HIIT vs steady state cardio

Options
13»

Replies

  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    chivalryder wrote: »
    joejccva71 wrote: »
    Terpnista84 wrote: »
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    Can be more effective for/at what?

    Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
    Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
    Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
    Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.

    For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.

    It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week. :)

    In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.



    The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.

    It sure is fun to watch those 180lbs come around the last corner on a sprint stage though....
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    chivalryder wrote: »
    joejccva71 wrote: »
    Terpnista84 wrote: »
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    Can be more effective for/at what?

    Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
    Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
    Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
    Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.

    For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.

    It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week. :)

    In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.



    The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.

    It sure is fun to watch those 180lbs come around the last corner on a sprint stage though....

    Only on flat stages. I'm sure it's a lot less dramatic after a hilly stage. ;)
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    chivalryder wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    chivalryder wrote: »
    joejccva71 wrote: »
    Terpnista84 wrote: »
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    Can be more effective for/at what?

    Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
    Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
    Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
    Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.

    For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.

    It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week. :)

    In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.



    The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.

    It sure is fun to watch those 180lbs come around the last corner on a sprint stage though....

    Only on flat stages. I'm sure it's a lot less dramatic after a hilly stage. ;)

    On a hilly stage, you wouldn't likely see any sprinters "sprinting" to the finish anyway ;)

  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    Options
    Reg4502 wrote: »
    I prefer HIIT because you burn a ton of calories because you are always moving.

    ...so you're not always moving during steady state cardio?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    chivalryder wrote: »
    Reg4502 wrote: »
    I prefer HIIT because you burn a ton of calories because you are always moving.

    Last I checked, when you're doing cardio, you're moving regardless of what activity you're doing.

    I kept coming to a dead stop. Now I know better.

  • matsprt1984
    matsprt1984 Posts: 181 Member
    Options
    chivalryder wrote: »
    joejccva71 wrote: »
    Terpnista84 wrote: »
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    Can be more effective for/at what?

    Increasing speed? steady state, long and slow (giggity).
    Increasing strength/explosiveness? HIIT
    Burning calories? hard to compare given varying intensities and durations.
    Losing weight? Considering weight loss is about calorie deficit, see the previous answer.

    For fat loss. I've read that steady state eventually starts eating away at muscle.

    It's why you don't see many bodybuilders running 5-10 miles 4-5 days a week. :)

    In fact, most marathon runners aren't really "jacked" per say. Some are, but most have horrible body composition.

    That "horrible" body composition is what wins races. If you're an endurance athlete, you want to be as light as possible without becoming unhealthy. The more you weigh, the more calories you need to burn to travel the same distance at the same speed.

    By being lighter, you burn fewer calories, which means you can go further and faster at the same level of energy exerted.

    Most Tour de France winners are on the extreme low end of the BMI scale because they can climb faster and go further before they become tired.

    The sprinters, who are often upwards of 180 lbs vs the 120 lbs of the hill climbers, will never win the overall title because they cannot keep up when going uphill. Their weight slows them down.

    I cringe when I see some of these comments. The poor Tour De France riders are stood up for unfair comparisions way too often. Stage racing (in particular grand tours) takes a special skill set. The top three are: 1) The ability to recover day after day, 2) be a good climber (not great, but good) 3) be a good Individual Time Trialist and 4) a really stong team for support. And I guess some luck. That is what wins grand tours. The importance of 2/3 vary on tour routes year to year.

    To address the highlighted parts above, there is a parity between weight and watts, generally the more you weigh the more watts you can produce comfortably so those little angels of the mountains tend to suffer on the flats when those big guys drill it, unless of course they have a strong team to protect them.

    So the first two highlighted sections, not so true. You need to do a little reasearch before you quote weight and type of rider...Cavendish is currently one of the best sprinters in the pro peloton. He races in the low 150's. Miguel Indurain raced in the mid 170's and won the TDF 5 times. Of course he was great at 1) recovery and 3) ITT. Many "good" climbers today are in the 140's and can limit their losses in the mountains but excel at time trialing. When Horner won the Vuelta he was racing at a couple ticks under 140 and you saw how he comparded to Rodriquez (races at mid 120's) on climbs.

    To OP, do it all, long steady state work, mix in interval work of various lenghts and recovery periods and weights. I sure would not get too caught up in what someone on these boards labels as HIIT or not.


  • upgradeddiddy
    upgradeddiddy Posts: 281 Member
    Options
    It's all dependent on one of two things 1) are you shooting for calories or 2) are you setting a straight time for your cardio. If it's #1 then it's the same because you are just shooting for calories out and regardless if you are doing HIIT or steady if you are trying to hit 400 calories lost either way is 400 calories lost. If you are going for time HIIT gives you more bang for your buck because of the variation or work and heart rate you are putting on your body so you will burn more doing HIIT cardio for 45 minutes vs steady for 45.

Categories