Best rest to work interval for hiit?

Right now I'm doing 20 second sprints and 10 second rest, is that
good, or is there something better?

In article <1183425113.765027.96510@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
"phate53@gmail.com" <potnisanish@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right now I'm doing 20 second sprints and 10 second rest, is that
> good, or is there something better?

It depends. You are using the 'Tabata' interval, which is supposed to be
optimal in terms of general adaptation. Of course, it closely follows a
long track speed skaters intensity level and the researcher, Tabata, was
involved in long track speed skating.

So it really depends on what your goals are. The interval you are using
is good, but it wouldn't hurt to use a variety of schemes for general
adaptation or general physical preparation. There really is no 'best'
for all people for all time.

--
Keith

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.ca> wrote
> "phate53@gmail.com" <potnisanish@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Right now I'm doing 20 second sprints and 10 second rest, is that
>> good, or is there something better?
>
> It depends. You are using the 'Tabata' interval, which is supposed to be
> optimal in terms of general adaptation. Of course, it closely follows a
> long track speed skaters intensity level and the researcher, Tabata, was
> involved in long track speed skating.
>
> So it really depends on what your goals are. The interval you are using
> is good, but it wouldn't hurt to use a variety of schemes for general
> adaptation or general physical preparation. There really is no 'best'
> for all people for all time.

I like fartlek.

Mostly 'cause I like to say "fartlek".

David

I like to do 100 yard sprints and walk back. Repeat.

On Jul 3, 8:11 am, "phat...@gmail.com" <potnisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right now I'm doing 20 second sprints and 10 second rest, is that
> good, or is there something better?

Yeah, that's great. But if you want to lose weight, the distance is
more important than the speed.
http://letdiet.blogspot.com

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:45:37 -0000, alohanema <alohanema@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 3, 8:11 am, "phat...@gmail.com" <potnisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Right now I'm doing 20 second sprints and 10 second rest, is that
>> good, or is there something better?
>
>Yeah, that's great. But if you want to lose weight, the distance is
>more important than the speed.
>http://letdiet.blogspot.com

The folks at The University of South Wales found this:

* * *

New Way to Burn Fat Faster?

By Sara Baker | Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 06:00 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A recent study detailed on web site Science Daily caught my attention
last week. A group of researchers from the University of New South
Wales studied the weight loss patterns of 45 women. One group biked
three times a week sprinting for 8 seconds and then cycling lightly
for 12 seconds, for a total of 20 minutes of biking. The other group
cycled at continuous pace for 40 minutes three times a week.

The women who sprinted repeatedly for only 20 minutes lost three time
more fat and lost most of the weight from the thigh and buttocks. The
researchers contribute this weight loss to the production of
catecholamines and the unique metabolic response produced from the
sprinting.

The two intriguing outcomes of the study are; higher weight loss in
the group who exercised for less total time, and the spot reduction of
fat from one area of the body.

This study will be sure to spark further investigation into the
physiologic response of the body with short intense bursts of exercise
and energy expenditure. And may lead to significant changes in aerobic
exercise recommendations.

* * *

So it may not be the amount of time spent, but the quality of exercise
engaged in during that time.

Eight-second sprints with 12-second rests is more than I'd be willing
to put up with for 20 minutes.

I read "Sprint 8" which suggested a warmup and breaks of 1.5 to 2
minutes followed by a 30-second all-out sprint. Actually the first
three sprints are warmups at something like 60, 70 and 80% max,
followed by 5 all-out sprints. (It's been a while, but you may
eventually work up to 8 all-out sprints. I've never gone that far and
prefer the 3 warmups and 5 at 100%.)

So, you have a 1.5 minute warmup, a 30 second sprint at 60% max, then
another 1.5 minutes of low intensity, then another 30-second sprint,
etc.

The author of the book sprinted on a track and used his walk back to
the starting line as his low intensity activity (as another poster
suggested.)

I use an exercycle and read during the 1.5 minutes of low intensity
work, during which time I just pedal slowly. I spend the 30 seconds
of high intensity pedaling like mad and cursing with my eyes shut.

In article <td2l83t51ibdbd49hgeakf2o0p7r4trqd1@4ax.com>,
d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
>
> The folks at The University of South Wales found this:
>
> * * *
>
> New Way to Burn Fat Faster?
>
> By Sara Baker | Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 06:00 AM
>
> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>
> A recent study detailed on web site Science Daily caught my attention
> last week. A group of researchers from the University of New South
> Wales studied the weight loss patterns of 45 women. One group biked
> three times a week sprinting for 8 seconds and then cycling lightly
> for 12 seconds, for a total of 20 minutes of biking. The other group
> cycled at continuous pace for 40 minutes three times a week.
>
> The women who sprinted repeatedly for only 20 minutes lost three time
> more fat and lost most of the weight from the thigh and buttocks. The
> researchers contribute this weight loss to the production of
> catecholamines and the unique metabolic response produced from the
> sprinting.
>
> The two intriguing outcomes of the study are; higher weight loss in
> the group who exercised for less total time, and the spot reduction of
> fat from one area of the body.
>
> This study will be sure to spark further investigation into the
> physiologic response of the body with short intense bursts of exercise
> and energy expenditure. And may lead to significant changes in aerobic
> exercise recommendations.
>
> * * *
>
> So it may not be the amount of time spent, but the quality of exercise
> engaged in during that time.
>
> Eight-second sprints with 12-second rests is more than I'd be willing
> to put up with for 20 minutes.

<snip>

Intensity is always important. Duration and load also matter, of course.

I think the point of the study isn't that the women did an all-out 100%
effort for 8 seconds tho... They increased the intensity as they could
given their psychological and physiolgical contraints. You could do much
the same. Go hard for 8 - go easy for 12.

--
Keith

What's better? A 30-second sprint then 30 second walk, or 20 second
sprint and 10 second walk?

"phate53@gmail.com" <potnisanish@gmail.com> writes:

> What's better? A 30-second sprint then 30 second walk, or 20 second
> sprint and 10 second walk?

Better for what? Without knowing your goals it is very hard to
compare different exercise strategies.

Seriously, I could easily say that 20 second sprints followed by 10
seconds of rest is the better interval simply because it will force
you to the point of nausea faster than the other interval. That's
fine if you like to throw up, but that's probably not the criteria you
had in mind when you asked the question.

Jason

Haha, sorry.

Goal: Fat loss.