look at it from the big picture, and ultimately the stress response and adaptive process will be the final arbiter of what you do. Thus diet and its cascading effects on the body (leptin's a bitch) will be a key factor to consider. Even performance-based athletes, who are well fed and have access to regenerative modalities consolidate their CNS-intensive work into a handful of days.

I know it's not all the rage these days, but relying on low to moderate volumes of basic strength training, low to moderate intensities of metabolic work, and focusing on diet as the key modality actually does work. I'm not training endurance athletes, I'm training people that want to look better.

Everything in moderation.

[Leigh P.]

Right on Matt.

[strambo]

I feel comfortable doing HIIT after a quick low volume workout like 2 sets of 5 reps DL and 2 sets of 5 presses ala "Power To The People" by Pavel Tsatsouline. If I'm on a low volume max strength cycle, I may do HIIT 2X per week to maintain my anaerobic capacity.

After a tough workout, I'd rather jog a few miles if I felt I needed (more) cardio...I usually don't. My weight workouts are my cardio.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

1) In other words, you have to look at it from the big picture, and ultimately the stress response and adaptive process will be the final arbiter of what you do. Thus diet and its cascading effects on the body (leptin's a bitch) will be a key factor to consider. Even performance-based athletes, who are well fed and have access to regenerative modalities consolidate their CNS-intensive work into a handful of days.

I know it's not all the rage these days, but relying on low to moderate volumes of basic strength training, low to moderate intensities of metabolic work, and focusing on diet as the key modality actually does work. I'm not training endurance athletes, I'm training people that want to look better.

Everything in moderation.

So let me see if I understand your points here (I'm a layman; please be patient with my ignorance ):

• 1st paragraph: When dieting, your body is under stress, and additional stresses caused by exercise can adversely impact your ability to recover.
• 2nd paragraph: To "look better," you need to focus more on diet than exercise, and exercise needs to be only moderate for the average person to achieve results.

So what qualifies as CNS-intensive work when it somes to strength training? If I were to answer my own question, I would say that high-rep, fast tempo, low-weight sets with short rest intervals would be CNS-intensive.

Right now, I'm doing the Hypertrpohy III workouts of NROL (undulating periodization), and I think the 4x12 days fit this description, but not the 6x4 days. I'm not trying to lose weight right now, but I still do some interval training in the form of basketball and some plyometrics (trying to get some quickness and hops back after not playing hoops for a couple of years). So as a takeaway: I need to be cautious about the timing of interval work immediately before and after the higher rep weight days to avoid overtraining. Or am I way off track?

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Hunter

So let me see if I understand your points here (I'm a layman; please be patient with my ignorance ):

• 1st paragraph: When dieting, your body is under stress, and additional stresses caused by exercise can adversely impact your ability to recover.
• 2nd paragraph: To "look better," you need to focus more on diet than exercise, and exercise needs to be only moderate for the average person to achieve results.

Yep, that's it exactly.

Now, don't think of this as an on-off process. It's a continuum, for sure. Somebody with a 10-20% deficit won't be under nearly the same "stress" as somebody with a 40-50% deficit, for example.

As a rule the less you eat, 1) the less nutrients you'll have to effect repair and 2) the more likely your body is to respond to that state by down-regulating its metabolic processes.

To make it simple (since you asked for layman's terms), below around 10-11 cals/lb (which is more or less BMR), the body's going to be in a state of chronic stress, shutting down "unnecessary" processes. Muscle growth, as a compensatory adaptive process, is one of the first on this list.

This isn't so much a concern with a more sane deficit, mind you, but you still need to account for it simply for lack of nutrient intake.

But you can adjust volume/intensity/frequency accordingly; in my mind, recovery will be variable, and you want to do what you can handle. Dieting is a time for maintenance, not development. This goes for speed and anaerobic power (ie, HIIT) just as much as it does for weight training.

So what qualifies as CNS-intensive work when it somes to strength training? If I were to answer my own question, I would say that high-rep, fast tempo, low-weight sets with short rest intervals would be CNS-intensive.

Think "high force output".

Anything that requires maximal exertion, to generalize a little more.

CNS-dominant work would be things like maximal and near-maximal attempts in high-skill movements; think hitting a maximum triple on a squat or deadlift, or your best time in a short-distant sprint or similiarly intensive cycling.

Neurologically, it's anything that involves high neural drive (which is maximal recruitment of muscle fibers and high frequency of impulses). This causes a type of fatigue or inhibition in the motor structures of the brain, likely as a means of self-protection.

It's not studied as much, but there's an indication that sub-maximal work done with high exertion (ie, sets to absolute failure) can have similiar though less pronounced effects.

The common theme is a high "focus" and mental drive required to complete the work. No surprise, the structures in the brain that are responsible for motor output are heavily linked to emotional arousal and our systemic sense of well-being. Over-tax those mechanisms (via too much output) and you'll contribute a systemic stress response on par with doing too much volume.

I tend to gauge this by perceived difficulty. If somebody's doing work in the "strength/power bracket", anywhere from say <30s in duration right on up to maybe 60s, you can get them to gauge "how hard" it was on a scale of say 1-5. One would be "damn easy" and five would be "damn hard". Most training while dieting would ideally undulate in the 2-4 range. Fives, which would represent qualitative maximal attempts, should be avoided.

This RPE scale can be adjusted to various intensities/rep ranges as well.

Right now, I'm doing the Hypertrpohy III workouts of NROL (undulating periodization), and I think the 4x12 days fit this description, but not the 6x4 days. I'm not trying to lose weight right now, but I still do some interval training in the form of basketball and some plyometrics (trying to get some quickness and hops back after not playing hoops for a couple of years). So as a takeaway: I need to be cautious about the timing of interval work immediately before and after the higher rep weight days to avoid overtraining. Or am I way off track?

Actually teh 6x4 day would fit the role more than 4x12; unless you're doing the sets of 12 with a high degree of exertion ("going to absolute failure") on each set, it's likely a lower-intensity method rather than a high-intensity one. Intensity, as weight on the bar, is a contributor as well.

But yes, you're right about the need to consolidate all of your high-intensity/CNS-dominant work. Plyos, intervals, and "heavy" strength training all fit that bill.

[BjsAust]

Wow, this generated some interesting dialog after all.

Thanks for your comments Powerman. I didnt quite understand your first answer though (your knowledge and terminology is a bit beyond mine). I think I get what you mean by anaerobic metabolism (i.e., thats my aim), what I'm not sure about is if both sessions would have the same or different effect on that.

To use an oversimplified example, if HIIT session A is: well recovered, done at full capacity, with say 1 min 'sprints' done at 9/10 effort which is a certain speed, and HIIT session B is: directly after a hard weights session when so 'buggered' that while the 1 min sprints are done at 9/10 effort, they're actually only done at half the speed.

Would session A and B have similar results for fat loss over time, or would one have significant enough difference over the other to make that one the better one to use if you have the ability to choose which to use?


Hunter, yes my main goal is fatloss atm. I want to get rid of my excess weight (about 20-25 lbs) as fast as possible before moving onto other focuses. I tend to do HIIT the same day as my workouts because it fits my lifestyle best. Until next week I've had 2 days a week where its almost impossible to fit structured exercise, and I find my weekends to be unreliable (some weekends are easy to fit workouts into, others arent). If I was shown that there would be a discernible improvement in my fatloss by doing them on separate days, then I would do what I could to do things that way (i.e., when I could). Things are fairly flexible at the moment for me as I work from home 3-4 days per week and use a home gym.

I think I'm going to have to go through and reread the rest of this thread carefully, some of its going over my head a bit at first read. I'll be back with some questions once I get more of it .

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

[/list]Actually teh 6x4 day would fit the role more than 4x12; unless you're doing the sets of 12 with a high degree of exertion ("going to absolute failure") on each set, it's likely a lower-intensity method rather than a high-intensity one. Intensity, as weight on the bar, is a contributor as well.

I am close to absolute failure in the first 1-2 sets, and definitely at that level after the 4th set. With 60s rest periods between sets, I often have to step the weight down to complete the prescribed # of sets. After the 4x12 workout, I feel more wiped out than after the 6x4 workout.

Thanks for the great answers and your time - your posts are always dense with information and they take me a few readings and some time to fully absorb.

[BjsAust]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Personally I'd skip the HIIT except in the preliminary stages of a diet. Trying them as you get leaner will become an exercise in anabolics more than dieting.

Hi PowerMan, could you explain what you mean by the last bit there? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Other than that, interesting stuff. I would put all my workouts (HIIT and weights) squarely on 5 in your 1-5 effort rating. My assumption was the harder I work, the more energy I burn during the workout, the better the EPOC response, and the more change I'd stimulate in my body. It sounds though that perhaps I should be cutting back on the effort, which may mean cutting back on my calories as well, and you think that would give better results?

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by BjsAust

Would session A and B have similar results for fat loss over time, or would one have significant enough difference over the other to make that one the better one to use if you have the ability to choose which to use?

In as much as you'll notice a difference from it, I'd think you wouldn't notice much difference in the way of effects. This is one of those hair-splitting instances where I don't think the minutiae adds up to much.

Originally Posted by BjsAust

Hi PowerMan, could you explain what you mean by the last bit there? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Ha, it was just a quip about how you'd need "assistance" to recover from that kind of work load in an extremely dieted state.

Not quite so easy when you don't have that help.

Other than that, interesting stuff. I would put all my workouts (HIIT and weights) squarely on 5 in your 1-5 effort rating. My assumption was the harder I work, the more energy I burn during the workout, the better the EPOC response, and the more change I'd stimulate in my body. It sounds though that perhaps I should be cutting back on the effort, which may mean cutting back on my calories as well, and you think that would give better results?

Effort-wise, the RPE scale would only count in the "CNS stress" fashion if you're using a highly-intensive type of training. In weight training terms, this would translate to heavy weight on the bar, let's throw out ~85% or so just for the sake of example, the point where your'e working in "maximal strength"

Same would apply for speed-type training, though there's not quite as easy a way of delineating speed/power output.

In other words, it'd have to be a training method that would dominantly involve the nervous system as opposed to peripheral elements such as the muscle tissues and metabolic factors.

You'd probably define this as pure "strength" or "power" training, as opposed to "bodybuilding" or "endurance" type work.

A set with an RPE of 5, but only using 70%, isn't gonna knock you out centrally the same way an RPE of 5 on a set at 90% would because there are two different factors responsible for fatigue, two different effects on the body.

In other words, you'd need to qualify "neural" dominant training as separate from "metabolic" dominant training.

Metabolic type training, by virtue of being lower absolute intensity, isn't going to be as taxing even at the same relative RPE. Powering through a set that's fatiguing you due to metabolic reasons (ie "the burn") isn't even remotely the same animal as powering through a set that's fatigued due to acute neurological reasons.

That's why I wouldn't qualify higher-volume/low to moderate intensity training as a CNS stressor. It can be, albeit indirectly, but generally speaking it's not what I'm speaking of in this thread.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I am close to absolute failure in the first 1-2 sets, and definitely at that level after the 4th set. With 60s rest periods between sets, I often have to step the weight down to complete the prescribed # of sets. After the 4x12 workout, I feel more wiped out than after the 6x4 workout.

Ya, likely for the reasons I mentioned in the above post, this won't be any major CNS stressor. I'd consider this lower-intensity; the effect is going to be dominantly on the tissues and metabolic systems.

No surprise that it wipes you out, that kind of work has a nice effect on glycogen stores and thus on lactate and blood sugar levels, basically all the stuff that makes you feel wiped out after a session.

The reason I asked is that going to "failure" with a set (think how you can get to a point where you physically can't move the bar without assistance, aka "isometric failure"). That can have a pretty deep effect if over-used, but from the sound of it that's not the case here.

Thanks for the great answers and your time - your posts are always dense with information and they take me a few readings and some time to fully absorb.

Not a problem.

[BjsAust]

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for taking the time to respond.

This is one of those hair-splitting instances where I don't think the minutiae adds up to much.

Cool, makes it easy to plan then .

[kuri]

Bj, how about some lower intensity energy system work if you are that wiped after hitting the weights? That way you'll still get a bit of additional work in without frying your CNS (though I doubt that would happen anyway) and fat metabolized.

As to your question about nutrition if your focus is body composition then you cannot overestimate the importance of eating the right things at the right time. I've had clients that thought training would take care of this despite what I was telling them but eventually results (or lack of) just speak for themselves.

Don't cut your effort by any means and do finish the perscribed workouts and don't worry about the CNS stuff. As PDL wrote the nature of your weight workouts are of little concern regarding CNS.

[BjsAust]

Yeah, no worries, the end result of all this was to keep doing what I'm doing. Was more a curiosity question, although I could have made changes if it had been worth it. Would only have changed my nutrition if I'd changed my workouts, I'm well aware of how important nutrition is.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

No surprise that it wipes you out, that kind of work has a nice effect on glycogen stores and thus on lactate and blood sugar levels, basically all the stuff that makes you feel wiped out after a session.

The reason I asked is that going to "failure" with a set (think how you can get to a point where you physically can't move the bar without assistance, aka "isometric failure"). That can have a pretty deep effect if over-used, but from the sound of it that's not the case here.

The light bulb just came on - now I get the difference.