Treadmills take away the work done by the glutes while running. The glutes are the biggest muscle in the body and take the impact and contract for the push down and off movement.
People who solely run on treadmills have no arses.
Good time that. Where do you run in Ayr? I was working up there last year and used to run on the promenadeJust in the door from todays run:
4.5miles
32mins 39seconds
Works out at 7mins 14seconds per mile.
Mostly flat enough with a couple of steep hills near the end. Very happy with that but no idea how it compares to the general runner, sure there's work to go but it'll earn me some beers and a bbq for later on.
Good time that. Where do you run in Ayr? I was working up there last year and used to run on the promenade
Watched a group of 4 guys that I see running regularly in Heaton doing angina hill sprints the other day, they were beasting it, made me feel rather inadequate, lol.Just done a 1 mile warm up, 5k hill repeats ( @Rammy Blue ) angina hill x 10!! Then 1 mile cool down.... feeling that now.
Glad they weren’t there tonight!! It’s fucking tough.Watched a group of 4 guys that I see running regularly in Heaton doing angina hill sprints the other day, they were beasting it, made me feel rather inadequate, lol.
First ones always the worst - less is more if you are recovering from injury in my experience (not that I am any kind of guru)........I tore 2 ligaments in my foot on the pitch in early Jan and sprained an ankle. It's been a long few months and this morning plucked up the will and energy to go running again.
Did 2.1km in 11 mins. It's been a long 5 or so months, i feel fucked..... :(
First ones always the worst - less is more if you are recovering from injury in my experience (not that I am any kind of guru)........
Shorter runs / fat burning.
I hear a lot about throwing in shorter runs if you want to burn fat / lose weight?
I went to a big field yesterday and ran 3km flat out- literally as fast as I could. I felt great afterwards but also alike id cheated for not doing my normal runs of anything from 5-15km at a more steady pace.
Does anyone know anything about this?
It's a slight misnomer as they're not really sprints as such; you'd typically be running in the region of 90% perceived effort. Basically run at not-quite-full-pelt up a hill, jog down slowly to recover and repeat.
There's no rule book on incline, distance etc, but you would of course build up gradually over time, as with all types of running and, indeed, all types of exercise. So, at first, you would do fewer repeats at a shallower gradient over a shorter distance. Those three factors would gradually change over time: quantity of repeats, incline and distance.
Contrary to popular thought, HIIT sessions like this aren't really that good at burning fat. That is, each one individual session will burn a high proportion of fat while you're doing it (which isn't for very long) and there is also what's known as 'the afterburn effect' where you continue to burn calories for a time afterwards due to the raised metabolism.
The problem is that you would only do HIIT sessions like this - typically - once per fortnight, or - at most - weekly. If you do it more frequently than that, then either you're doing it wrong or you are inevitably going to damage yourself (injury or burnout) which will affect the rest of your aerobic exercise on other days (and that's where fat is really burnt). Even in the latter case, one workout per week like this isn't going to cause any significant weight loss.
Hill HIIT sessions are worth doing - infrequently - as they are great for speed and strength, but I wouldn't be under the illusion that it's a short cut to fat loss.
Apologies if I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my previous posts.Hi, i've read your posts and they're very informative. One thing i dont quite get is you say that "HIIT sessions like this aren't really that good at burning fat" but then you say that they will burn a high proportion of fat while doing it and continue to burn calories after due to raised metabolism. I can't really square the two off, the latter sounds like HIIT is burning a lot of fat? Why is subsequent aerobic really burning the fat? thanks
Apologies if I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my previous posts.
HIIT sessions burn a high volume of fat in proportion to longer, slower runs and they also bring about the 'afterburn effect' where a degree of fat continues to be burnt post-run.
So if you warm up and then spend, say, 20 minutes doing HIIT, you might burn in the region of 300 kcals - great! You've successfully burnt some fat. You're also knackered from the hard workout and it's not recommended to carry out an intense workout like this for another week or so. You might find that, the next day, you only run for half an hour because you need to recover, or you might even have the day off.
Alternatively, you go out for an easy-pace run for 45 minutes, burning (let's say) 400 kcals. You finish with some energy to spare then go out the next day and do the same session, burning another 400 kcals.
These numbers are, of course, general and just for illustration. The point is that a HIIT session is effective in terms of the time involved for that individual session but, across a week, it's the slower, aerobic zone sessions where the bulk of fat is burnt.
So if you run easy for a total of, let's say 3 hours, across a week, and you also have a HIIT session lasting 20 minutes, the HIIT session on its own might burn 300 kcals but the bulk of calories will be burnt with the slower runs which could total 1,500 - 2,000 kcals. It's simply because our bodies will allow us to do a lot more slow, aerobic running compared to HIIT workouts.
Makes sense to me......Apologies if I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my previous posts.
HIIT sessions burn a high volume of fat in proportion to longer, slower runs and they also bring about the 'afterburn effect' where a degree of fat continues to be burnt post-run.
So if you warm up and then spend, say, 20 minutes doing HIIT, you might burn in the region of 300 kcals - great! You've successfully burnt some fat. You're also knackered from the hard workout and it's not recommended to carry out an intense workout like this for another week or so. You might find that, the next day, you only run for half an hour because you need to recover, or you might even have the day off.
Alternatively, you go out for an easy-pace run for 45 minutes, burning (let's say) 400 kcals. You finish with some energy to spare then go out the next day and do the same session, burning another 400 kcals.
These numbers are, of course, general and just for illustration. The point is that a HIIT session is effective in terms of the time involved for that individual session but, across a week, it's the slower, aerobic zone sessions where the bulk of fat is burnt.
So if you run easy for a total of, let's say 3 hours, across a week, and you also have a HIIT session lasting 20 minutes, the HIIT session on its own might burn 300 kcals but the bulk of calories will be burnt with the slower runs which could total 1,500 - 2,000 kcals. It's simply because our bodies will allow us to do a lot more slow, aerobic running compared to HIIT workouts.
Genetics will always play a part in that respect - he may just be lucky........I was reading this thread in bed at 6.15am. I've not done sprinting for a couple of weeks. Went out to do a 5k but 10 mins in I passed a steep hill. Sprinted up it 4 times then my legs were knackered. 20 minute walk to cool down. Feel good now.
I've read and re-read HIIT v LISS and concluded that analysis produces paralysis. Just do what you enjoy. Mate of mine who is a heavy drinker just walks for one hour every day and says that keeps him slim