T Nation

How Does Sprinting/Tabatas Etc. Burn More Fat than Steady State?

I don’t get this. So let’s say I run for 30 minutes at 6.0 mph on a treadmill, twice per week. I burn 475 calories each time roughly. Now if I do tabatas for like 15 minutes, or do a couple 100m sprints and 4 50’s I burn maybe…250 each time? See that’s what I’ve never understood, steady state cardio always burns more calories. So where do these other calories that sprinting and things like that burn come from?? So if I go sprinting or do tabatas, and then my pulse returns to baseline a few minutes later, I’m still burning more calories? Is this a post-exercise O2 consumption thing, or a raised metabolism thing? And why wouldn’t that raised metabolism break down muscle exactly? I’ve never understood this, so thanks for any help.

You’re doing it wrong dude. You absolutely have to look at a black athletes naked pictures while doing the HIIT to burn those extra cals!

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
You’re doing it wrong dude. You absolutely have to look at a black athletes naked pictures while doing the HIIT to burn those extra cals![/quote]

I post white athlete penii as well…

where are you getting these 475 and 250 calories burned from?

[quote]JaX Un wrote:
where are you getting these 475 and 250 calories burned from?[/quote]

well the 475 was from the treadmill estimate, the 250 was a rough estimate based on what I’ve gleaned for calories burned stats on the internet

Yes, the extra calories burned supposedly come from a longer period of EPOC from HIIT.

Is this really worth even speculating at?

Do whatever works for you in conjunction with need for your diet.

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]JaX Un wrote:
where are you getting these 475 and 250 calories burned from?[/quote]

well the 475 was from the treadmill estimate, the 250 was a rough estimate based on what I’ve gleaned for calories burned stats on the internet[/quote]

well the two formulas to figure out caloric expenditure are different from going at a slow jog compared to a sprint. heart rate and speed have a big impact on calories burned. If you really really want i can dig up the equations. it is pretty interesting shit.

[quote]JaX Un wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]JaX Un wrote:
where are you getting these 475 and 250 calories burned from?[/quote]

well the 475 was from the treadmill estimate, the 250 was a rough estimate based on what I’ve gleaned for calories burned stats on the internet[/quote]

well the two formulas to figure out caloric expenditure are different from going at a slow jog compared to a sprint. heart rate and speed have a big impact on calories burned. If you really really want i can dig up the equations. it is pretty interesting shit.[/quote]

I wouldn’t mind seeing the formulas…I’m a huge stats nerd

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]JaX Un wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]JaX Un wrote:
where are you getting these 475 and 250 calories burned from?[/quote]

well the 475 was from the treadmill estimate, the 250 was a rough estimate based on what I’ve gleaned for calories burned stats on the internet[/quote]

well the two formulas to figure out caloric expenditure are different from going at a slow jog compared to a sprint. heart rate and speed have a big impact on calories burned. If you really really want i can dig up the equations. it is pretty interesting shit.[/quote]

I wouldn’t mind seeing the formulas…I’m a huge stats nerd[/quote]

you know, i was just looking at the formulas and i forgot it gives you your estimated Vo2 for the worload you just accomplished and then you have to convert that into calories burned per minute. It is a lot of shit…and it actually won’t be that helpful to you, but:

this si the running equation

vo2 = [speed (m/min) x 0.2] + [speed (m/min) x %grade x 0.09] +3.5

m/min = meters/min
= mph X 26.8 = m/min

after you find the relative Vo2 you convert it to absolute Vo2 by dividing by 1000

multiply that number by 5 to find kcals per min, and multiply that nu,ber by minutes in your cardio session to find total caloric expenditure.

as you can see, it doesn’t really help for what you are asking. but, maybe someone will find it interesting.

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
I wouldn’t mind seeing the formulas…I’m a huge stats nerd[/quote]

Ok, so let’s use your own numbers and if this looks awfully simplistic and you feel tempted to overthink it, don’t do that:

steady state: 475kcal expenditure total

sprints: 250kcal during + 200kcal 1st hr post + 160kcal 2nd hr post + 120 kcal 3rd hr post + 80 kcal nth hour post…

thanks guys! I’ll try use that formula after JaX, just for fun…

Chillain is that really what it’s like roughly?

Indeed it is a safe approximation.

The relative superiority of HIIT for fat loss isn’t disputed, it’s just that one can’t really do it at 250+ lbs and/or in a caloric deficit. Thus steady-state will always have its place.

edit - actually NFL DE/LB types carry LBM like that and do tons of explosive-type work. scary good physiques seem to be the result

[quote]JaX Un wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]JaX Un wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]JaX Un wrote:
where are you getting these 475 and 250 calories burned from?[/quote]

well the 475 was from the treadmill estimate, the 250 was a rough estimate based on what I’ve gleaned for calories burned stats on the internet[/quote]

well the two formulas to figure out caloric expenditure are different from going at a slow jog compared to a sprint. heart rate and speed have a big impact on calories burned. If you really really want i can dig up the equations. it is pretty interesting shit.[/quote]

I wouldn’t mind seeing the formulas…I’m a huge stats nerd[/quote]

you know, i was just looking at the formulas and i forgot it gives you your estimated Vo2 for the worload you just accomplished and then you have to convert that into calories burned per minute. It is a lot of shit…and it actually won’t be that helpful to you, but:

this si the running equation

vo2 = [speed (m/min) x 0.2] + [speed (m/min) x %grade x 0.09] +3.5

m/min = meters/min
= mph X 26.8 = m/min

after you find the relative Vo2 you convert it to absolute Vo2 by dividing by 1000

multiply that number by 5 to find kcals per min, and multiply that nu,ber by minutes in your cardio session to find total caloric expenditure.

as you can see, it doesn’t really help for what you are asking. but, maybe someone will find it interesting.[/quote]
I don’t see bodyweight in there anywhere. Certainly a big guy expends more energy running at he same speed as a skinny runner type.

Do both, sprinters actually do a fair amount of tempo runs in addition to sprinting. And another thing to remember is that most short distance sprinters are getting full recoveries in between their sprints so ot isn’t really interval training.

more and more, we are realizing that the benefits of HIIT over steady-state training have been exaggerated. keep in mind that most of the research that showed better results with HIIT was done on elite athletes and can’t therefore be extrapolated to the general population.

Read this:

also check out Lyle Mcdonald’s stuff if you haven’t already.

There’s a number of ways HIIT gets more work done than steady state cardio. The most basic was summarized in the raised EPOC answer. As long as we are looking at total calories burnt though, we have to consider issues like raised HR and time to get back to resting or starting HR.

On a full out sprint, the HR is raised to a level you wont reach if you want to cover a considerable distance in steady state. Since it takes energy for the heart to return to starting level, the longer it takes for it it come down, the more calories you burn. Consider also the energy source- carbs, proteins or fat.

The higher the intensity, the greater the contribution of carbs, etc. Measure the amount of heat released, the greater total amount of work each muscle does (there’s greater ROM about each joint that’s involved when sprinting as opposed to less strenuous running) and you’ll find the answers are heavier towards the HIIT.

I know some of these are impractical unless you’re in a lab, but if you pay attention to your body you’ll feel it. You’ll also find, because of the breaks you take in between sets, sprints or whatever your doing (following the perfect rep program), the rest allows the anaerobic system to recover, PCr systems, etc, allowing you to reach as high an intensity as you possibly can each time.

At the end of the session, you may have covered less distance, but as long as your intensity was high enough, you will have done more work than you could have had you tried to go for a longer distance at the same intensity.

Basically, the higher the intensity, the more calories you burn- no matter what you are doing!

[quote]arrogantbastard wrote:
more and more, we are realizing that the benefits of HIIT over steady-state training have been exaggerated. keep in mind that most of the research that showed better results with HIIT was done on elite athletes and can’t therefore be extrapolated to the general population.

Read this:

also check out Lyle Mcdonald’s stuff if you haven’t already.

[/quote]
The weird thing is I read that article (not very thoroughly I must admit) and it seemed to end up proscribing intervals anyway. maybe I’m wrong.

[quote]arrogantbastard wrote:
more and more, we are realizing that the benefits of HIIT over steady-state training have been exaggerated. keep in mind that most of the research that showed better results with HIIT was done on elite athletes and can’t therefore be extrapolated to the general population.

Read this:

also check out Lyle Mcdonald’s stuff if you haven’t already.

[/quote]

I love intervals, have done them for twenty years. However; I don’t think they are more effective that steady-state…just another way to get to the same place.