is it better to do HIIT shorter intervals at higher intensity or opposite?

i'm pretty out of shape right now cardiovascularly.  i've been trying to do HIIT + i'm not sure which of the following is the 'right' way to do it:

30 second intervals at highest intensity or

1 minute intervals at slightly lower intensity

i've been doing the intervals at a ratio of 1:1.  i've also been doing it on the stairstepper (only because i've been working out at a tiny gym in my friend's apt building where i can work out for free + there's no leg press or squat rack, and the stairstepper is the best machine for working my legs).  i've done it on the elliptical/treadmill a couple times when i was very very tired and the stairstepper was too intimidating.  it's really annoying to do it on the treadmill!

OR

30 seconds at highest intensity, stripped to 30 seconds at slightly lower intensity, then 1 minute 'rest' interval (never tried this, just thought of it now as an analogy to stripping weights)

1 minute at highest intensity followed by more than 1 minute of rest interval (it's possible that i could do more than 30 seconds of highest intensity if i were giving myself longer breaks - i don't know)

which of these sounds the best to you guys?

Thanks! -Erin

I don't know if the intervals really matter - just be sure to get your heart rate up as high as you can for at least 30 seconds then slow down - I sometimes do 30 seconds at max and as much as 5 minutes lower  do what ever you can do.

i agree w/dbackerfan. i think as long as you do high intensity for at least 30sec at a time. i usually do one and one. i run as fast as can for 1min then walk 1walk min at fast pace.

Can someone let me know what HIIT means?  Ive seen it several times and am completely clueless!

Thanks!

HIIT-high intensity interval training.

means any type of cardio where you get your heart rate up as much as can for short periods of time. for example i do this on the treadmill:

run as fast as can for 1min, then walk fast 1min, then run as fast as can 1min, then walk, etc.

Word to the wise:  if you're "pretty out of shape right now", you shouldn't do HIIT at all!  HIIT is for those already in good shape, and even then it should be eased into over a period of at least several weeks.  So long as you remain pretty out of shape, on a perceived exertion scale of 0-10 you generally shouldn't push yourself beyond 8 except for (at worst) infrequent and very brief periods.

Look into plain old "interval training" instead.  Varying intensity is good for people at any fitness level, even if it's just cycling between 1 and 2 for the very unfit, but the less fit you are the more dangerous it is to push your heart toward the high end of the scale.

maybe what i'm doing isn't HIIT, then - i'm not sure, but at maximum intensity, my HR actually goes above the 90% of maximum heart rate (220 minus my age; for me 90% of that is 175) to around 190.  is this a function of HIIT (it being so intense), or just me being out of shape (i'm a smoker too)?  is that pushing too hard?  on the stairstepper, i vary the intensity between level 10 + the highest level (if i'm doing 30 second intervals, which is killer), if i'm doing 1 minute intervals, i vary between level 5 and 10 below the highest (i think there are 30 levels or so, so that would be like 20).  i guess by out of shape, i didn't mean that i COULDN'T do things like run four miles or do 45 minutes at level 10 on the elliptical (i actually find HIIT easier to do than 45 minutes of even low intensity cardio b/c i have neuropathy in my legs + it gets painful + my legs go numb after a while) - i just meant that i breathe really hard + my heart rate is higher than it would be for an "in shape" person during these activities. 

is it dangerous/bad for someone like me to push that hard?  What's the best way to do interval training/ HIIT-like (if not real HIIT) cardio for someone like me?

thanks! -erin

erinzz, first forget the 220-age formula.  There's no real controversy about this -- even the scientists who invented it agree it's no better than a very crude guess, and it's known that it's significantly wrong (way too high or too low) for at least 30% of the population.  For more, skip down to the "Forget the Maximum Heart Rate Formula" section clicking here.  For tons more, enter "Haskell Fox heart rate" to any web search engine.  The formula become popular simply because it's so easy to compute, not because it's valid.

I like the "perceived exertion" method, also briefly described there, and in more detail here, much better.  Here you subjectively rate how intensely you're working, on a scale from 0 or 1 (depending on who's describing it, but it doesn't really matter -- the low point of the scale is "doing nothing" regardless) through 10 (working as hard as you possibly can).

It's obvious that at level 0 (or 1), you really are taking it as easy as possible, and at level 10 you really are working your heart as hard as possible.  For some reason some people seem to find it surprising that it also works quite well at points in between the extremes.  Studies have show that, for example, if you think you're working at level 5, you really are using up about 50% of your heart rate reserve.

Paying attention to how you hard you feel you're working is also a great way to avoid pushing yourself into cardiac arrest by slavishly following numbers on some digital display, based on some simplistic formula that may well not apply to you anyway.

This is especially important for a smoker, because your oxygen-transport mechanisms are significantly impaired compared to what they would be if you stopped smoking.  Cardio exercise is still great for you, but your heart is already working signficantly harder all day just from dealing with the effects of smoking, and pushing to your limit is riskier as a result.

The only way to know your true maximum heart rate, and whether abnormalities appear in your heart function as you approach its limit, is to get a cardio stress test in a lab.  This is inconvenient and expensive, and also carries risks.

Perceived exertion comes to the rescue here too:  level 8 for you as a smoker is less intense than level 8 would be for you as a non-smoker, so sticking at or below level 8 keeps in you a relatively safe range regardless.

I understand why you want to work more intensely but for a shorter time, and that's fine -- it's a good thing.  It's just that levels above 8 are very intense, and nobody should jump into doing significant amounts of work at those levels.  Easing into them is fine.  So long as you're smoking, though, you should be especially cautious about venturing above level 8.  You're already beating your heart up without it ;-)

BTW, after reading your profile, I strongly recommend doing some strength training again.  Even just two whole-body workouts a week, about 45 minutes each, would go a long way to regaining lean muscle you lost.  Cardio is important for health too, but on a high-calorie diet you are (as you've discovered) only going to gain fat unless you do strength-training and minimal cardio work.

tgpish thank you for being one of the only people I see on this site talking about the the dire need for weight training. I think people think I make this stuff up.

spirochete, keep lecturing anyway -- it's for their own good ;-)  Women have special concerns about weight training, and to sidestep cultural biases I usually call it "strength training" instead, and talk about "lean muscle" rather than plain "muscle".  Euphemisms really help avoid knee-jerk dismissal.  A supreme irony is that while strength training is good for everyone, it's especially important for women, since it's the surest way to prevent excessive bone loss women are prone to as they age.  For men, it works better to appeal to their vanity ;-)

i actually am doing strength training (i do weights 6 days/week [one muscle group a day, except shoulders/tris on the same day + the sixth day to address weaknesses] and i only do cardio 2 or 3; gaining muscle is my main objective, since i'm HIV+ and it's MUCH more important for me to gain back the muscle mass i lost from wasting than to shed a few pounds of flab), but i have no good way of being able to train my legs.  i've been working out at my friend's apt building, which has a little gym (i can work out there for free since she lives there), but they don't have a leg press, hack squat, power cage or smith machine.  i've been doing squats, back lunges, deadlifts, standing calf raises + using the leg curl + leg extension equipment (crazy that the $4000 'total gym' they have there would put a cheap little leg curl/extension duo on the setup instead of a legpress/hack squat duo).  the problem is that i'm a woman + i can't lift with my upper body even close to what my legs would be able to squat.  deadlifts are a little easier b/c i don't have to get the weight ALL the way up there but i still have to get it off the ground + that's a real limitation on how much i can lift.  any ideas for how to really build real muscle in my legs w/o good equipment?  my legs used to be very strong, but that was largely due to leg pressing and squatting.  one reason i've been doing the stair stepper instead of the elliptical is b/c i actually DO feel it in my legs, but so far they're just getting "toned" + i'd like to pack on a little more muscle than that, just to have the reserves in case i get sick again (and legs are the easiest place for a woman - or anyone really - to do it).   any ideas?  thanks! -erin

Ah, muscle atrophy related to HIV is beyond my experience.  What does your doctor say?  My general understanding is that atrophy can be caused not only by HIV, but also by drugs used to control it.  For example, two effects I know about are possibly depressed levels of testosterone and/or HGH (human growth hormone).  Your doctor can test for those, and there are approved hormone replacement therapies for HIV+ patients he can prescribe if your levels are low.

If you're eating a calorie surplus, getting enough protein, and doing so much strength training, you "should be" gaining muscle.  And fat.  You can lose the fat later.  But if you're not gaining muscle, there's real reason to suspect a physical disease- or treatment-related problem, and you really need to find a knowledgable doctor to diagnose and help fix that.

A stair-stepper can really bomb your legs, but the reps are way too high to spur signficant muscle-growing response (unless your leg muscles have atrophied to the point that you can't do more than about 20 steps).  And you know that, so why am I saying it?  To remind you :-)

You already know what works for your legs:  heavy squats, heavy squats, and heavy squats.  If there's any way you can possibly do it, get to a real gym!

While I normally wouldn't recommend this, buying a used Soloflex machine would be way better than what you're doing now.  You can do approximations to stop-at-parallel squats (but not deep squats), front squats, and leg presses on one of those, with no need for major upper body strength.  It has a pivoted bar which can easily be set to the height you want for different exercises.  Then you slap on thick rubber straps and/or weight plates, slither under the bar, and start pushing.

Because the bar can't fall below the height you set it to, it's safe for working alone.  You'd miss out on most "stabilizer muscle" benefits from free weights (which don't restrict the bar's path of motion for you), but you can absolutely destroy your quads with a Soloflex squat (resistance can be boosted up to about 800 pounds), and you're right that working your biggest muscles is your quickest path to serious muscle gain.

edit: too many personal details revealed in post

erinzz, I'm very glad you avoided the worst possible outcomes, but you've sure got a tough row to hoe anyway.  I admire your determination to fight back!  That's a very attractive quality, and no better place to find guys who can appreciate that than a real gym -- & some will even know a lot about taking steroids ;-)  There's no real need to be embarrassed by anything in a gym, although I know that's easier to say than to live.  And there will be jerks too, but screw 'em -- let them try walking in your shoes for a month.

Is it possible to find a female doctor specializing in your area?  I've heard that men can be insensitive :-(

I never took steroids.  While I know people who have, they were all taking them illegally, not as part of a legitimately prescribed course of treatment for abnormally low levels of this, that, or the other.  Some testosterone in women is perfectly normal, as is some estrogen in men, and if your levels (of testosterone, HGH, or anything else) are abnormally low, it's hard to imagine anything wrong would result from getting medical help to return them to normal levels.

In my limited observational experience, people vary a lot in their reactions to steroids.  I've seen a few women (and men) for whom they appeared to have no effect, but more who experience the classic (real, not media fantasy) effects:  more-or-less subtle but definite and ongoing increases in secondary male charactertistics, like shrinking breasts, more facial hair, deeper voice, even balding.  But these were all women boosting levels way beyond normal for women, not women taking therapeutic doses designed to restore normal levels.

So, ya, if your levels are already in a normal range, there certainly are tradeoffs to consider.  If I were you I'd persist until I found a doctor I trusted, and if he or she agreed, just try the steroids they recommend as an experiment.  I don't think there's any way for them to predict exactly what will happen.  If the undesirable side effects turn out to be worse than the muscle gains, fine, tell the doctor and stop taking them.  I expect it's very unlikely that any change occurring over the span of a brief experiment will be permanent, although it may well be possible to maintain new muscle via continuing resistance training.

But find an effective way to work your legs to failure first.  Could be that will be enough on its own!  You are able to gain some muscle, and that's where you'll gain the most.

Oops, forgot about the creatine question.  Yes!  That's one of the few legal supplements I believe really works.  There are even a few studies showing effectiveness in alleviating some symptoms of some wasting diseases (and in people, not just mice).

I'm not using it currently, and probably won't again until next year.  Last time around I followed the "loading" and "cycling" superstitions most common at the time, but I wasn't on it long enough to perform good experiments.  In the meantime, I've seen more & more people who have experimented question whether "loading" really matters.  For example, here's a good skeptical article.  Next time I'll try just taking a "normal" dose, and forget about loading if that's enough to show progress after two weeks.

It is annoying to attempt this on the treadmill.  I tend to hit incline to 4 percent or more (I have to watch it due to a knee issue) and keep my pace up at 3.4 mph.  I do this for five minutes every five minutes..then I'm not constantly having to switch the speeds every minute.  It seems to be working:)

HIIT is designed for sport-specific athletes, training your muscles to exert maximal amount of force in a minimal amount of time, and that's great for the body; lots of calories burned but it also tears down the body as your putting it through intense stress.

For long term success, nothing beats old-school endurance, keeping your heart at a moderate pace and then elevating your exercise intensity as you get healthier.  It may be a muscle, but it does the job differently so you have train it accordingly and if you want to keep that elevated metabolism that HIIT offers, add a weight training regiment to your workout.