Runners World advice to overweight new runners - HIIT

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.

And you still can't post any literature to support your claims. Shocking.

HIIT has been shown over and over again to lead to a better body composition than endurance cardio. That debate was over a long time ago. We could go on in circles: with me posting research studies that have been published in MAJOR PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS while you attack and dismiss each one without posting any evidence of your own. But there wouldn't be much point. You'll never accept that what you learned in 1975 is wrong.

A meta-analysis that sums up pretty much everything I've been saying:

"Research on the impact of interval and continuous training with untrained to moderately trained subjects does not support the current interval craze, but the evidence does suggest that short intense training bouts and longer continuous exercise sessions should both be a part of effective endurance training. Elite endurance athletes perform 80 % or more of their training at intensities clearly below their lactate threshold and use high-intensity training surprisingly sparingly. Studies involving intensification of training in already well-trained athletes have shown equivocal results at best. The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low-intensity training with careful use of high-intensity interval training throughout the annual training cycle is the best-practice model for development of endurance performance"

"Currently, there is great interest in high-intensity, short-duration interval training programs. However, careful evaluation of both available research and the training methods of successful endurance athletes suggests that we should be cautious not to over-prescribe high-intensity interval training or exhort the advantages of intensity over duration. "


http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Trivial hormonal fluctuations and fat people walking a little faster don't even remotely fit the bill.

Did I post studies. No.

I didn't need to. The ones you posted clearly demonstrated the lack of evidence for the superiority of HIIT.

Claiming that HIIT is superior to endurance cardio for body composition would have been an extraordinary claim 15 years ago. Now it's the consensus.

Here's a meta-analysis of HIIT from the Journal of Obesity:
Boutcher, Stephen. High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise and Fat Loss. Journal of Obesity. 2011

does anyone here do Tae Bo?

Meh.

Closer observation shows the difference is unremarkable (as I've already stated). The greatest difference was shown in the aforementioned Tremblay study (wheee!)

This pretty much sums it up:
"Research examining the effects of HIIE has produced preliminary evidence to suggest that HIIE can result in modest reductions in subcutaneous and abdominal body fat in young normal weight and slightly overweight males and females."

Big deal.

Also keep in mind that NONE of the studies involved any other activity. This is my biggest beef with HIIT, it hinders recovery. Any advantage you get from HIIT is lost in the weight room.