science aside, isn't it better to see what works best for you? So long as you do both right, you should be able to see some affects, one way or the other?

Can you please explain more to me about how to do HIIT?
I understand you do it no longer then 12mins. but what does it involve in that 12min....
It sounds great im really finding it hard to lose weight,I have lost 2kg in a month but for all the work i was putting it this was a bit of a put off...i really need to up my game.Can you please explain HIIT so i can add this into my workouts.Thanks.

First of all, people are so hyped up about HIIT when it comes to training - as compared to steady state cardio - primarily for 2 reasons . One , is that compared to steady state cardio, HIIT is a form of interval training ( that has been around for decades ) and interval training is one of the fastest ways to improve your cardio fitness. The second is that, compared to steady state cardio , it optimizes the burning of fat by your body after exercise.

However, when it comes to HIIT, " how to do it " isn't cast in stone IMO. Take the time of your work interval as an example. The work interval doesn't have to be 20 seconds or even even 30 seconds. The landmark study done up here in Canada ( Tremblay et. al ) that associated HIIT with optimal fat loss used rather short intervals ranging anywhere from 15- 30 seconds to much longer intervals ranging from 60 seconds to 90 seconds. Ditto for the rest interval. It can be 1 minute , or it can be longer ( depending on the work interval ). In the study I just mentioned, they let some rest intervals reach a lower threshold heart rate of 120 - 130 beats per minute. In this case, the rest interval lower threshold was the equivalent of about 65%MHR+/- for many of the subjects in the study. In terms of time, getting to this 120-130 beats per minute lower threshold heart rate could easily take anywhere from 1, 2 or 3 minutes of recovery - it varies.

But the key issue when it comes to HIIT is " high intensity ". That said, if you want a general rule to follow, I'd suggest you simply try go ' all out ' during the work intervals - go as hard as you can handle . Now if it is a 15-30 second work interval , you might hit 95% MHR - 90%+MHR going flat out. If you do longer intervals of 1 to 2 minutes ( as you were doing ) , continue to go hard, but you'll likely only be able to sustain something like 80% - 90% MHR. During your rest / recovery interval, you want to slow down to around 60+/-% of your MHR. If you have a heart monitor you can track this and then resume your work interval once your reach that level. Thing is, most of us don't train with heart rate monitors, so you'll have to opt for a simpler approach...such as a timed interval or one simply based on your perceived level of exertion ( i.e when you get most - but not all - of your breath back.)

One suggestion is to go 1 minute hard followed by 2 minutes of ' active ' ( i.e running instead of walking ) recovery. It's a simple 1:2 interval protocol I used when I did lactate threshold training for some of my hockey teams , but it is also is great for fat loss. There is a very reputable strength an conditioning coach named Alwyn Cosgrove who advocates a similar 1:2 protocol ( he calls it " Afterburn " advocating 1 minute hard and 2 minutes active recovery ) aimed directly at optmizing fat loss. So, you could try something like 1 minute on your treadmill at a much higher mph like 10 ,12+ mph, or 8 mph along with an incline of 6+/-...then recover by running at 4 or 5 mph for 2 minutes. If you're are still gasping for air after 2 minutes recovery, just keep recovering till you get almost all your breath back . That could be 2.5 minutes, 3 or 4 minutes, depending on your fitness level. Or ease up on your work interval so you can stick to the 1:2 protocol.

All I'm saying, is that there a lot of ways to structure a HIIT and how you go about it depends a lot on what your current fitness level is and what your goals are. You have to go thru some trial and error to see what works best for you.

Excellent.Thanks.I went to a spin class today(they use a lot of interval) and i cant believe how hard it is and i thought i was getting fitter..i actually find my legs get more tired then my heart rate lol.
Im keen to give this a go i must say i do find it hard to push myself which i think is why im not shredding the weight as fast(im ok doing 40mins on various exercise machines but going hard out gets me everytime).
Thanks for the info.

Intervals scan be very humbling.

Don't worry though...your body will adapt ......and you'll seen results soon enough.

No worries....HIIT is usually very difficult...and everything you're experiencing is quite normal.

But, trust me...it'll get better.

No problem ...hope it helped.

:-) Thanks i really needed to hear that :-)

which do you recommend guys? HIIT or state cardio whillst cutting? I did both last year and ahd results but dont know which provided the best results since i cominbed them. thanks a lot.

Well, cutting / shredding fat is all about losing calories.

If your goal is to use cardio to help shred fat, and you only have 30 minutes to do cardio, doing 30 minutes of HIIT is likely going to burn more calories overall than doing 30 minutes of low to moderate intensity steady state cardio. So, since HIIT burns the most calories of the 2 options, HIIT is the better choice to help you lose fat in the most efficient manner.

Now, does 30 minutes of HIIT burn more calories than high intensity, flat out as hard as you can 30 minutes of steady state cardio ? Maybe, maybe not. But again, if you didn't want to do HIIT at all for some reason, and you only wanted to 30 minutes of some kind of steady state cardio, then do 30 minutes of steady state cardio as hard as you can - as it burns the most calories.

btw - how many weeks are you allocating to this ' cutting ' phase ?

In terms of losing simply fat, the HITE (my prefered acronym ) would have provided the vast majority of it.

I guess it's worth increasing your amino acid intake if you HIIT too often.

You shouldn't be doing HIIT too often.

I have a question. Im doing HIIT and my heart rate and everything goes up as high as its supposed to. But what Im not sure about is what happens if your heart rate doesn't drop too much before sprinting again? Does it HAVE to drop? Its not as if I cant do my sprint hard enough. Does my HR still HAVE to drop significantly?

My question (as it seems I do not have the education of some people in this forum) is that why every elite athlete on the planet does a form of HIIT in sport (IE:NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, etc etc) and the only athletes that do SS are well... marathon runners, tri-athletes, and cyclist, why would I want the body of the latter? Why look like a moving skeleton, with low muscle mass, when I can look lean and strong like a sprinter?

It is somewhat elementary, and I am sure I will get chewed out on here, but I am confused.

Hey Cameron940, please don't fail to acknowledge the fact that these marathon runners, cyclists and triathletes ARE elite athletes. They just don't look the way you think they should They look this way because of what their bodies need to be able to do in order to excel at the sport.

Gymnasts have a typical physique, swimmers have a typical physique, weightlifters have a typical physique, etc. For the most part, you can pretty much tell what sport a person is into by looking at their physique.

Cyclists are in fantastic aerobic condition, and triathletes are nothing less than amazing in what they can perform (they have to excel in three disciplines, and just think about how tough an Ironman Competition is!). Personally, I think marathon runners are completely insane and look like they've spent too much time in a concentration camp, but if they enjoy what they are doing and think they look great, who am I to say "you look like a walking skeleton?" They are doing what they love to do, and I know I certainly couldn't do what they do.

When I was in track and field, my training was very different from the longer distance runners. I was muscle-packed; they looked like they needed a decent meal. Our bodies looked very different because our disciplines and training methods were different. I thought I looked fantastic. The long distance runners thought they looked fantastic, too

So at the end of the day, I think it just boils down to personal preference and body perception. And also what you like to do "fitness-wise". If I loved to run miles on end, perhaps I'd be more content to have a different looking physique. But I've been hooked on muscle and looked this way for so long, I can't imagine looking any differently. It just wouldn't be "me".

Great reply honestly, you didn't jump down my throat and gave me a good perspective on like you said "what we want to look like". Again, I am definitely not an expert (a hardcore golfer in fact - think Tiger, not Mickelson) but from what I have always understood, the body needs a good muscle to fat ratio to help fight off disease, sickness, etc etc, and it always seems that the extreme distance people I know have the MOST health problems, where as the rock climbers, sprinters, and the like are still kicking some ass at 50 years+. I do however respect the conditioning aspect of a distance athlete, I suppose I just don't understand the function of it, especially later in life. I am a huge advocate of functional exercises, and typically use a chin up bar, a set of powerblocks and sprint on my x-iser unit or outside my home and since I gave up the SS and went to these exercises, I saw my body literally transform and am down to 9% bf and am in the best shape of my life (and workout about 30% of the time I used to).

As it has been said in these threads so many times "do what works for you" and I could not agree more, I just would love to be able to give solid advice to my friends and family about the damage they are doing to themselves with extreme SS, because thats exactly what it seems like is going on. Burning up muscle and keeping fat....?