HIIT Covered In the NY Times

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward, jethrof

Post Reply
former lurker
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:58 am

Re: HIIT Covered In the NY Times

Post by skiffrace » Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:05 pm

Once upon a time this so called "HIIT" was known and practiced as good old Interval Training.
By definition, all interval training should be high intensity in order to be effective, so the addition of the "HI" to the name is a marketing hack to sell decades-old product with a new name.
The reasons why interval training is often more effective than aerobic steady-state training are not quite clear and sufficiently researched, explanation that interval training "stresses body more and therefore produces more adaptation" is not good enough IMHO.
They may also indicate why strength training (which is almost always a kind of interval training) appears to be as, if not more effective to overall physical health and fitness than aerobic steady-state training.
So, strength-train early and often and on your training runs/bike rides, add as many hills to your route as possible - they are the interval intensifiers injected into the workout in a natural way.

PS “Can You Get Fit in Six Minutes a Week?”
It depends. If you start from 0, then yes, even this bit of work will make you somewhat fit[ter].
However, if you are already reasonably fit, the answer is no, you need more than that, though I agree that not as much as we used to think, probably 2-4 30-40' high quality sessions per week will do the trick for most people.

Post Reply