all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed High Intensity Aerobic Training Can Reverse The Aging Process

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

banzaiengr

Level 6 Valued Member
This kind of thing gets way above my intellect. I have read through this article three times and I still come away with the impression that the research doesn't go with the headline.

I know some go crazy over these studies and how they manipulate the results to find the results they want. In this study there is no description of what the different programs were. Most comically to me is, what is "High Intensity AEROBIC Training". I thought that the goal of HIIT was to go anaerobic.





Mayo Clinic discovers high-intensity aerobic training can reverse aging processes in adults
 
Most comically to me is, what is "High Intensity AEROBIC Training". I thought that the goal of HIIT was to go anaerobic.

I think of 3 basic levels of intensity of "cardio" activity:

1) Aerobic - MAF HR, or below. Easy breathing, can still talk while doing it. Primarily aerobic fueling (if one's body is adapted for that).
2) Aerobic + Glycolytic - somewhere between MAF HR and "all out". Harder breathing, but sustainable. Aerobic and sugar burning both occurring. Lactate is being produced and consumed, as well.
3) Anaerobic - Really, really hard. "All out." Only sustainable for a very short period of time, a couple of minutes or less.

In these terms, I would think that HIIT is at the top end of #2. So, it's still aerobic, it's just glycolytic on top of that.

I'm sure there are better explanations... just my lame attempt at simplifying.
 
I think of 3 basic levels of intensity of "cardio" activity:

1) Aerobic - MAF HR, or below. Easy breathing, can still talk while doing it. Primarily aerobic fueling (if one's body is adapted for that).
2) Aerobic + Glycolytic - somewhere between MAF HR and "all out". Harder breathing, but sustainable. Aerobic and sugar burning both occurring. Lactate is being produced and consumed, as well.
3) Anaerobic - Really, really hard. "All out." Only sustainable for a very short period of time, a couple of minutes or less.

In these terms, I would think that HIIT is at the top end of #2. So, it's still aerobic, it's just glycolytic on top of that.

I'm sure there are better explanations... just my lame attempt at simplifying.

Thanks Anna, I think you gave a really good explanation there. One even an old meathead like me can understand. But would you agree that there is a very fine line between 2&3 when performing HIIT? And whether in 2 or in 3, could someone do this say 3 or 4 times per week without consequences? And don't answer with "it depends". : )
 
Hello,

Usually, a "pure" HIIT protocol is something like 20s on 10s off, X times.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
@banzaiengr, one thing I learned a long time ago is that there are zones in which one effectively trains different energy systems, and being in between zones can often result in poor results, over training, or both. I learned this from Jack Daniel's book, "Running Formula," and people like @aciampa understand this well.

-S-
 
Carl, I answered your PM. In short: this is not the original paper, so you won't get many answers there.

High intensity aerobic training consists of repeated intervals that are carried out at high(er) HRs for several minutes. Think, mile repeats in running.
 
Carl, I answered your PM. In short: this is not the original paper, so you won't get many answers there.

High intensity aerobic training consists of repeated intervals that are carried out at high(er) HRs for several minutes. Think, mile repeats in running.


OK, thanks Al. So intervals at a high HR but not anaerobic?
 
would you agree that there is a very fine line between 2&3 when performing HIIT?

I think so, yes. It all depends on one's definition of HIIT, and then how correctly one applies that definition in practice.

What I see in "HIIT Class" is people doing random acts of variety and getting very sweaty. I suspect they are in my #2 above, think they are getting "a great workout", are sore tomorrow, and haven't really increased their ability to do... anything. But, they burned calories! Ugh.

And whether in 2 or in 3, could someone do this say 3 or 4 times per week without consequences?

I don't think so. This person would probably be heading for burnout. But yes, it depends... on the context, the person's base fitness, what the person is really doing as the HIIT activity, how long the intervals are, how long the recovery is, what other activity they are doing, etc.
 
I think of 3 basic levels of intensity of "cardio" activity:

1) Aerobic - MAF HR, or below. Easy breathing, can still talk while doing it. Primarily aerobic fueling (if one's body is adapted for that).
2) Aerobic + Glycolytic - somewhere between MAF HR and "all out". Harder breathing, but sustainable. Aerobic and sugar burning both occurring. Lactate is being produced and consumed, as well.
3) Anaerobic - Really, really hard. "All out." Only sustainable for a very short period of time, a couple of minutes or less.

In these terms, I would think that HIIT is at the top end of #2. So, it's still aerobic, it's just glycolytic on top of that.

I'm sure there are better explanations... just my lame attempt at simplifying.

I have seldom seen what I believe to be HIIT as it is described in the literature - namely short bouts of high intensity for a minute or less followed by periods in the MAF zone to drop the heart rate to a sustainable level. It would certainly be glycolytic to some extent, but I suspect it clears more rapidly than if ones goes glycolytic from resistance training - the pumped muscle will retain more, longer.

I'd like to read the full text and see how the workouts were organized. I'd also imagine breaking these workouts into a cycle will give better results.
 
Hmm, even gets my curiosity up more. So if HIIT aerobic training is in Anna level 2, lets say running 440 yd. in 1:30 at an 80-90% of max HR, I'm just making something up here. So if these numbers are out of line forgive me. How often could a trainee do this if say they were resting 3 min. between intervals and performing between 4 and 8 intervals per session while also participating in an aerobic session and a strength training session each week? I would think possibly 3 at the most, and that would limit your strength training to possibly 2 sessions and aerobics to 1 each week. The article mentioned the importance of obtaining strength, but I would believe that only a new trainee would see improvements in strength with 2 sessions per week. Others would maintain strength.

I know most of what I've found over time has been to limit HIIT to once per week. I take that as in addition to a good strength program. What does the gallery think?
 
Last edited:
Whenever I have tried to add in HIIT stuff (usually tabata type rowing sprints) even once a week I've crashed after about a month - it doesn't agree with me at all. Probably my big mistake is 'to add' not 'to replace'.

I do think you can improve strength with two strength sessions a week even when not a new trainee, probably just because recovery is so good. Obviously those gains may not be optimal and I think you would need a well designed programme.
 
Hmm, even gets my curiosity up more. So if HIIT aerobic training is in Anna level 2, lets say running 440 yd. in 1:30 at an 80-90% of max HR, I'm just making something up here. So if these numbers are out of line forgive me. How often could a trainee do this if say they were resting 3 min. between intervals and performing between 4 and 8 intervals per session while also participating in an aerobic session and a strength training session each week? I would think possibly 3 at the most, and that would limit your strength training to possibly 2 sessions and aerobics to 1 each week. The article mentioned the importance of obtaining strength, but I would believe that only a new trainee would see improvements in strength with 2 sessions per week. Others would maintain strength.

I know most of what I've found over time has been to limit HIIT to once per week. I take that as in addition to a good strength program. What does the gallery think?

I think it depends a lot on the volume and intensity, so it's impossible to say. In your example, if you do 4 intervals, you are doing half as much as 8 intervals. So I could do 2 sessions of 4 and get a similar stress as 1 session of 8 of the same thing. And beyond that, I think that 80% of Max HR is quite different from 90%, and that it's hard to get a meaningful HR when doing a relatively short run. But other than that, your numbers sound ballpark reasonable, certainly no more than 3 sessions and that's if HIIT is the person's primary training (why? A different question) with strength and aerobic being secondary. I agree with "only a new trainee would see improvements in strength with 2 sessions per week. Others would maintain strength", but again, depends a lot on what the session is.

Yeah personally I would limit it to once a week, if that, but it's not a priority for me. Might be worth a try sometimes, especially as a way to get faster on the bike or running.

Now that I've been monitoring my HRV for almost 2 years and I'm pretty tuned into my recovery status, it might be interesting to do a HIIT workout and see what it does to my HRV.
 
Hmm, even gets my curiosity up more. So if HIIT aerobic training is in Anna level 2, lets say running 440 yd. in 1:30 at an 80-90% of max HR, I'm just making something up here. So if these numbers are out of line forgive me. How often could a trainee do this if say they were resting 3 min. between intervals and performing between 4 and 8 intervals per session while also participating in an aerobic session and a strength training session each week? I would think possibly 3 at the most, and that would limit your strength training to possibly 2 sessions and aerobics to 1 each week. The article mentioned the importance of obtaining strength, but I would believe that only a new trainee would see improvements in strength with 2 sessions per week. Others would maintain strength.

I know most of what I've found over time has been to limit HIIT to once per week. I take that as in addition to a good strength program. What does the gallery think?

You're comparing the ideas of improving the aging population with maximizing athletic performance. This, in my opinion only , is one of the foundational reasons why there is so much misinformation in the fitness field.
 
You're comparing the ideas of improving the aging population with maximizing athletic performance. This, in my opinion only , is one of the foundational reasons why there is so much misinformation in the fitness field.

Yes, I can see how you would want to separate the two. Maybe this also leads to the differing in opinions on what works best. It's a very good point.
 
besides Al's valid point, it's also hard to pin down what "aging" is. If someone eats tons of junk food, sits all day at work and while watching tv all night, and doesn't sleep well for 20 years, what's caused their health issues? the habits, or the 20 years? obviously some combination, but how do you separate? Most of these studies take sedentary populations and put them on some basic exercise program for the first time in their lives, and they improve some fitness measures over those who keep sitting. Big duh...
 
Hello,

Maybe the "metabolic age" can be taken into account.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
You're comparing the ideas of improving the aging population with maximizing athletic performance. This, in my opinion only , is one of the foundational reasons why there is so much misinformation in the fitness field

And that is just scratching the surface. There are so many more reasons why studies like this one create misinformation. This study went 12 weeks, which is long for these things and I am assuming was starting with people who weren't exercising on a regular basis. Plus the HIIT portion actually included two days a week of easy treadmill walking for five total days of exercise and much more total time per week. In comparison, the strength group just exercised twice a week. Just looking at the protocol, how can it surprise anyone that the group that exercised a LOT more got better results?

But the headlines now say that "HIIT reverses the aging process." Having been a round the block a couple of times, I have learned you really need to dig in to what is behind the headlines and even more importantly figure out what works for you.
 
This study went 12 weeks, which is long for these things and I am assuming was starting with people who weren't exercising on a regular basis. Plus the HIIT portion actually included two days a week of easy treadmill walking for five total days of exercise and much more total time per week. In comparison, the strength group just exercised twice a week. Just looking at the protocol, how can it surprise anyone that the group that exercised a LOT more got better results?

Tim, I'm guessing you have read the entire study? That is really important information to make a honest comparison. Thanks
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom