Ideas on HIIT

[trainerty]

I read some HIIT comments in another thread but did not want to take the thread off track with this discussion:

HIIT seems to have different key aspects depending on who you are talking to.

IMO- HIIT is not high enough in intensity if a person can last for more than 10 minutes.

I think the idea of what "high intensity" gets changed up a bit depending on who you speak to. Most ideas of it sound like a lower form of intensity or just high volume and low intensity interval training.

One last point, I think many people lack the technical know-how to use a given exercise at their maximum potential. A good example is sprinting. I have witnessed a lot of mechanic breakdown when someone attempts to sprint. Trying to sprint on treadmills just enforces bad habits or keeps a person at a fast jog and not a max speed sprint (excluding those heavy duty treads that are built for sprints). It is like someone saying their max "clean" is one weight, but that person does not truly tap into his/her max potential because of mechanic breakdown.

Just curious on the ideas of HIIT from others.

[Mahler]

First off, I think High Intensity is relative to the ability of the individulal. The benefit of HIIT, to my way of thinking, is that it lets an individual ramp up to a level that he/she would not ordinarily be able to sustain for longer periods and to reap the benefits of same. For example, let's say a person runs normally for 20 minutes at 6 mph. Using a HIIT program, that same person may warm-up for 2 minutes, run for a minute at 8 mph and back off to 4 mph, for 8 intervals. For the period of the intervals what would normally have been a 6 mph run at a steady pace, now turns into a run/walk of 8mph and 4mph for two minutes, which in fact averages out to 6mph. However, the person has gained the benefit of increasing the speed to 8mph which, in a steady state, may be beyond his/her capabilities. Add to that the fat burning and cardio benefits of such a program and you have a win, win.

[Lost Dog]

Originally Posted by trainerty

IMO- HIIT is not high enough in intensity if a person can last for more than 10 minutes.

I agree. All HIIT is interval training, but not all interval training is HIIT.

Where you draw the lines is debatable.

Can you get too short and intense for it to be HIIT, too? Tabatas are 4 minutes and very intense. I wouldn't call it HIIT, since it has a highly recognizable name, though.

[L'ilJ]

I find I can only do "true" HIIT sprinting outside (not on a treadmill) or on a bike. Otherwise it's just too difficult to get that max intensity in a short period of time. To turn it on and off. I used to think I was doing HIIT on the treadmill...but after doing sprints outside on a track I realized the difference. After 5 rounds, I'm spent.

[Aoife]

I don't know what I'd consider "true" HIIT... other than a no more than 1 min work intervals and no more than 20-30 minutes total. I mean, for an all out, max effort interval, yeah, a few rounds and only maybe 10 minutes is prolly the case. But I don't think that slightly less intensity so that you can do up to 20 minutes is "not HIIT." It's like weight/sets/reps... you balance out the intensity or percent max to fit the overall scheme. I think slightly less than balls-to-the-wall intensity HIIT is just as effective, and has maybe slightly different results/purpose.

[trainerty]

Mahler: I see your point. Fat loss results aside, would a slower interval training do to increase speed performance at less than max speeds (given that the person has increased a speed to go faster, but still has not tapped into max potential)?

Lost Dog: I think the idea of high intensity gets lost in the notion of "acidosis" and high volume (as seen with Tabata method) or just using the word "intensity" like slang substitute for something demanding. My question would be which system is supposed to get stimulated the most from HIIT (alactic, lactic, aerobic)? or is there another defining aspect that cancels the need to focus on systems?

LilJ: That is my idea when it comes to sprint and HIIT. A max sprint simply can not be reached on the normal treadmills. Now, a friend of mine trains athletes for collegiate combine and he has a treadmill that is probably suited for a horse. The treadmill reaches speeds of 30mph. The reason behind the madness is if someone is exposed to this extreme supramaximal environment....the body must react and overcome to survive. The result is the athlete gains a faster sprint and new force-reaction ability. I would not call this HIIT because the speed is beyond the athletes maximal potential. Watching an athlete do interval training on that thing is like watching the intro for the "million dollar man"....."we can rebuild him..."

Aoife: The idea of the final effect sounds in-line with what Mahler stated. So the goal is HIIT? or maybe the entire training session should be considered HIIT?
Using the idea of max RM schemes found in strength and conditioning at what max RM should HIIT max at and be cut off at before it is called something different? Is it like relative strength training (80-90%RM)?
Also, I see your point with training balance, but if HIIT is to be done alone let's say... what would make it different from interval training?

Reason I'm asking is because I do not know and just want to see if there is a solid aspect to cling to that gives HIIT its name.

- Interesting comments

[Aoife]

I think the difference between simple interval training and "HIIT" is the intensity. Interval training doesn't describe any sort of intensity, just that you have intervals of faster and slower. HIIT - High Intensity Interval Training has the idea of high intensity built into it, making it more descriptive than HIT. However, High doesn't necessarily mean Highest. I think I'd say anything above 80-85% of max as "High" but if you're talking all-out... Highest intensity that can be managed for say... 10 seconds, you're looking at closer to the 95%+ range I'd guess.

My definition of HIIT has been that your work intervals are at least 80%, preferably 85% of max in intensity, rest is usually twice work interval in time, and one can't do more than 20 minutes (or 30 if one includes the warmup/cooldown). That's the way I've seen it described, that's the way I understand it to be.

I think things like tabatas are a subset of HIIT the same way that HIIT is a subset of HIT. Each is more specific a protocol than the previous. But each still has some vaguery in its definition, because there seems to often be varying times/reps in which to complete the assignment, and therefore that dictates the intensity one can do. At least, in my view.

I've had specs to do 12, 15, 18, or 20 minutes of HIIT and I just adjust my intensity accordingly so that I am able to complete the prescription tanked out at the end. I don't know that it needs to be much more specific than that.

[hiitman]

Originally Posted by trainerty

I read some HIIT comments in another thread but did not want to take the thread off track with this discussion:

HIIT seems to have different key aspects depending on who you are talking to.

IMO- HIIT is not high enough in intensity if a person can last for more than 10 minutes.

I think the idea of what "high intensity" gets changed up a bit depending on who you speak to. Most ideas of it sound like a lower form of intensity or just high volume and low intensity interval training.

One last point, I think many people lack the technical know-how to use a given exercise at their maximum potential. A good example is sprinting. I have witnessed a lot of mechanic breakdown when someone attempts to sprint. Trying to sprint on treadmills just enforces bad habits or keeps a person at a fast jog and not a max speed sprint (excluding those heavy duty treads that are built for sprints). It is like someone saying their max "clean" is one weight, but that person does not truly tap into his/her max potential because of mechanic breakdown.

Just curious on the ideas of HIIT from others.

Finally someone knows what they are talking about. People get too confused with normal interval training and HIIT.

If I had a dollar for every time I've said "Don't do HIIT on a treadmill".....

Also, people dont take into account their heart rate enough. A HEART RATE MONITOR IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIIT. Otherwise you are just guessing and not getting maximum results.

[Phaedrus49er]

Originally Posted by hiitman

Also, people dont take into account their heart rate enough. A HEART RATE MONITOR IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIIT. Otherwise you are just guessing and not getting maximum results.

I dunno. I've always done HIIT without an HRM and have gotten great results, but then, I use good programming and listen to my body instead of watching arbitrary number blinking on my wrist

[trainerty]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus49er

I dunno. I've always done HIIT without an HRM and have gotten great results, but then, I use good programming and listen to my body instead of watching arbitrary number blinking on my wrist

How fast does it take you to get to max or near max HR? Will that time it takes for you to hit max HR play in account of you calling it HIIT or just IT?

Like:
If it takes you 20sec to hit maximum HR, is that still HIIT? or should it be a quicker reaction ....say less than 5 sec?

[Phaedrus49er]

Perhaps my impression of interval training is a little different. I go on INTENSITY (hence high-intensity interval training) of movement paired with corresponding rest periods, not heart rate. For instance, a part of my track sessions involves simple sprints for a pre-determined distance. My rest interval is the time it takes me to walk back to the start, and depending on how far I go (10-50 yards or more), my rest intervals vary proportionately. During the sprint, I'm at 90-100% (still some mental hang-ups with my hamstring issue from last year). Usually I'll walk back; sometimes, I'll trot just to shake things up, but I'm always "resting" at 10-20% of maximum intensity.

When it comes to heart rate, you can hit your theoretical maximum HR doing steady-state work of any kind (i.e. a 5K run) as long as you push yourself hard enough, and in theory, you can stay there for some time, but that removes "interval" from HIIT--that's just steady-state whatever you're doing. If you do HIIT right, your heart rate is arbitrary, and you'll be more concerned with what you're body is telling you overall. For me, if I feel the need to puke during or after a track session, I'd say I hit my max for that day

[trainerty]

I think you're reading too much into the question I asked. If you do not consider HR, than you do not consider HR. That's fine.

My idea of HIIT is close to yours and hiitman's. The measurement of being at maximal effort seems more "organic" in your view. Also your maximal effort seems to be irrespective to time or distance within reason. Not sure if I'm correct on my assumptions.

My rigid idea:
- Sprint distances no further than 100yds or no more than 10sec
- Primary alactic system and higher intensity
- rest intervals partial recovery to allow for another maximal sprint at 90% or higher (30sec to 3min)
- active resting

[bacardio]

Originally Posted by hiitman

Finally someone knows what they are talking about. People get too confused with normal interval training and HIIT.

If I had a dollar for every time I've said "Don't do HIIT on a treadmill".....

Also, people dont take into account their heart rate enough. A HEART RATE MONITOR IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIIT. Otherwise you are just guessing and not getting maximum results.

Originally Posted by trainerty

How fast does it take you to get to max or near max HR? Will that time it takes for you to hit max HR play in account of you calling it HIIT or just IT?

Like:
If it takes you 20sec to hit maximum HR, is that still HIIT? or should it be a quicker reaction ....say less than 5 sec?

Originally Posted by trainerty

I think you're reading too much into the question I asked. If you do not consider HR, than you do not consider HR. That's fine.

My idea of HIIT is close to yours and hiitman's. The measurement of being at maximal effort seems more "organic" in your view. Also your maximal effort seems to be irrespective to time or distance within reason. Not sure if I'm correct on my assumptions.

My rigid idea:
- Sprint distances no further than 100yds or no more than 10sec
- Primary alactic system and higher intensity
- rest intervals partial recovery to allow for another maximal sprint at 90% or higher (30sec to 3min)
- active resting

My question would be if you base your increasing interval levels based on you max HR (60% of max, 70%,...)

How do you "accurately" determine your max HR. They're are all kinds-of equations out there, but that is more arbitrary then suited for the individual.

But if you use physical means how do you determine your "100%", it seems like you would have to have determine some type of speed rating that you could hold for some amount of time.


If you are talking about and "all-out" effort, how do you determine it?

[PowerManDL]

For anyone that cares, the Tremblay study back in the 90s that brought HIIT into vogue used the following (courtesy of exrx.net):

High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)
5 minute warm-up at 50% HRR

Short-interval work
-Initially 10 and later 15 bouts
-15 seconds increasing to 30 seconds

Long-interval
-4 to 5 bouts
-60 seconds increasing to 90 seconds

Bouts separated by recovery periods allowing heart rate to return to 120 to 130 bpm

***
Effectively, HIIT is designed to reach maximal anaerobic capacity; that's the definition of "high intensity" used here. It's more to do with maximal efforts in the given time frame.

Obviously there's a limit simply due to the limits of glycolysis' ability to provide energy...which starts to peter out in the 90-120s range. This gives you an effective limit on what can be defined as HIIT.

Intervals, on the other hand, are simply variation in effort w/o necessarily invoking the maximal exertion. These are commonly seen in the form of extensive tempo runs used by sprint and running coaches.

[RobLL]

when i do hiit, running or swimming or upright cycling my fast interval is such that at the end i HAVE to quit and go slow. i then go slow enough that i can do it again. 3-6 minutes at the fast pace is my maximum. if i am going slower it is miit.

[trainerty]

bacardio: I personally would guess you would guesstimate your HR maximal potential. I would also think you would need a decent amount of endurance and a good cardio system so the HR drops in the necessary active rest timeframe. The only study I have read linking VO2 or HR with HIIT was showing that the specific development of the athlete (short distance, med and long) changed the variables for how they would go into interval type training (not quite HIIT).

-Short Distance sprinters have higher VO2 and heart response then other types.
- I believe medium and long took longer to hit the higher VO2 but the study also showed the technical differences in their sprinting styles (they simply were not trained to be like short distance guys).

Powerman: I think that puts us all pretty much on the same track. I think this limit would mean HIIT is 85-100% max intensity instead of 80%.
I personally don't think anyone who has not done maximal training for the specific exercise could actually do HIIT. It would then be simply interval training until that person gains the kinetic technique to allow for higher potential.
Just like there is a difference between someone sprinting and someone running fast (but not able to reach maximal potential because of form breakdown).

Robll: 3-6 minutes of high intensity....that is pretty high...maybe you should bump up the difficulty