Runners World advice to overweight new runners - HIIT
Replies
-
HIIT is the single most overrated method in the fitness world today.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html
I improved my 2 mile run time from 19:30 to 15:45 doing HIIT training as opposed to my previous endurance training as well as lost body fat in the process. The calorie burn might not be overly significant compared to steady cardio but If it leads you to being able to run longer and faster I'm not sure how it's overrated...
It's overrated when it is being hyped as the "one true faith" answer for everything from weight loss to hemorrhoids, and when deconditioned individuals in their 40s who are 200 lbs overweight are being told to do "wind sprints".
Keep in mind: "overrated" does not mean "ineffective". It just means......well, overrated. I would recommended that you follow the link and spend some time on that website. Once you are there, you might find you want to stay awhile.
Its not overrated at all. It's a very good thing to include in any training plan. Of course you need to incorporate endurance runs into your exercise, if not anything to vary things up a little. Do I think someone who is obese should start out with HIIT? Probably not. Do I think it's a good way to improve or maintain muscle? Hell yeah. I read that website and it isn't anything I haven't heard before. That's all fine and dandy but I prefer to base my knowledge off of personal experience rather than some article.
http://www.crossfitsantarosa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/marathon_sprinter.jpg
^ ^^^^^
Just saying.
n=1
And that picture is intellectually dishonest.
Most 400m training is low intensity work in the first place
The ‘interval’ work that 400m guys do isn’t the kind of interval training being advocated for fat loss in the first place. It’s maximum speed work interspersed with very long rest periods. It’s not short intervals with short rest periods for the most part.
400m sprinters are muscular because of their weight training, genetics and drug use. Not because of their track training.
Most marathoners don’t lift weights, nor need to carry a lot of muscle for optimal performance.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/sprinters-vs-marathoners.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html0 -
HIIT is the single most overrated method in the fitness world today.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html
HIIT isn't superior to endurance because of overall calories burned. HIIT is superior because it induces an "anabolic response" in your body, which stimulates muscle growth and fat burning. Whereas, long slow endurance cardio tends raise your cortisol, which is your body's main stress hormone. Cortisol stimulates fat deposition and muscle catabolism.
Stop making things up.
HIIT won't build muscle, this is done via progressive resistance and a caloric surplus, nor will steady-state induce catabolism (unless you're training like an endurance athlete). To induce a catabolic response requires a much longer period of cardio than your typical trainee is likely to engage in.
This is one of the biggest mistakes in discussions/recommendations about fitness and training. Too often people look at what I call the "micro" picture--for example an isolated process like a temporary rise in cortisol--and try to draw "macro" conclusions or generalizations without actually testing them.0 -
HIIT is the single most overrated method in the fitness world today.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html
HIIT isn't superior to endurance because of overall calories burned. HIIT is superior because it induces an "anabolic response" in your body, which stimulates muscle growth and fat burning. Whereas, long slow endurance cardio tends raise your cortisol, which is your body's main stress hormone. Cortisol stimulates fat deposition and muscle catabolism.
Stop making things up.
HIIT won't build muscle, this is done via progressive resistance and a caloric surplus, nor will steady-state induce catabolism (unless you're training like an endurance athlete). To induce a catabolic response requires a much longer period of cardio than your typical trainee is likely to engage in.
Wow, you must not know anything. HIIT has been shown in peer reviewed literature to increase testosterone and build muscle.
LInk to primary source or GTFO.0 -
HIIT is the single most overrated method in the fitness world today.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html
I improved my 2 mile run time from 19:30 to 15:45 doing HIIT training as opposed to my previous endurance training as well as lost body fat in the process. The calorie burn might not be overly significant compared to steady cardio but If it leads you to being able to run longer and faster I'm not sure how it's overrated...
It's overrated when it is being hyped as the "one true faith" answer for everything from weight loss to hemorrhoids, and when deconditioned individuals in their 40s who are 200 lbs overweight are being told to do "wind sprints".
Keep in mind: "overrated" does not mean "ineffective". It just means......well, overrated. I would recommended that you follow the link and spend some time on that website. Once you are there, you might find you want to stay awhile.
Its not overrated at all. It's a very good thing to include in any training plan. Of course you need to incorporate endurance runs into your exercise, if not anything to vary things up a little. Do I think someone who is obese should start out with HIIT? Probably not. Do I think it's a good way to improve or maintain muscle? Hell yeah. I read that website and it isn't anything I haven't heard before. That's all fine and dandy but I prefer to base my knowledge off of personal experience rather than some article.
http://www.crossfitsantarosa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/marathon_sprinter.jpg
^ ^^^^^
Just saying.
n=1
And that picture is intellectually dishonest.
Most 400m training is low intensity work in the first place
The ‘interval’ work that 400m guys do isn’t the kind of interval training being advocated for fat loss in the first place. It’s maximum speed work interspersed with very long rest periods. It’s not short intervals with short rest periods for the most part.
400m sprinters are muscular because of their weight training, genetics and drug use. Not because of their track training.
Most marathoners don’t lift weights, nor need to carry a lot of muscle for optimal performance.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/sprinters-vs-marathoners.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
You stole my phase. That picture is thrown about all the time by the crossfitters, but it has become more of a joke.
Not only do marathoners "not need" a lot of muscle--it can be a detriment to overall performance. First of all, using a single picture of an elite marathoner is BS to begin with--you are talking about a highly specialized training and preparation routine designed not for health but for optimal performance. Kenyan marathoners don't have a lot of muscle because THEY DON'T WANT ANY, not because they can't. All an elite marathoner wants to do is RUN FAST FOR A LONG TIME. Anything that keeps them from running fast for a long time is superfluous. The same with Tour cyclists; the same with competitive rock climbers.
A more honest comparison/example would be with triathletes. In this sport, a greater amount of muscle mass can enhance overall performance. These guys do as much aerobic training, if not more, than any elite marathoner, yet their bodies look significantly different.0 -
HIIT is the single most overrated method in the fitness world today.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html
HIIT isn't superior to endurance because of overall calories burned. HIIT is superior because it induces an "anabolic response" in your body, which stimulates muscle growth and fat burning. Whereas, long slow endurance cardio tends raise your cortisol, which is your body's main stress hormone. Cortisol stimulates fat deposition and muscle catabolism.
Stop making things up.
HIIT won't build muscle, this is done via progressive resistance and a caloric surplus, nor will steady-state induce catabolism (unless you're training like an endurance athlete). To induce a catabolic response requires a much longer period of cardio than your typical trainee is likely to engage in.
Wow, you must not know anything. HIIT has been shown in peer reviewed literature to increase testosterone and build muscle.
LInk to primary source or GTFO.
Here's a couple for you. If I felt like taking more time, I could get lots of additional sources. I don't remember the authoer of every study I've read off the top of my head though, and searching pubmed is tedious.
Meckel, Y., Eliakim, A., Seraev, M., Zaldivar, F., Cooper, D., Sabiv, M., Nemet, D. The Effect of a Brief Sprit Interval Exercise on Growth Factors and Inflammatory Mediators. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009. 23(1), 225-230.
Meckel, Y., Nemet, D., Bar-Sela, S., Radom-Aizik, S. Hormonal and Inflammatory Responses to Different Types of Sprint Interval Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2011. 25(8), 2161-2169.0 -
bump to read later
0 -
And that picture is intellectually dishonest.
Most 400m training is low intensity work in the first place
The ‘interval’ work that 400m guys do isn’t the kind of interval training being advocated for fat loss in the first place. It’s maximum speed work interspersed with very long rest periods. It’s not short intervals with short rest periods for the most part.
400m sprinters are muscular because of their weight training, genetics and drug use. Not because of their track training.
Most marathoners don’t lift weights, nor need to carry a lot of muscle for optimal performance.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/sprinters-vs-marathoners.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
1. You and AZ have made up your own semantics that differ from the rest of the world. 400m training is not "low intensity." It's still considered a form of interval training. Many different interval training protocols have been shown to be effective for fat loss, even the lower intensity protocols. And many still refer to lower intensity interval training as HIIT; there is not strict definition.
2. Every successful marathon runner does intervals.
3. Almost every successful marathon runner does some form of lower body resistance training.
4. And once again, sprinting can in fact build muscle. Do some research before posting your incorrect personal opinions. Of course it doesn't build muscle as well as resistance training, but it still elicits an anabolic response.0 -
Here's a couple for you. If I felt like taking more time, I could get lots of additional sources. I don't remember the authoer of every study I've read off the top of my head though, and searching pubmed is tedious.
Meckel, Y., Eliakim, A., Seraev, M., Zaldivar, F., Cooper, D., Sabiv, M., Nemet, D. The Effect of a Brief Sprit Interval Exercise on Growth Factors and Inflammatory Mediators. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009. 23(1), 225-230.
Meckel, Y., Nemet, D., Bar-Sela, S., Radom-Aizik, S. Hormonal and Inflammatory Responses to Different Types of Sprint Interval Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2011. 25(8), 2161-2169.
Acute hormonal fluctuations do not elicit an anabolic response.This is one of the biggest mistakes in discussions/recommendations about fitness and training. Too often people look at what I call the "micro" picture--for example an isolated process like a temporary rise in cortisol--and try to draw "macro" conclusions or generalizations without actually testing them.0 -
bump!!0
-
How did a thread on interval training for obese beginners turn into a discussion citing Kenyan marathoners? Seems like a threadjacking to me.0
-
HIIT is the single most overrated method in the fitness world today.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html
I improved my 2 mile run time from 19:30 to 15:45 doing HIIT training as opposed to my previous endurance training as well as lost body fat in the process. The calorie burn might not be overly significant compared to steady cardio but If it leads you to being able to run longer and faster I'm not sure how it's overrated...
It's overrated when it is being hyped as the "one true faith" answer for everything from weight loss to hemorrhoids, and when deconditioned individuals in their 40s who are 200 lbs overweight are being told to do "wind sprints".
Keep in mind: "overrated" does not mean "ineffective". It just means......well, overrated. I would recommended that you follow the link and spend some time on that website. Once you are there, you might find you want to stay awhile.
Its not overrated at all. It's a very good thing to include in any training plan. Of course you need to incorporate endurance runs into your exercise, if not anything to vary things up a little. Do I think someone who is obese should start out with HIIT? Probably not. Do I think it's a good way to improve or maintain muscle? Hell yeah. I read that website and it isn't anything I haven't heard before. That's all fine and dandy but I prefer to base my knowledge off of personal experience rather than some article.
http://www.crossfitsantarosa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/marathon_sprinter.jpg
^ ^^^^^
Just saying.
n=1
And that picture is intellectually dishonest.
Most 400m training is low intensity work in the first place
The ‘interval’ work that 400m guys do isn’t the kind of interval training being advocated for fat loss in the first place. It’s maximum speed work interspersed with very long rest periods. It’s not short intervals with short rest periods for the most part.
400m sprinters are muscular because of their weight training, genetics and drug use. Not because of their track training.
Most marathoners don’t lift weights, nor need to carry a lot of muscle for optimal performance.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/sprinters-vs-marathoners.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
You stole my phase. That picture is thrown about all the time by the crossfitters, but it has become more of a joke.
Not only do marathoners "not need" a lot of muscle--it can be a detriment to overall performance. First of all, using a single picture of an elite marathoner is BS to begin with--you are talking about a highly specialized training and preparation routine designed not for health but for optimal performance. Kenyan marathoners don't have a lot of muscle because THEY DON'T WANT ANY, not because they can't. All an elite marathoner wants to do is RUN FAST FOR A LONG TIME. Anything that keeps them from running fast for a long time is superfluous. The same with Tour cyclists; the same with competitive rock climbers.
A more honest comparison/example would be with triathletes. In this sport, a greater amount of muscle mass can enhance overall performance. These guys do as much aerobic training, if not more, than any elite marathoner, yet their bodies look significantly different.
Just look at McPanda. Guy just did a half iron man, he doesn't look like a marathon runner. Guy looks jacked.0 -
Acute hormonal fluctuations do not elicit an anabolic response.
So now you're going to argue semantics over what defines an "anabolic response?" Okay, can you agree on this: "HIIT induces a "more anabolic response" than endurance cardio."0 -
And that picture is intellectually dishonest.
Most 400m training is low intensity work in the first place
The ‘interval’ work that 400m guys do isn’t the kind of interval training being advocated for fat loss in the first place. It’s maximum speed work interspersed with very long rest periods. It’s not short intervals with short rest periods for the most part.
400m sprinters are muscular because of their weight training, genetics and drug use. Not because of their track training.
Most marathoners don’t lift weights, nor need to carry a lot of muscle for optimal performance.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/sprinters-vs-marathoners.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
1. You and AZ have made up your own semantics that differ from the rest of the world. 400m training is not "low intensity."
Read the article. Quoted from an actual sprint coach:
There isn’t a single elite 400m program that doesn’t use at least 3 days of low intensity, high volume tempo work (some even opt for things like a 20minute run on grass). Their volumes are higher than [100m] sprinters, but generally similar intensities for the majority of the time. Their fast stuff comes with long rests and couldn’t really be considered interval stuff, IMO, anyway (3x350m with 10-15mins rest for the coaches who like LOW rest periods).”
“Some programs will go up to about 30minutes or so continuous very easy (not super often, usually early in the year), but I’d remember that some of these tempo exercises are essentially continuous. If you’re going 30 seconds on / 30 seconds off and stuff like that @ 50% or so, you’re talking really low intensity, but quite continuous. One of MJ’s famous workouts was 10×200 with 200m jog between reps, so it was continuous, but basically like a pseudo-fartlek.”And many still refer to lower intensity interval training as HIIT; there is not strict definition.
Words have meanings. HIIT stands for HIGH Intensity Interval Training.2. Every successful marathon runner does intervals.
Not HIIT3. Almost every successful marathon runner does some form of lower body resistance training.
Their training is geared toward muscular endurance, not hypertrophy.4. And once again, sprinting can in fact build muscle. Do some research before posting your incorrect personal opinions.
Physician heal thyself.0 -
On the original point of whether experienced runners would recommend this approach to beginners, I don't see that a long, slow build up and intense intervals to burn fat (controversially!) , give you a longer stride and get you to your "fighting weight" are mutually exclusive.
When you train for an event, it's a good idea to have different goals for each session, say:
Monday: recovery run
Wednesday: Intervals or hills
Friday: tempo run
Sunday: long, slow run
There is no reason beginners, providing their weight doesn't give them joint problems doing so, do, say, two C25K sessions a week and one of two of these HIIT session to "stretch their legs."
To beginner runners who have dared to read this far and did not get scared off, my beginner's tips are here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/BerryH/view/20-things-i-wish-i-d-known-about-running-when-i-started-1039360 -
bump!
Love it! I'm on my journey again and HITT is my number one fav! Great post!0 -
Acute hormonal fluctuations do not elicit an anabolic response.
So now you're going to argue semantics over what defines an "anabolic response?" Okay, can you agree on this: "HIIT induces a "more anabolic response" than endurance cardio."
Which will have no measurable effect on body composition.0 -
Their training is geared toward muscular endurance, not hypertrophy.
I never said it was. That's neither here nor there. You're grasping at straws.0 -
Just as a side note, the RW programme makes no claims to build muscle, shed fat better than endurance sessions or increase endurance on its own. The intro says: "Can't run yet? More than three stone to lose? Follow Plan A to build strength, prep your body for running and lose a stone in six weeks."0
-
Acute hormonal fluctuations do not elicit an anabolic response.
So now you're going to argue semantics over what defines an "anabolic response?" Okay, can you agree on this: "HIIT induces a "more anabolic response" than endurance cardio."
Which will have no measurable effect on body composition.
Once again, you reveal yourself as someone who apparently hasn't read a single scientific study since 1996. There are so many studies demonstrating that HIIT leads to a better body composition than endurance training I don't even know where to begin.
Here's an article on Charles Poliquin's blog. You might have heard of him, given that he's an internationally reknowed supertrainer. There are numerous primary sources cited at the end of the article, all of which I strongly suggest you read.
http://www.charlespoliquin.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/698/Belly_Fat__Lose_It.aspx0 -
bump0
-
Acute hormonal fluctuations do not elicit an anabolic response.
So now you're going to argue semantics over what defines an "anabolic response?" Okay, can you agree on this: "HIIT induces a "more anabolic response" than endurance cardio."
Which will have no measurable effect on body composition.
Once again, you reveal yourself as someone who apparently hasn't read a single scientific study since 1996. There are so many studies demonstrating that HIIT leads to a better body composition than endurance training I don't even know where to begin.
Here's an article on Charles Poliquin's blog. You might have heard of him, given that he's an internationally reknowed supertrainer. There are numerous primary sources cited at the end of the article, all of which I strongly suggest you read.
http://www.charlespoliquin.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/698/Belly_Fat__Lose_It.aspx
LOLoquin lost his mind years ago.
As far as his studies, they don't support your conclusions.
The only study that showed a statistically-significant difference in body composition was Tremblay, and this was 2-3 lbs over 12 weeks. Groundbreaking!0 -
I'm not a runner but I've read enough studies to know that short bursts of activity are superior to long, boring, useless efforts whether it's weight lifting or running. The human body is designed to function in spurts, not like a herd of zebra.
Actually, there are those who argue humans were designed to run long distances, not short fast spurts. You should check out Born to Run. He raises that argument. Not saying he is right, but his argument was pretty interesting.0 -
LOLoquin lost his mind years ago.
As far as his studies, they don't support your conclusions.
The only study that showed a statistically-significant difference in body composition was Tremblay, and this was 2-3 lbs over 12 weeks. Groundbreaking!
You keep making these bold statements, but you haven't provided any actual literature to support them.
Here are some more studies showing that HIIT leads to a better body composition then endurance cardio:
Irving, B., Davis, C., et al. Effect of Exercise Training Intensity on Abdominal Visceral Fat and Body Composition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2008. 40(11), 1863-1872.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n4/abs/0803781a.html0 -
I'm not a runner but I've read enough studies to know that short bursts of activity are superior to long, boring, useless efforts whether it's weight lifting or running. The human body is designed to function in spurts, not like a herd of zebra.
Wrong.
You like reading?
Find out where your diaphragm ties in compared to almost every other animal on the planet and what that does to your breathing cycle. Find out if your cat or dog can take 4 steps breathing in and 4 steps breathing out, for hours. Find out where their diphragm ties in.
Find out how your head stays level when you walk or jog or sprint, and almost nothing else on the planet has the same ligature, and why that's important.
Find out why you have an arch and more nerves in your feet than anywhere else except your genitals.
Look into why we sweat and almost everything else on the planet doesn't.
We are in fact designed to walk and jog for hours. Ask those little guys in the Kalihari or the aborigines in Australia about traditional hunting.
We can sprint and we can lift enough to get by and help us survive, and we can improve our fitness with that, and it's fun, but we have evolved to run.
"Useless"?
As you are not a runner, then you rely on what you've read, which means you will see whatever you want to see, especially if it's on internet forums full of "experts". You certainly wont see what I and millions of others see from the experience of running; the connection to the earth, the community of runners, the fun and camraderie of the races, the frustration, challenges and rewards. Come feel the snow underfoot as the sun rises on a winter morning while the world sleeps and you'll know. Knowledge is not all about what someone wrote somewhere.
Bored? What can I say to that, other than look inside your self. If you can't spend a little time inside your head while you push your body a bit, then maybe there are other things to consider.0 -
LOLoquin lost his mind years ago.
As far as his studies, they don't support your conclusions.
The only study that showed a statistically-significant difference in body composition was Tremblay, and this was 2-3 lbs over 12 weeks. Groundbreaking!
You keep making these bold statements, but you haven't provided any actual literature to support them.
Here are some more studies showing that HIIT leads to a better body composition then endurance cardio:
Irving, B., Davis, C., et al. Effect of Exercise Training Intensity on Abdominal Visceral Fat and Body Composition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2008. 40(11), 1863-1872.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n4/abs/0803781a.html
LOL
Read the study, not just the abstract.
After 16 weeks, the HIET group lost a whopping 2.2 kg of fat. Whoopee!
Edit: And when did walking 3.7mph for 53 minutes become HIIT?
0 -
I'm not a runner but I've read enough studies to know that short bursts of activity are superior to long, boring, useless efforts whether it's weight lifting or running. The human body is designed to function in spurts, not like a herd of zebra.
Actually, there are those who argue humans were designed to run long distances, not short fast spurts. You should check out Born to Run. He raises that argument. Not saying he is right, but his argument was pretty interesting.
^yeah that^0 -
LOLoquin lost his mind years ago.
As far as his studies, they don't support your conclusions.
The only study that showed a statistically-significant difference in body composition was Tremblay, and this was 2-3 lbs over 12 weeks. Groundbreaking!
You keep making these bold statements, but you haven't provided any actual literature to support them.
Here are some more studies showing that HIIT leads to a better body composition then endurance cardio:
Irving, B., Davis, C., et al. Effect of Exercise Training Intensity on Abdominal Visceral Fat and Body Composition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2008. 40(11), 1863-1872.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n4/abs/0803781a.html
LOL
Read the study, not just the abstract.
After 16 weeks, the HIET group lost a whopping 2.2 kg of fat. Whoopee!
Yep, so if you do HIIT instead of endurance cardio, you'll lose more than one extra pound of pure fat every month. Given that most people on a weight loss / exercise regimen aim to lose one pound of fat per week, then that's a strong difference.
Of course that's obvious, and I shouldn't have had to point it out to you. But I did find the irony of the sarcasm in your post to be pretty funny.0 -
Edit: And when did walking 3.7mph for 53 minutes become HIIT?
So now you're just going to attack every single primary source I post. Once again, how many primary sources have you posted? Oh that's right, ZERO. Now it's my turn to tell you, either post a primary source or GTFO.
Honestly, there's not even any debate anymore in regard to HIIT being better for body composition than endurance cardio. It's a well established fact supported by numerous research studies.0 -
LOLoquin lost his mind years ago.
As far as his studies, they don't support your conclusions.
The only study that showed a statistically-significant difference in body composition was Tremblay, and this was 2-3 lbs over 12 weeks. Groundbreaking!
You keep making these bold statements, but you haven't provided any actual literature to support them.
Here are some more studies showing that HIIT leads to a better body composition then endurance cardio:
Irving, B., Davis, C., et al. Effect of Exercise Training Intensity on Abdominal Visceral Fat and Body Composition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2008. 40(11), 1863-1872.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n4/abs/0803781a.html
LOL
Read the study, not just the abstract.
After 16 weeks, the HIET group lost a whopping 2.2 kg of fat. Whoopee!
Yep, so if you do HIIT instead of endurance cardio, you'll lose more than one extra pound of pure fat every month. Given that most people on a weight loss / exercise regimen aim to lose one pound of fat per week, then that's a strong difference.
Of course that's obvious, and I shouldn't have had to point it out to you. But I did find the irony of the sarcasm in your post to be pretty funny.
Um, no,
The low-intensity group lost weight as well, and exercise time was adjusted to maintain caloric expenditure (400 kcal per session), So we see a difference of around around 2lb every 4 months IF you limit the duration of Low intensity cardio. Adding an extra few minutes each session would be more than enough to make up for the discrepancy.
So what did this study show? Working out at a slightly higher intensity will burn a few more calories per session. Who knew?0 -
Edit: And when did walking 3.7mph for 53 minutes become HIIT?
So now you're just going to attack every single primary source I post. Once again, how many primary sources have you posted? Oh that's right, ZERO. Now it's my turn to tell you, either post a primary source or GTFO.
Honestly, there's not even any debate anymore in regard to HIIT being better for body composition than endurance cardio. It's a well established fact supported by numerous research studies.
It's called burden of proof.
YOU made the claim that HIIT was superior. The burden of proof is on YOU to support your claim.
None of your sources have supported this, not one.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions