Intervals vs long cardio sessions
Replies
-
To answer the OP's question. The one you prefer, is the one you will do, which will be the one that's most effective...
For myself, it's not one or the other. I like both...10 -
-
stanmann571 wrote: »
Even if explained to that’s typically how those studies work I don’t think you’d care.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Even if explained to that’s typically how those studies work I don’t think you’d care.
Assuming facts not in evidence got it.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Even if explained to that’s typically how those studies work I don’t think you’d care.
Assuming facts not in evidence got it.
Not understand how a field works; is fine too.1 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5237463/
Why would you want to spend twice the amount of time doing something when you can get the same results with HIIT .
Not to mention if you are training for distance events you will usually mix in both types of training to ensure you increase capacity and have the ability to finish the duration while improving race times.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Even if explained to that’s typically how those studies work I don’t think you’d care.
Assuming facts not in evidence got it.
Not understand how a field works; is fine too.
Basing your argument on a single study with very small sample size that hasn't been replicated with imprecise parameters and incomplete details. That's fine, but acknowledge the deficiencies. Or don't. But not dealing with the deficiencies doesn't make them go away
1. small sample size
2. Incorrect estimation of workload
3. inaccurate/incomplete record of work performance
I'm sure I left a few out2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Even if explained to that’s typically how those studies work I don’t think you’d care.
Assuming facts not in evidence got it.
Not understand how a field works; is fine too.
Basing your argument on a single study with very small sample size that hasn't been replicated with imprecise parameters and incomplete details. That's fine, but acknowledge the deficiencies. Or don't. But not dealing with the deficiencies doesn't make them go away
1. small sample size
2. Incorrect estimation of workload
3. inaccurate/incomplete record of work performance
I'm sure I left a few out
I sent you three0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Even if explained to that’s typically how those studies work I don’t think you’d care.
Assuming facts not in evidence got it.
Not understand how a field works; is fine too.
Basing your argument on a single study with very small sample size that hasn't been replicated with imprecise parameters and incomplete details. That's fine, but acknowledge the deficiencies. Or don't. But not dealing with the deficiencies doesn't make them go away
1. small sample size
2. Incorrect estimation of workload
3. inaccurate/incomplete record of work performance
I'm sure I left a few out
I sent you threehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5237463/
Why would you want to spend twice the amount of time doing something when you can get the same results with HIIT .
Well this one was a failThe changes in body mass and body fat percentage did not differ significantly between the HIIT and MICT groups (p > 0.05).
And since there aren't any others.
That's 1 not 3. You can't count very well.1 -
The point is why do long cardio sessions when you can do hiit for the same general results. But whatever makes you feel better big boy
5 -
I remember reading somewhere that long steady state cardio was more effective for creating a calorie burn simply because you were able to do more/longer which is more than just 15 min a few times a week.
Pretty much.
All the bickering over marginal gains using a protocol that's going to increase injury risk is very amusing though.5 -
The point is why do long cardio sessions when you can do hiit for the same general results. But whatever makes you feel better big boy
The point is that the benefits are very narrow. And have nothing to do with fat loss.
If I run 5 miles, my calorie burn varies very little whether I run a 12 minute mile or an 8 minute mile.
If I want to increase my run/race time I need to either. Run further... up my distance to 7 or 8 miles... or run faster.. and decrease my distance accordingly. Ideally, I would do both in separate sessions. so I might have a moderate speed day(5 miles), a long day(7 miles), and a speed day(4 miles-with 2-3 miles of that being the actual work time and the rest being recovery... the work may be all together or spread out as 400/800 meter sessions although with shorter faster sessions, the day might end up being 5 or 6 miles) But every session will be supporting my goal... which is to run a faster 5 miler or 3 miler0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The point is why do long cardio sessions when you can do hiit for the same general results. But whatever makes you feel better big boy
The point is that the benefits are very narrow. And have nothing to do with fat loss.
If I run 5 miles, my calorie burn varies very little whether I run a 12 minute mile or an 8 minute mile.
If I want to increase my run/race time I need to either. Run further... up my distance to 7 or 8 miles... or run faster.. and decrease my distance accordingly. Ideally, I would do both in separate sessions. so I might have a moderate speed day(5 miles), a long day(7 miles), and a speed day(4 miles-with 2-3 miles of that being the actual work time and the rest being recovery... the work may be all together or spread out as 400/800 meter sessions although with shorter faster sessions, the day might end up being 5 or 6 miles) But every session will be supporting my goal... which is to run a faster 5 miler or 3 miler
I'd put before you my concept of long steady state cardio vs HIIT would be your 7 miles vs a 10 min HIT workout. A TRUE 10 minute HIT workout- not that bullSh** they call HIIIT that's an hour long.
Yes- HIT for 10 minutes is great- and is going to improve your conditioning. But if you're looking for calorie burn- 7 miles over the course of an hour is going to do more for you.
But - specifically talking about calorie burn here.
Not talking about conditioning or health bennies.2 -
The point is why do long cardio sessions when you can do hiit for the same general results. But whatever makes you feel better big boy
If you have a short limited amount of time weekly, and your only goal is fat loss and heart health - then yes to the HIIT being better.
Except - one must get the endurance built up to do it - because an injury knocking you out for 2-3 weeks kinda ruins the whole effect. Hopefully just once if lesson learned.
But if your cardio goals are beyond heart health, if you have lifting focus, or just to eat more daily with increased TDEE - then it won't be for the same general results or benefit frankly.7 -
HIIT interval cardio/ complex’s/ or density workouts are all superior to traditional steady-state cardio for fat loss
Those, somehow, don't exactly look so much like scholarly articles as advetorials.
OP each has its place in terms of fitness improvements. HIIT is trendy right now and can be a convenient way to get a workout in if you're stressed for time but the effects of EPOC (afterburn) tend to be grossly exaggerated. Personally I tend to alternate between low intensity, steady state workouts and intervals (not necessarily HIIT as my fitness goals include endurance sports)I’m gonna go with the results we have for our athletes and say that HIIT is superior for decrease body fat percentage and increasing work capacity. But if you’d like you can keep reading more studies on it. You’ll find pretty similar research. Let me know when you finish your masters in kinesiology we can rub our pieces of paper together.
One would think that someone purporting to have a post-graduate degree would know the difference between anecdote and data......
5 -
in the many years I have been training long cardio has been better at weight loss. it may take me longer but when its off...its off.Obviously CI<CO needs to be acchived to lose weight, that goes without saying.
But sticking to just one isn’t the best advice. Just like food, your exercise routine need to be varied and balanced in order to stick with your goals and make it interesting.
Maybe I should have Said fat loss instead of weight loss.
im sure many Monday morning quarterbacks would disagree but that has been my successful experience. (30 years in the gyms) lost 35 pounds after second child - took 2.5 years but never came back and I did not yo yo.
1 -
Hey all, I’m just wondering about peoples knowledge or experience with intervals and long (1hr) slow cardio session, and what is best in aiding weight loss?
When it comes to cardio, the key thing is to pick/find something, whatever it is, that you enjoy. (More often than not, that won't involve being remotely near a gym, although some people do enjoy aerobics classes).2 -
In my experience HIIT (8X30 sec) sessions are great for aerobic/anaerobic effect but suck for cal burn.
Moderate intensity interval sessions of10-12 mins @ 700 cal/hr done in sets of 2-4 w/5 mins rest in between sets are best in terms of cal burn, time and convenience since I can do that at any time at home.
For endurance, I can go on a 7-10 mile hike w/a 1-2k feet elevation change and burn about 2500 cals in 3-4 hrs which on an hrly basis isn't much different than what I can do on my rower.
So for weight loss/maintenance purpose, I find moderate intensity cardio most effective.1 -
To the OP, whatever floats your boat and you are more likely to do.
Unless you have specific training goals or things you are trying to achieve, one or both will help you out.
In my case, I have very specific fitness needs that - shocker - benefit from training in both styles. I do some steady state cardio, and then I do some crossfit/muscle endurance/cardio routines that are pretty intense. I need both to do what I want to do in my sport, so I do both. This also helps prevent boredom (I find most steady state cardio mind numbing).1 -
In my experience HIIT (8X30 sec) sessions are great for aerobic/anaerobic effect but suck for cal burn.
Moderate intensity interval sessions of10-12 mins @ 700 cal/hr done in sets of 2-4 w/5 mins rest in between sets are best in terms of cal burn, time and convenience since I can do that at any time at home.
For endurance, I can go on a 7-10 mile hike w/a 1-2k feet elevation change and burn about 2500 cals in 3-4 hrs which on an hrly basis isn't much different than what I can do on my rower.
So for weight loss/maintenance purpose, I find moderate intensity cardio most effective.
If trying to achieve maximum calorie burn, it is important to also measure calories/week and calories/month. Who cares if you can burn 700 calories in an hour if you cannot do it day in and day out. According to my garmin watch, I burn about 8000-10000 calories a week, every week. For reference, my daily workout is 8ish miles and 1500' vert (which I do on stairs) and I only log 1200 ish calories, I also do it in about 2 hours.
This isn't mentioned as a pissing contest, but rather as an example. I doubt many people doing hiit can match the calorie burn of someone putting in 40-50 miles per week running or 1000+ miles in a month of cycling.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions