Do you agree with Jerry's video, that HIIT produces more muscle loss than Steady State?

I can't agree. Of the studies I've looked at, HIIT type protocols have been as good at or better than steady state when it comes to muscle retention and/or fat losses. Though the points he makes on intensity vs time and substrate use make sense, he is also speaking as if everyone doing any type of HIIT is absolutely "bonking" due to completely depleted glycogen stores, and starts using muscle as energy to make up the intensity. If it was that easy to deplete all glycogen reserves, many of us would "bonk" on a regular basis and lose muscle.

Cortisol usually does raise more with higher intensities, but raises cortisol levels don't equate to muscle loss either.


I'd have to see some data and studies that grossly change my mind before I'd agree with the basis of this video.

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Workout4Health wrote: »

Jerry says that even though HIIT produces the most weight loss in the shortest amount of time...

Well that's nonsense for a start, therefore any hypothesis developed from that basis is fundamentally flawed.

Weight loss is driven by calorie deficit, HIIT doesn't contribute significant calorie expenditure.

HIIT does claim to increase the burn rate during and after the workout.

dfein001 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Workout4Health wrote: »

Jerry says that even though HIIT produces the most weight loss in the shortest amount of time...

Well that's nonsense for a start, therefore any hypothesis developed from that basis is fundamentally flawed.

Weight loss is driven by calorie deficit, HIIT doesn't contribute significant calorie expenditure.

HIIT does claim to increase the burn rate during and after the workout.

It's true. By a few percent of a small number.

The other fundamental error is the assumption that use of amino acids as a fuel substrate during a workout equals “burning muscle”.

That’s the same flawed logic as the “fat burning zone”.

A surge in cortisol levels after a hard workout is an important training response. It disrupts cellular membranes allowing an increased influx of anabolic hormones for one thing.

The numbers will change depending on the person, but these are reasonable for me. For demonstration purposes:

20 minutes of HIIT = ~250 kCal + 14 % EPOC
180 minutes cycling = 1,800 kCal + 7 % EPOC

Since fat loss depends on a calorie deficit, more calories is better.

Also, it's a lot more enjoyable to do a long bike ride and enjoy the changing scenery than it is to ride up and down a hill at race pace until I want to puke.

This content has been removed.

Workout4Health wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

dfein001 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Workout4Health wrote: »

Jerry says that even though HIIT produces the most weight loss in the shortest amount of time...

Well that's nonsense for a start, therefore any hypothesis developed from that basis is fundamentally flawed.

Weight loss is driven by calorie deficit, HIIT doesn't contribute significant calorie expenditure.

HIIT does claim to increase the burn rate during and after the workout.

Just because advocates claim something, doesn't make it meaningful

Look at it in context. Short duration activity with insignificantly higher expenditures is dwarved by longer duration. EPOC for steady state is about half of that of the HIIT, so again easily dominates the maths.

Jerry claims that HIIT training burns more calories during the workout than longer cardio, but that's not the main emphasis. He says that steady state cardio increases your metabolism more than interval training. And I always thought the consensus was that steady state cardio burns more calories during the workout but less calories after. So Jerry has basically reversed the overall consensus.

But is he right? Does steady state cardio increase your metabolism more than interval training? That's really amazing because experts always talks about the afterburn effect with hiit cardio, not steady state.

"Experts."

I personally find HIIT is very stressful on my body (mentally and physically) which affects my recovery and lifting performance. I would imagine it would affect my results (and therefore muscle retention). I don't know about the reasoning in the video though.

From what I have read, I've heard HIIT especially in women typically have poorer recovery rates and interfere with results. So it goes back to interference with lifting performance. Now obviously this may not be true across the board and it will depend on the overall goals of the person. Some people enjoy HIIT vs. LISS so we have to take that into account too. Also HIIT can be very useful for endurance and specific training, but for bodybuilding, meh, I'm not convinced it is better than LISS for muscle maintenance during a cut.

He's selling stuff and even giving away a free T-shirt if you buy enough. What he says gotta be true, right? <eye roll>

So many bad assumptions in that video, IMO. Too many to go through point by point, especially when I already wasted 7:44 of my short remaining life watching the thing, numerous built-in commercials and all (even after the one minute mark).

So, I'll just answer the question: No, IMO, he's not right. Posts above have cited the main reasons.

I'd still recommend steady state for beginners and for weight loss over HIIT, which has been absurdly over-hyped and misrepresented, but does have a useful place in athletic training.

Please note that he makes a point of saying he's talking about "high intensity interval cardio (HIIC)" not HIIT. I'm not sure exactly what distinction he's trying to capture there.

Even so, I'm routinely confused when people talk about HIIT as if it were one homogeneous thing. People do a huge range of things that they call HIIT, from calisthenics circuits to running to resistance workouts to rowing to . . . anything.

It challenges my imagination to believe that the physical and metabolic effects are sufficiently identical across all those modalities that it even makes sense to talk about them as one thing. Somehow, modalities that have different effects at lower intensities all have the same effect at high intensity. Sure.

Workout4Health wrote: »

That's really amazing because experts always talks about the afterburn effect with hiit cardio, not steady state.

Those that gush about the effect are generally trying to sell something. It's also worth noting that HIIT, when one is talking about marginal gains in EPOC and/ or fat consumption (massively simplified) is a very different experience than the classes sold as HIIT.

A coach needs to look at individual needs before designing a plan. There is no one size in that respect. Different types of session have different effects, and a well rounded scheme benefits from having several. That may include HIIT, although for most people straightforward interval training will give solid benefit without the recovery demands.

Ive noticed a running theme here with a few of your previous posts. You take a lot of things you see online to be face value, even if it is only assumptions and no hard proof. And still believe it even when others have proven to you that it is false.

Jerry makes A LOT of claims in this video. The entire video is pretty much just advertisement for his store, and he fails to realise that everyone's body is different. HIIT might work for some people, it might not work for others. HIIT helps me to build up stamina and find strength in different ways, whereas some people it can be damaging.

I would do more research if I were you and not believing some youtube "expert".