Cardio: Interval or Steady?

depends on your goals, and what you prefer

interval training is more for explosive power and speed, steady state is more for endurance.

if your doing it purely for weight loss just do whatever you are more likely to stick with

I was doing really well with weight loss and I am just trying to lose the 8lbs I have gained in the past few months while also focusing on strength training. I am also trying to get "the most bang for my buck" at the gym when it comes to time since I have a hectic schedule.

Your rate of fat loss will be primarily dictated by your ability to adhere to a calorie deficit over sustained periods.

That being said, since you're looking to maximize efficiency I would opt for HIIT, provided that you are able to structure it into your program in a manner that it doesn't impair your recovery for your resistance training.

I was doing really well with weight loss and I am just trying to lose the 8lbs I have gained in the past few months while also focusing on strength training. I am also trying to get "the most bang for my buck" at the gym when it comes to time since I have a hectic schedule.

In that case, interval all the way. I alternate heavy weight days with interval training and I'm seeing better results than when I alternated with steady state. But you should probably realise if you've gained 8lbs while focusing on strength training, those 8lbs are probably muscle.

If you like how you look in the mirror - and if that's your belly in the pic, who wouldn't?! - I wouldn't worry too much. 8lbs of muscle will only make you look leaner, not bigger.

Your rate of fat loss will be primarily dictated by your ability to adhere to a calorie deficit over sustained periods.

That being said, since you're looking to maximize efficiency I would opt for HIIT, provided that you are able to structure it into your program in a manner that it doesn't impair your recovery for your resistance training.

QFT

I used to do interval, but I've read that HRMs aren't quite as accurate when do you interval cardio. So for now I stick with dancing and walking.

That is an odd reason for not doing it... don't let a device's limitations dictate what you do. Another option is to follow the TDEE method, then you dont' have to count calories burned from exercise at all.

I was doing really well with weight loss and I am just trying to lose the 8lbs I have gained in the past few months while also focusing on strength training. I am also trying to get "the most bang for my buck" at the gym when it comes to time since I have a hectic schedule.

HIIT training.

Depending your level try something like this.

60 seconds all out spring.
60 seconds walk.

Repeat as necessary.

Add another iteration each week.


Also do some of the long runs to keep endurance, but HIIt is great for a quick burn that lasts.

What is better? Interval sessions that are less time or steady sessions that are more time?

They do different things, so both really.

Most time vefficient for calorie expenditure is a moderately higher intensity steady state. You can sustain that for a longer period than HIIT, but it does need an aerobic base, hence why so many don't bother and only do HIIT.

I used to do interval, but I've read that HRMs aren't quite as accurate when do you interval cardio. So for now I stick with dancing and walking.

I haven't heard that about intervals, only about strength training. Now I have to research this.

I wouldn't, it's a silly reason to not do something.

Just curious. I use my hrm for both, seems to be working ok.

It depends what you're using it for. If you're using it as an HRM, then it's useful, if you're using it to approximate calorie expenditure then it's likely to have significant inaccuracies. That's largely because using your HR as a proxy for calorie expenditure depends on the assumptions made. The assumptions designed into thevast majority of HRMs are predicated around steady state HR elevation. In interval training as your HR is varying sharply and over short periods so the assumptions are invalid. Similarly in resistance training your HR goes into the anaerobic range regularly, at which point the assumptions are completely wrong.

I appreciate that lots of people like having a number, and as long as you're consistently using the same approximation then you're at least able to account for the error through experience.