Talk:High-intensity interval training

message: At the start, it says HIIT sessions are usually 15-30 minutes long, but later on it says they should be 15-20 minutes. Is it a matter of preference, efficiency, or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.228.173 (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: HIIT is the concept that you perform a short burst of high intensity exercise that follows a shorter period of rest. There is no set interval of times, but, anecdoctally, the suggested max times are usually under 45 minutes. At this point, you should be exhausted to the point where you cannot do any more repetitions.  Again, the idea is that you are pushing yourself to the max each and every time which would explain the short duration. Adding to the 'complexity', it differs for people depending on their level of fitness.  A well trained athlete may be able to go for an hour at this pace while a beginner may only last five minutes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversurfer651 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency in times

message: This appears to be duplicating the article on Interval training, and should probably be merged into that page. David Cohen 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't the same. There's a qualitative difference when the intensity crosses the threshold that makes it anaerobic (sprinting) not aerobic (running) exercise. Julian Morrison 04:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure they're different?  The Interval training article talks about "brief bouts at near-maximum exertion interspersed with periods of lower-intensity activity," which sounds the same as "high-intensity" interval training to me.  If you want to make it clear there is more than one kind of interval training, then it's probably best to do it within the main interval training page, so people looking for information about interval training will find the high-intensity variant in the same article.  Just my $0.02. --David Cohen 01:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The HIIT Article is actually slightly off.  It should read "short bouts of maximal exertion" not "NEAR-maximal" where as interval is correct when it says near-maximal.  The difference is quite significant actually.  For most athletes, anaerobic activity begins somewhere in the high 80s% to low 90s%  maximal heart rate, and as such, near maximal won't induce the exact same results as total maximal.  Think of it like the difference between running a 50 yard dash, and a 200 yard run.  They are both relatively short races, but one requires you to hold back just a tiny bit of reserves.  If you tried to sprint full speed for 200 yards, odds are your legs would run out of energy well shy of the 200 yard finish.  That point where you feel your legs start to fail you, that's the anaerobic threshold, you are trying to reach that EVERY time you do a HIIT cycle.  If done correctly, the amount of time you can sustain maximal intensity should shorten with every cycle in a HIIT routine,  by the end you should barely be able to hit maximal rates, when that point is reached, you've trained to your maximum level for the session and should now begin cool down. Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max.Tabata I, Nishimura K, Kouzaki M, Hirai Y, Ogita F, Miyachi M, Yamamoto K. 
The last few comments starting at "Long aerobic workouts have been promoted as the best method to reduce fat, as fatty acid utilization usually occurs after at least 30 minutes...." are dying for a citation. These statements appear to be factual, but  should not be regarded if they're only speculation. Under wikipedia ethic, they probably should be removed. Teimu.tm (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Just an educated guess, but I'd imagine it's because the goal is to "sprint" as fast as you can to the point of exhaustion, then slow down a bit, and you can't easily do that on a treadmill.  Treadmills are for going a relatively constant speed.  If you got exhausted after sprinting on a treadmill, you'd fly off before you could slow it down. Strumphs (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as the constant changes in speed that would be required on a treadmill for HIIT, the maximum speed setting for the best consumer grade and most commercial treadmills is in the range 16 kph – 22.5 kph (10 mph to 14 mph). Assume for the sake of arithmetical simplicity that the treadmill’s max speed is 20 kph (12.4 mph). 20 kph is equivalent to a three-minute-kilometre (the same as 100 metres run in 18 seconds) which is the speed maintained over the full 42.2 km marathon distance by the world's best marathoners. 20 kph is a very fast pace to keep up for a 42.2 km marathon but it’s hardly a sprint, at least not for a young, fit adult male or female human who in their prime should be capable of running 100 metres in under 18 seconds. For standard treadmills, one somewhat unsatisfactory solution is to increase the gradient, if necessary up to the maximum allowed. Increasing the gradient reduces one's maximal, sustainable 20-second-run speed significantly, especially if one is overweight. This solution is slightly unsatisfactory because while one is running at one's fastest for the set gradient, one is not then running at one's top speed. Running as fast as possible up a gradient puts different strains and stresses on the body to running as fast as possible on the flat. As also does running down gradients as fast as possible.58.165.105.140 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Interval/HIIT

message: I think that Sprint 8 is a 30 sec sprint followed by a 90 sec rest. Tabata is 20 sec "sprint" followed by 10 sec rest. Does anyone know what the Trenblay system is?24.83.148.131 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Tremblay interval routine is somewhat complicated consisting of both short and long routines." Details at BodyBuilding.com. David spector (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences Between Sprint 8, Tabata And Tremblay

message: Only benefits are listed; the absence of risks is suspicious. All exercise carries some risk with it. This article does not seem the least bit balanced.
:I agree with the fact that there are no risks and this is a topic that should be fairly well researched.  I did find one article on the web that could help but not sufficient enough.  Maybe a starting point?MrNiceGuy1113 (talk)
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/conditioning/a/aa112701a.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNiceGuy1113 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Risks?

message: It should be pointed out that most of the HIIT studies are short term, and I believe there are long term studies showing that many of the improvements begin to flatten out (as is the case with most fitness routines).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: long term effectiveness 

message: "Most HIIT sessions have a 2:1 ratio in terms of time. For example, for running, a HIIT session may be something as 60 seconds jog, 30 seconds sprint."
First of all, that second sentence contains questionable English. More importantly, I think it's backwards. As I understand it, it is 2:1::high-intensity:low-intensity. The following sentence, contained later in article, seems to agree.
"A popular regimen based on a 1996 study[2] uses 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at 170% of VO2MAX) followed by 10 seconds of rest..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.23.68 (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2:1 Ratio Discrepency 

message: This appears in the statement "...uses 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest."  You cannot go anything over 100% of VO2max.  Whoever, if anyone, keeps changing this back to 170% is highly misinformed.  Even the referenced article says it is 70% of VO2max.  This was supposed to be a minor change, but the change has been incorrectly reverted back to this 170% number.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversurfer651 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From the abstract of the article: "The exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout." You should read it, really. And it means that intensity of the exercise was 170% of the intensity corresponding to VO2max. While you can't consume more oxygen than VO2max, you can still increase the intensity. 64.9.239.152 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I usually see the Vo2max as mls of oxygen per kilogram per minute and not percentage.  But I get what you're sayingSilversurfer651 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: As already mentioned, the original article reads "an intensity of about 170% of VO2max". That is, the intensity was 1.7 times higher than the intensity of a 100% VO2max exercise. You really can't consume more oxygen than VO2max, but you can exercise at a higher intensity. I've updated the article to make it clearer.  Roponor (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you can train at a intensity higher than VO2max, by using your anaerobic capacity in addition to your aerobic capacity. Doing so by requirement accumulates lactic acid in your muscles, since that's the only alternative to aerobic powering of the muscles. Tabata really does claim 170% of the VO2max intensity for 20 seconds, followed by 10 seconds of rest, repeated 8 times over 4 minutes. I don't have access to the full article, but this seems highly implausible. 170% over 20 seconds, plus 0% over 10 seconds means an average intensity of 113% (170*20+0*10)/30=113. If you work at 113% VO2max for 4 minutes, you thus have a lactic-acid buildup in your muscles equal to *atleast* 0.13 * 4 minutes = 31 seconds. It seems highly implausible that ordinary people are capable of working at 170% VO2max with that much lactic acid in their muscles. Does anyone have access to the full article to say what is actually said about the intensity, and how it was measured ? Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect VO2 Max 

message: It really should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said.  If you're going to edit the HIIT section please stay on topic and make sure statements you make are clear.
"1) 3-5 minutes warmup, which consists of light jogging at first and then you gradually increase the intensity towards the end. Eating healthier foods and using this trainig makes losing fat a lot easier""
Eating healthier foods is vague and unnecessary.  Unless you go on state what comprises of "healthier," do not state it.  The article is about HIIT, not how to lose fat.Silversurfer651 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made here should be necessary and clear 

message: This article states that HIIT is a form of aerobic exercise, but then goes on to give percentages of VO2 Max that clearly fall under anaerobic on the chart on the Aerobic Exercise page.  It seems to me that HIIT is a form of anaerobic exercise, but I'm not an exercise scientist, I'm just confused by the two articles.  uroscion 13:22, 27 January 2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.219.228 (talk)  
::The reason for the confusion between aerobic, anaerobic is that the high-intensity portions of HIIT approach or cross the anaerobic threshhold with the point of improving aerobic fitness.  By taking the heart back and forth across the threshhold, you are improving its ability to engage in aerobic exercise. I will try to explain this (with citations) in my rewrite. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency with Article on Aerobic Exercise 

message: I took the liberty of removing the whole "Disadvantages" section since it does not list any sources apart from Tabata's study, and it's interpretation of that study is clearly misguided. The claim that IT group showed almost no improvement over the second 3 weeks is not supported by the article - while the IT group VO2max progress during second 3 weeks was slower than their progress during first 3 weeks, it was still better than the "steady" ET group progress over the second 3 weeks.
Furthermore, either interpretation of this part of Tabata's study certainly constitutes original research and as such should not be on Wikipedia. 12.28.95.2 (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the "Disadvantages" section 

message: Benefits section should be organized into 
(A) training benefits 
E.g., muscle & aerobic benefits
and 
(B) metabolic benefits 
E.g. improved glucose and insulin metabolism, fat loss, reduced central adiposity  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits section should be organized into (A) training benefits; and (B) metabolic benefits  

message: Adding this for future reference because I don't have the time right now to incorporate this new material into the article:
Gebala et al (cited in this article) came out with a new study showing benefits from a less intense version of HIIT. The New York Times reported on it here. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that "less strenuous" meant "one minute of strenuous effort, at about 90 percent of a person’s maximum heart rate (which most of us can estimate, very roughly, by subtracting our age from 220), followed by one minute of easy recovery. The effort and recovery are repeated 10 times, for a total of 20 minutes." So I think that's still "high intensity".  Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New research on less intense HIIT

message: The following quote is subjective and cites a 3rd level source (in Forbes) which sites a 2nd level source. It ought to be either removed or supported by a 2nd level source directly.
Quote: HIIT is considered to be an excellent way to maximize a workout that is limited on time.[5]
Arbalest Mike (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Consider removing (or correctly supporting) subjective claim

message: The terms "heart rate reserve" and "eucaloric Interval training" are used but not linked to a description. Perhaps earlier occurrences were edited out? Either way I certainly don't have a clue what they mean. This article seems well maintained so it's probably best if I leave it to one of the regulars to fix. HuwG 203.208.123.81 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined terms 

message: Under the Peter Coe Regimen section:
"Coe set sessions involving repeated fast 200 metre runs with only 30 seconds recovery between each fast runest."  I would change it but i'm not sure if he just meant run or what.
Bucknastay (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Was presumably runset, has evidently been fixed. PJTraill (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a runest? 

message: From what I can glean from the abstract of the Venables/Jeukendrup paper, the intervals were hardly high intensity.  
In a counterbalanced, crossover design, eight sedentary, obese, but otherwise healthy male participants performed two 4-wk blocks of endurance training, either at a predetermined intensity eliciting maximal fat oxidation (TPCON) or at 5-min intervals of +/- 20% FATmax (TPINT).
So it was 5 METs for fat burning, and the intervals alternated (equal time) between 4 and 6 METs?  Something of that order?  I'll leave it for another pair of eyes to parse the above and determine whether the entire section is best pared away.  — MaxEnt 15:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucaloric intervals hardly high intensity 

message: The statement "HIIT workouts provide improved athletic capacity and condition …" links to physical exercise which does not define "condition", which sounds a bit like a Germanism (de.wiktionary/Kondition, meaning 2, i.e. physical fitness, not currently at en.wiktionary/Kondition). If "condition" is meant to add significantly to "athletic capacity", it should be reformulated or linked to a clear definition; in the latter case, "condition" has a specialised meaning in this context, which needs to be added to en.wiktionary/condition. Otherwise "condition" should be removed. PJTraill (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Condition" not defined by link. 

message: The last sentence in the Tabata section notes the disqualification of 1996 study participants failing to meet some threshold, but doesn't connect that sentence to what precedes it. I'm assuming it's meant to convey that some have pointed to this as casting doubt on the significance of the findings previously described. It should say what doubts have been expressed in relation to this disqualification. The sentence had previously begun by telling us "it is important to note", but that is WP:EDITORIALIZING, and it wasn't helpful anyway to tell us that it was important to note when it didn't say what we should note specifically, nor why. Largoplazo (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of disqualifications in 1996 Tabata study