Cardio vs Strength Training

2»

Replies

  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    No. I'm saying people say it lasts for every and you get some much more burn. It's not as much as people think- the "after burn" impact is just not nearly as big as people think.

    People throw around EPOC for burning calories like zumba teachers throw out the tag line "BURN 600 CALORIES AN HOUR"

    yeah there is a grain of truth to both- you get a good burn with zumba- and yeah- EPOC exists- but both are typically grossly over exaggerated.
  • little_simon
    little_simon Posts: 37 Member
    bingfit221 wrote: »
    little_simon wrote: »
    bingfit221 wrote: »
    little_simon wrote: »
    fizzleh wrote: »
    Every tried HIIT cardio?

    The afterburn effect means you'll burn more in less time doing it.

    It also builds strength due to explosive bursts

    You won't build any strength from HIIT, that's quite a popular myth.

    Yes you can burn more cals in a shorter time, but if it's true HIIT you won't be able to do it very often which means over the space of a week you'll burn less calories than steady state cardio which you can do everyday without it impacting on other training sessions.

    Even full time athletes don't do much true HIIT, so why regular trainees think they can do it regularly is beyond me.


    http://www.acefitness.org/fitness-fact-article/3317/High-Intensity-Interval-Training/

    They just released another article in the trainers journal about how you need 48 hours of recovery after HIIT because of the effects on your muscle fibers claiming too much would break down the muscle tissue.

    Although they do say you can do long steady state when recovering.

    That's the crazy thing about this industry is that everything is constantly changing.

    10 years ago planks and lunges were the worst exercises you could do... now they are in the top of the field. Crazy.

    BUT, in theory, HIIT you post burn calories up to 48 hours. Steady state, you do not. Therefore, you would probably still burn more calories via HIIT than steady state when you factor in post burn. They do say you burn roughly 5% more calories from fat via HIIT than steady state.

    Very few could do enough true HIIT to beat steady state cardio over the period of a week.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/stead-state-versus-intervals-finally-a-conclusion.html/

    More so in an athlete than a regular joe, yes. I attempt to do true HIIT but I am not athletic enough to hit 90% of my maximum HR for 20-60 seconds. My HR is too conditioned versus how fast my legs can move haha. I am more so in an anabolic state of cardio.

    Yeah agreed, which is why most athletes in any sport do the bulk of their training at a moderate intensity.


  • bingfit221
    bingfit221 Posts: 105 Member
    JoRocka wrote: »
    No. I'm saying people say it lasts for every and you get some much more burn. It's not as much as people think- the "after burn" impact is just not nearly as big as people think.

    People throw around EPOC for burning calories like zumba teachers throw out the tag line "BURN 600 CALORIES AN HOUR"

    yeah there is a grain of truth to both- you get a good burn with zumba- and yeah- EPOC exists- but both are typically grossly over exaggerated.

    Oh I concur. EPOC is the body’s effort to return your body to normal levels as regards oxygen, blood circulation and body temperature. People misconstrue the definition constantly and hence, over exaggerate the post burn all the time.
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    little_simon wrote: »
    bingfit221 wrote: »
    little_simon wrote: »
    bingfit221 wrote: »
    little_simon wrote: »
    fizzleh wrote: »
    Every tried HIIT cardio?

    The afterburn effect means you'll burn more in less time doing it.

    It also builds strength due to explosive bursts

    You won't build any strength from HIIT, that's quite a popular myth.

    Yes you can burn more cals in a shorter time, but if it's true HIIT you won't be able to do it very often which means over the space of a week you'll burn less calories than steady state cardio which you can do everyday without it impacting on other training sessions.

    Even full time athletes don't do much true HIIT, so why regular trainees think they can do it regularly is beyond me.


    http://www.acefitness.org/fitness-fact-article/3317/High-Intensity-Interval-Training/

    They just released another article in the trainers journal about how you need 48 hours of recovery after HIIT because of the effects on your muscle fibers claiming too much would break down the muscle tissue.

    Although they do say you can do long steady state when recovering.

    That's the crazy thing about this industry is that everything is constantly changing.

    10 years ago planks and lunges were the worst exercises you could do... now they are in the top of the field. Crazy.

    BUT, in theory, HIIT you post burn calories up to 48 hours. Steady state, you do not. Therefore, you would probably still burn more calories via HIIT than steady state when you factor in post burn. They do say you burn roughly 5% more calories from fat via HIIT than steady state.

    Very few could do enough true HIIT to beat steady state cardio over the period of a week.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/stead-state-versus-intervals-finally-a-conclusion.html/

    More so in an athlete than a regular joe, yes. I attempt to do true HIIT but I am not athletic enough to hit 90% of my maximum HR for 20-60 seconds. My HR is too conditioned versus how fast my legs can move haha. I am more so in an anabolic state of cardio.

    Yeah agreed, which is why most athletes in any sport do the bulk of their training at a moderate intensity.


    Another big reason, using cycling as a metaphor, is "nothing will make you able to cycle further or faster than the number of miles you ride."

    Basically, you need to build a foundation to which you will plant your training on. For a professional cyclist, that would be 50 miles of easy riding cycling every day, 6 days a week. No intervals, no hills, nothing but nice, easy, steady state cycling. That will make up about 75% of their training.

    After that, you've got your more specialized training - hills, intervals, strength trainig, etc. That will make up the next 20% of their trainings.

    After that, you've got maybe 5% of their training taken up by HIIT - but that will only be during the weeks approaching competition - just to squeeze every little bit of performance out of their body.

    This whole "HIIT warmup before strength training" or "6x/week HIIT training" is ludicrous and will never give you as good results as if you mixed it up with lots of resting and lots of traditional exercise.
  • bingfit221
    bingfit221 Posts: 105 Member
    @little_simon of course. An anabolic state of cardio is supposedly supposed to help your resistance to lactic acid build up.
  • husseycd
    husseycd Posts: 814 Member
    dieselbyte wrote: »
    BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »
    You don't have to burn extra calories. Just eat less and lift. And I'd recommend free weights and barbells over machines. Look into New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women, or Stronglifts 5x5.

    ^This. Running and the like is a great tool for cardiovascular health, but if you are more interested in weight/strength training, you don't have to force yourself to do cardio just to burn calories. I look at cardio as allowing me to eat more and maintain cardiovascular health, and the gym primarily as a time to increase strength etc. Primary tool for less calories should be a lower caloric intake.

    Another vote for this^. I don't do cardio. I do like to mountain bike but that's a summer activity (though I get to today. :smiley: ). I focus on strength base training and my body looks way better than it ever did than when I did cardio all the time. I'm also smaller than I've ever been as an adult.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories