This article on the latest “fitness revolution” in high intensity interval cardio training is brought to you with the compliments and permission of my friend and colleauge from the UK, Christian Finn. Christian’s commentary was prompted by the recent news reports of the Australian study (actually not published yet), which claimed that 20 minutes of interval training using 8 second intervals was superior to other forms of cardio and burns three times as much fat. I was going to write about this myself, but I think christian did a brilliant job explaining the truth behind this claim and about HIIT cardio in general.
Can You Really Lose More By Exercising Less?
By Christian Finn
www.TheFactsAboutFitness.Com
Just the other day, I came across a story about another “revolution in weight loss,” with scientists claiming to have devised a workout that burns three times more fat than regular workouts lasting twice as long.
According to the story, the researchers found their specific brand of interval training triggers a metabolic response that allows more fat to be burned under the skin and within the muscles.
Can you really lose weight three times faster with only half the exercise?
Here, as Kent Brockman would put it, is my two cents…
First, let’s take a closer look at what happened in the study.
Researchers at the University of New South Wales and the Garvan Institute studied a group of overweight women, putting them through a 20 minute cycling regime in which they sprinted on a stationary bike for 8 seconds followed by 12 seconds of cycling lightly [1]. The women performed the workout three times a week for 15 weeks.
“They lost three times more weight than other women who exercised at a continuous, regular pace for 40 minutes,” says University of New South Wales Associate and study co-author Professor Steve Boutcher. The scientists believe the regime would also be applicable to swimming, walking, running and rowing.
Other types of interval training using longer work and rest periods, says Professor Boutcher, are not as effective for overweight people. As far as I can tell, the work-rest ratio (8-second sprint, 12-second recovery) is based on a previous study by the same researchers showing that short work and rest ratios burn more calories than longer (24-second sprint, 36-second recovery) intervals.
Boutcher thinks the current government recommendations for exercise are largely ineffectual. “Walking for 60 minutes, seven times a week does not result in much fat loss, usually 1.15 kilograms over 15 weeks,” he says. “For a lot of overweight people this is going to be a revolution.”
So, is this a revolution in weight loss?
Maybe… if you’ve had your head in the sand for the last 10 years.
Using interval training to lose fat is certainly not a revolutionary idea. It forms the core of the cardiovascular workouts featured in the Fight Fat and Win (FFW) programs. And there are plenty of other people who have been writing about it — and using it — for a number of years.
However, even though interval training is both a highly effective and time-efficient way to train, saying that it’ll help you lose weight “three times faster” than regular cardio does (in my opinion, anyway) paint a rather overly optimistic picture about what to expect.
I’ll explain why in a moment.
Yes, I know that interval training is often said to be “nine times” more effective than steady-state aerobic exercise. However, if you’ve actually read the study on which this claim is based (Interval Training and Fat Loss: The Untold Story), you’ll know that neither group in the study lost a significant amount of weight. The aerobic exercise group lost one pound, while the interval-training group lost an average of just 100 grams. And that was after 15-20 weeks of regular exercise.
With all the fuss about interval training and fat loss, you’d think there are dozens of studies to show that it consistently leads to greater fat loss than steady-state cardio. But there aren’t.
It’s true that interval training is a great way to increase calorie expenditure in the hours after exercise. It’s also been shown to boost the activity of various fat-burning enzymes. However, most studies of interval-style workouts have looked at changes in performance and fitness, rather than weight loss.
Studies to track changes in body composition are few and far between, which is one of the reasons this Australian study caught my eye.
However, when I looked at the research in detail (and the paper has yet to reach the pages of a peer-reviewed journal, so I only had access to a short summary of the study), the results weren’t quite as exciting as they first appeared.
At the end of the 15-week study, the interval-training group had lost, on average, 2.5 kilograms (5.5 pounds) of fat. The steady-state group actually gained 0.5 kilograms (1.1 pounds).
So, the actual amount of fat lost in the interval training group wasn’t all that great — 5.5 pounds over 15 weeks, which works out at just 0.37 pounds of fat loss per week. This figure doesn’t really grab your attention like “three times greater weight loss.”
In fact, I can’t actually figure out how the researchers arrived at a figure of “three times greater weight loss,” as the interval-training group lost weight while the steady-state group gained it.
What about diet? How did that affect the results?
Although the women’s calorie intake was monitored using a food diary, self-reporting is a notoriously inaccurate way to estimate calorie intake. Some studies show that people underestimate their calorie intake by up to 50% [2]. In other words, someone who says they are eating 1000 calories per day may really be eating 2000 calories.
So, changes in calorie intake might have been primarily responsible for any weight loss. Or they might have had nothing to do with it. We don’t really know for sure.
And we still don’t know how well interval training compares to more intense steady-state cardio. This study used only moderate-intensity cardio (60% VO2max). To trigger a substantial post-exercise calorie burn, you need to work at around 75% of VO2max, or 85% of your maximum heart rate. It’s possible that steady-state cardio performed at or above this threshold would produce very similar results to interval training.
With all that said, I still think that interval training is a great way to lose fat. It’s something I use myself and recommend to others. In fact, the interval training used in this Australian study is very similar to the level III workout in the Fight Fat And Win (FFW) program, which involves a 25-minute workout sandwiched between 5 minutes of warming up and 5 minutes of cooling down.
However, interval training alone is not a magic bullet, and I think most people would be disappointed losing only 5.5 pounds of fat after 15 weeks of exercise. A program that combines resistance exercise, good nutrition AND interval training is one that will deliver the best results.
C Finn, UK
References
1. Trapp, E.G. & Boutcher, S.H. Fat loss following 15 weeks of high intensity, intermittent cycle ergometer training. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
2. Lichtman, S.W., Pisarska, K., Berman, E.R., Pestone, M., Dowling, H., Offenbacher, E., Weisel, H., Heshka, S., Matthews, D.E., & Heymsfield, S.B. (1992). Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. New England Journal of Medicine, 327, 1893-1898
About The Author
Christian Finn holds a masters degree in exercise science, is a certified personal trainer and a regular contributor to Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness and other popular fitness magazines.
Tom’s Comments
Christian Finn wrote:
“And we still don’t know how well interval training compares to more intense steady-state cardio”
For what its worth, intense steady state, longer duration (35-45 min) frequent (6-7 d/wk) cardio is how i do my cardio for bodybuilding contest prep; tapering off a bit as show gets very close.
The higher intensity, longer duration, steady state stuff works so well once im in the groove of the dietfor a few weeks, that i swear I can see myself getting leaner by the day. By contrast, an hour of walking ( low intensity) brings results, but so slowly that sometimes it feels like watching the grass grow, suggesting to me that low intensitycardio produces results, but at a very slow and linear rate, and that there is an intensity threshold point at which results start coming not only at a higher, but also exponential rate, even steady state sessions.
Shorter HIIT workouts (20-25 min or therabouts, with 60 second intervals), I also find effective, no doubt about it, and I do some shorter HIIT cardio myself. But I find that short HIIT workouts, while definitely effective, do not even come close to fat loss produced by 40-45 min at the highest intensity I can generate.
I think there is a big misconception that steady state and low intensity are one in the same. Granted, intensity and duration are inversely related, but you could do a 45 minute cardio session at a slow casual walking pace, or 45 minutes at the highest intensity you can handle. There is a big difference between the two and this is seldom discussed.
Ironically, nearly every time I mention this comparison of intense steady state work to shorter intense intervals to the die hard HIIT proponents (15-20 min X 3 d/wk guys) they sometimes just laugh and say that more than 20 minutes X 3 days of cardio per week is a waste of time. (At that point, I usually ask them to compare abs with me, LOL)
I could also tell you a story about one of those “tough cases” – a national level female body builder who swore she could “never get totally lean” or “lose stubborn thigh and glute fat”…. until finally i started doing the cardio WITH her to ensure compliance (she was a cardio “slacker,” it turns out)
side by side on a stairmaster or stepmill, we did 40-45 minutes semi fasted (only protein drink + cup coffee) in the early AM… the Fat came off her “by the day” as well…surprise surprise. I have to admit, those workouts were not exactly “fun.” we pushed to the limit for 40-45 minutes nonstop (steady state). I got pretty darn lean myself and she was ripped and made top 5 in an NPC national bodybuilding competition.
I think it’s interesting that one of Christian’s favorite cardio workouts combines aspects of steady state and interval training into one, and lasts a total duration of 35 minutes (25 minutes of modified HIIT) sandwiched between 5 min of warm up and 5 min of cooldown)
I’ve also recently read suggestions by a couple different fitness experts to try a very short HIIT workout – maybe just 10-20 minutes at very high intensity, followed by 30 minutes of low intensity work. It might be interesting to see and hear some results from using this method too.
I’ve noticed the cardio pendulum swinging back to the center a bit lately, as a few more experts are recommending that each type of cardio has its place in the proper context and that a mixture of HIIT and longer duration steady state work might be ideal.
Short sessions of HIIT (20 min or even less) definitely can produce results, and are the time efficient workout of choice for the busy person, but have also been hyped with inflated claims as Christian pointed out, and also promoted with the same religious fervor as mentzer and HIT weight training…
This new 8 second protocol…. well, maybe there’s something to it, but I dont think anyone knows for certain yet what are the optimal intervals for fat loss, and I’d bet that there are a countless number of variations on HITT that all work very well.
– Tom V.
Hey Tom,First time to respond to your news letter. Very much enjoyed this one. As far as HIT Cardio goes, the earliest thing I’ve ever read on the subject was in the book HeavyHands by Dr. Leonard Schwartz, 1982. He talks about it in chapter 16. Called them “cycles”. BTW, chapter 15 is a great lead in as itdeals with exercise being the prinary solution to weightloss.
Gidday, steady state aerobic exercise at greater than 85% of max heart rate? The three minute mile? Come on guys! Michael .
Michael wroteGidday, steady state aerobic exercise at greater than 85% of max heart rate? The three minute mile? Come on guys! michaelperhaps you are thinking of VO2 max, not heart rateUsing the age predicted method220-age220-38 yrs = 182 est max HR.85% X 182 = 154 bpmthats exactly what i said I do for steady state cardio — about 145-155 bpm and I have no problem holding that heart rate steady, and it works for me — I get absolutely ripped doing that kind of cardiobest regards
Since no one seems to really KNOW, it seems to be more a question of what works best for each individual person, I use a mix of both steady state and HIT depending largely on my mood and the time available at any one given cardio day.It would be nice if someone could come up with a super-fast routine so we could get away with a 5-minutes-a-day cardio workout :) but I think that’s as realistic as the “weightloss pills”Go out and sweat guys (and gals, even if we ladies don’t sweat, we “perspire”, lol)
Tom I notice you keep yourself to 85% max HR, using the age method, 220-30 for me, that would be 190 * .85 =161.5 MAX, When I do my steady state and SHIIT (No I’m not trying to be funny by adding an S, it’s for semi-high Intesity Interval Training) I tend to Average around 165 going as high 175 somewhat frequently. I choose to do a slightly less intense version of hiit as I can keep it going longer which when you carry the fat I carry, is important.Is there a danger of diminishing returns keeping my herart rate up above the 85% range? Just how careful should I be with the HR, do I let it dictate my intesity, or do I work out as hard as I can while not feeling like I’m going to drop?Thanks!
John M wrote:Tom I notice you keep yourself to 85% max HR, using the age methodI dont do that all the time. that kind of intensity kicks my butt. there is an instinctive training factor here… some days when you feel great, youpush it, some days you just dont have the gas… and you have to balance training intensity with recovery. Dont think that intense cardio doesnt tap into your recovery reserves just like weight training doesI do my steady state and SHIIT (No I’m not trying to be funny by adding an S, it’s for semi-high Intesity Interval Training) HA! I love that… Im not sure if the acronym will catch on, but yes, intervals can defnitely be done at a semi-high intensity, and the longer the duration goes, by virtue of the inverse relationship between duration andintensity, the latter will decrease as the former increasesI choose to do a slightly less intense version of hiit as I can keep it going longer which when you carry the fat I carry, is important.Yes, i find the same thing. While HIIT for as little as 20 min 3X per week is indisputably effective and can produce good results, I find that 3 days X 20 minutes is just not enough to get me the results I want for my body type. HIIT every day may be too much, so I know many people who do 3 d of HIIT and then do 2-4 additional cardio workouts of LISS or other less intense cardio or physical activity just to get the total weekly calorie expenditure up higher to burn even more fat beyond what 3D can provideIs there a danger of diminishing returns keeping my herart rate up above the 85% range?Yes of course. As the intensity goes higher, you reach a point where you cant sustain it, You will have to slow down or you will crap out. Its about finding the balance… I call it “the sweet spot” that is the perfect marriage between duration and intensity. The trouble I think is that people seem to believe that steady state is the same as low intensity and they also seem to think there is nothing in between low and high intensity. Its a continuum and I believe there is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. A simple suggestion is if you are doing long slow cardio and youre not satisfied with the results, try to change one little thing.. just increase the intensity slightly at your next workout and see what happens… dont kill yourself, progress slowly and increase just a bit at a time in intensity rather than going longer and longer.Just how careful should I be with the HR, do I let it dictate my intesityI used the 85% thing as an example. I dont really use heart rate as a target. I use it more as a reference point, HR formulas are only estimates. I adjust intensity based on my results (weekly body composition), NOT according to a heart rate formula or a so called “fat burning zone”by the way, remember that high intensity cardio training is for healthy people who have doctors OK for vigorous exercise. this type of intensity is NOT for everyone
Thanks for the response, I often feel like I could push myself harder but I worry my heart rate is getting too high, not by how I feel but rather what I see displayed… I’m still a big boy, 235 ish easily 19% BF still but I’ve been working out pretty regularly since March 2006, with some setbacks in regularity between Oct-Dec. Nutrition is of course my biggest hurdle still and the reason I remain “big” as I seem to have truely developed a love of working out, and do it as often as I can (at least 3 times a week but usually 4) I thank you for that…..As the intensity goes higher, you reach a point where you cant sustain it, You will have to slow down or you will crap out.Assuming I can maintain the duration for 45 minutes (sandwiched between warm up and cool down) should I feel safe in pushing as hard as I can regardless of the heart rate displayed? And should I expect no adverse results from working so hard. I know feedback is king, but in your opinion, if I can do it, should I do it “ALL OUT”?
regarding training all out, use caution and common senseharder is not always better. You CAN burn out, you can get injured and you can overtrain.Intensity is just one variable, like duration and frequency that you can manipulate to increase your resultsim not sure if you have my book, but in chapter 4there is a concept called the feedback loop. Basiclally my philosophy is let your results dictate your approach. Create a plan, take action, get feedback/measure results, then adjust according to resultsAssuming the results you want is better body composition, then if your body fat is dropping and lean body mass is maintaining on your current workout, then why push harder if what youre doing is already working.If youre pushing yourself to a 5 on a perceived exertion scale of 1 to 10 and that is producing the results you want in terms of body composition, then why push yourself to an 8 o r9 and risk overtraining or injury to push harder just for the sake of pushing harder. Your goal is not to reach a certain heart rate or a certain level if perceived exertion. Your goal is to see a decrease in body fat right?This is not about punishing yourself or testing your limits, this is about achieving a specific result. Im assuming you have set some goals in advance and you know exactly what result you are after.let your results dictate your approach… and keep in mind, that according to this philosophy, I am not contradicting myself to say that if you are losing fat with weight training + nutrition only and no cardio, then you dont need to do ANY cardio at all!
I started using Cardio Coach – At 315 lbs, I’m sure my HI, is lower that others, but I try to use the zones and am learning to feel what the numbers are telling me. Just 15 weeks ago @ 348, going to the mailbox was HIIT for me.I like the challenges of CC and I am learning all about diet, fat burning and going to bed tired and not bored.Doug
Doug wrote:I try to use the zones and I am learning to feel what the numbers are telling meandJust 15 weeks ago @ 348, going to the mailbox was HIIT for me. two very good points!
I have done HIIT recently but I use the interval routines programmed into Precor machines. One has a one minute on, one minute off routine and the other has a two minute on, two minute off routine. I have been able to get my heart rate up into the high 160-170 range (I am 26 years old) on both machines, a treadmill and an eliptical.Now, that being said, I have two questions. First, should someone use these pre-programmed routines to do their HIIT workout to? I have seen HIIT explained as all different methods of timing cycles.Second, would 8 seconds as explained in the article even be effective at raising one’s heart rate? I have noticed when doing my HIIT routines that it often takes about 1 minute to get my heart rate up to the high levels before it evens out. If I only went strong for 8 seconds, I don’t think I would be able to get my heart rate up that high, unless I was already near full-out intensity during the 12 second intervals. What are your thoughts?
Using some of the built in programs is a fine idea, or you can use manual control and increase or decrease resistance and speed manually.That brings up a potential problem with this type of very short (8 second) interval; It is impractical to perform on some machines.For example, a treadmill has a lag time for the speed of the belt to increase or decrease after you enter the change on the console.Also, short intervals on treadmills may be more dangerous than running outsideAs for heart rate and short intervals — your heart rate can get up plenty high with short intervals. In fact, the whole idea with very short intervals is that this allows you to push for a higher intensity which produces a higher heart rateTabata is another popular protocol with short intervals – that one is 20 seconds of sprint/high intensity alternated with 10 second rest intervals.This is very intense, very high heart rate work. which again, leads me to point out that the very brief, very intense types of sprint and HIIT training should be done only with clearance from your physician first.
Hello TomI have a question for you. In my area of the world, Wichita KS, there is a new excercise phenomena called “The 4 minute workout.” (with the ROM machine)there are many websites on the net advertising this same machine; just type in “quickgym.”It is a workout that moves your body through the full range of motion and says it can build strength and develop lean muscle mass. This machine has been written up in many magazines, such as, The Telegraph (London), The Times Colonist [Canada), The LA Times (USA), and many moreCan you check it out and tell us what you think of it?Shawnie
shawnie wrote:“I have a question for you. In my area of the world, Wichita KS, there is a new excercise phenomena called “The 4 minute workout.” (with the ROM machine) Can you check it out and tell us what you think of it?here we go again with another “new exercise phenomenon!”What do i think of it???…For $14,615, I think the machine is hilarious!for that kind of money you could buy yourself one heck of a home gym setup with money to spare for a good trainer.As for using it at a gym, sure, why not. But dont get your expectations too high.Can you get a workout in 4 minutes? (or 8 minutes as the case may be)….SureBut compared to what?For people who are that bent on minimalist training, they can do some really high intensity sprint type intervals (tabata, etc) and or some compound supersets or compound circuits with weights or other resistance equipment (odd objects, kettlebells, etc)or they could do something like this:THE TABATA METHODFat Loss in 4 MinutesBy Dan Johnhttp://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=04-046-trainingmuch cheaper eh?… the cost? a pair of running shoes for the former, a set of barbells and dumbbells for the latter..or thishttp://www.quatrotraining.com/(this page mentions the ROM machine)The “magic” is not in any machine per se… these types of workouts are very easily duplicated with cheaper equipment or even your own body
Hi Tom,Great discussion.I have followed the reasearch, tried the workouts, and I too have found that longer high intensity sessions work best for me.Ultimately, the only way to tell what works best for you is to test and put yourself in a feedback loop.With that said, I am a big fan of shorte High Intensity workouts.I think they are good “tools.”Like any tool, there are certain jobs the toll is right for, others that is not right for.I use these shorter high intensity workouts to supplement my lifting sessions and longer cardio sessions.I don’t know that using them exclusively is all that effective, not for me anyway.Once again, it all comes down to testing and seeing what works best for you.I do love it as a supplementary tool though!Kyle Battis CSCS, NSCA-CPTwww.HomeGymSecrets.com
kyleindeed, the more tools you have in your tool kit, the bigger and stronger a structure you can build!I think those who understand how to use many different types of training tools when each type is appropriate or needed will be much better off than someone who is dogmatic about or loyal only to a single methodtv
This is my first post to this site and the first article I have read in a while regarding this subject. I started with the “Body for Life” approach about 5 months ago and had very effective results. This seemed to get me through the first phase of the conditioning process. I noticed however as time went on that to achieve my goals I needed to increase cardio excercise. After 4 months my weight dropped from 232 to 195 with a BMI of 25. At 6’2″ this seemed to be right for me. I am 48. By the time I reached the 195 weight I was doing 45-60 minutes of cardio 5-6 times per week with upper body weight training 1-2 times per week. I am working on endurance not strength because my neighbor has me interested in a half marathon. At 48, I can’t hit the treadmill every day so I have found that varying my workouts between the treadmill, elliptical and cybex allows my joints to recover resulting in less athritic pain.My weakness is evening meals and beer or wine. However I have compensated a little by taking 2-3 mile walks in the evening with the dog and my neighbor. These are usually after 9:00. Along with my workouts, the result has been good maintenance of weight while I have also notice muscle increasing.I don’t know if I am doing any of this the right way but I can say I really enjoy everything I do including the workouts and the walks. There is something liberating about being 49 and being able to play basketball with the kids like you are 25.I don’t believe “Body for Life” is a fad. I think its a great motivator, on the other hand, I think the method is too scripted. Everything Tom says makes so much more sense to what I have experienced in the last 5 months. Its not all about fat burning to me. Its about goal focusing. Stay with your program but keep sprinkling in new ideas and varying existing ones to find ways to improve what you do with the little time you have. I have 5 children and I fight to find time for working out without sacrificing my time with them. I think we all have many things we can sacrifice without giving up what is important.Tom, thanks for a great site, and thanks for opening yourself up to people the way you do. Its truly a gift to us all.Paul
Hi Gents,I read your report on the Australian Study a few weeks back (23/02/07) and decided what the heck I’ll give it a go.I was allready doing a 30 minute cadio on a cycle/Rower and watching what I ate for a few weeks and had lost maybe 2 to 3 pounds in 4 weeks.I have lost a further 6 pounds in around 3 weeks on this 8/12 interval. I find the time seems to go faster and the last few seconds burn from the sprint gives way to a pleasant relief when you throttle back.May just be coincidence , some dietary reason or my metabolism kicking in after a long lay off. Who knows ??I’m now 190 Ibs at 6 ft tall , age 35 (ish)I have pulse reader on my excercise bike but after sprints it rarely goes above 120 . If I had to hit 150 ish for 85 % I think my lungs would burst ! (Can that be correct ?)I average around 12 Kilometers using the 5 – 20 – 5 rule.(About 14 MPH average speed I make it.)I also vary the resistance. eg 3-4-3Maybe I’m a freak ?? Or poor at math ! Maybe the onboard computer is faulty ?
i don’t understand why someone would sponsor for these type of research. Before concluding the results of the research they should learn the basics in Physics. “To every action there is EQUAL and opposite reaction”. Exercise less,loose less fat. Exercise more,loose more fat.i would have rather sponsered a BFFM book for each of those poor obese women :)
a few quick comments.yes, self reporting calorie intake can be inaccurate, but this should average out over the group being tested.as for steady high intensity cardio, well i suppose you would expect it to have greater effect due to greater calorie expenditure, which is what’s important. form of training is probably a secondary less important determining factor for weight loss. I think this is especially the case for those who are overweight.for those who are not overweight and are just trying to get lean (like myself), well from my experience its hard to say. i know i’ve been doing high intensity steady cardio for a long time (a year?). probably on average 6-7 sessions per weak (35-50 mins). average heartrate 155-165 bpm. after all this effort i can’t get past about 10% body fat. while i do occasionally binge, average calorie deficit alone would have me at a much lower bodyfat comp (i keep a fastidiously accurate calorie diary).i will include some HIIT styled training into my regime for a change. in fact, i think this is a very important factor in weight loss (and training in general). change. i find most effects when i just change some aspect of my diet or training.
The truth is that many overweight or deconditioned people cannot really “sprint” for 8 seconds. Even their “sprint” space is like “fast walk” for fit people.A lot of people don’t like and don’t have heart rate monitors. They may even not ready accurately. And the reading on treadmill could be off by 10 to 20 beats. People with cardiovascular conditions or on blood pressure drugs should exercise carefully.As a personal trainer, I find that RPE (rate of perceived exertion) is one of the best practical ways to prescribe cardio intensity, instead of MET, heart rate (reserve) max %, running pace, stride per minute, etc.Since program compliance and adherence is most important in a successful exercise and fat loss program, I want to give my clients some freedom to choose their favorite cardio exercises but stick to certain prescribed principles. If they like the exercise and want to do it and see the results, they will do it by themselves.The original H.I.I.T. concept is great. But the protocol of 8 second sprint and 12 second recovery is just not practical to do on the treadmill. It’s better to do it on the indoor track or outdoor.I have offered many H.I.I.T. cardio routines in my blog post.Check here:http://careyforfitness.blogspot.com/2006/10/cardio-exercises-good-or-bad.htmlFollowing the H.I.I.T. concept, one can do a very intense cardio workout on the treadmill, elliptical machine or stationary bike.For people who like outdoor running, I give examples of doing interval cardio like hill interval training, stadium stair running, distance repeats (anywhere from 100-meter to 1600-meter or variable distances), sprint interval (40-yard dash), trail running.One should incorporate cardio exercises of different intensity, distance, speed/pace, duration, work-recovery ratios into their weight training sessions as part of their longer term periodization trainng program.Also one should find the exercises that work for them. Different people gives widely different opinions. It’s tough to argue with the evidence. But every person is different.All exercise works. But nothing works forever.You got to change up.At the end of day, I wish my clients have some fun exercising, feel better and energized.Careycareyforfitness.blogspot.comwww.careyforfitness.com
it also depends on the human body and getting it used to being pushed to certain limits. a buddy of mine has been doing sprints for years instead of jogging and loves the results.
Just a note: The Australian study indicated a weight loss of 3.9kg in the HIIT group, when participants who initially had a BMI of 20 were excluded and two women lost 8-9 kg.And Rajesh, maybe you should read more research on a variety of topics, then you might understand why research is done (usually because we dont know and we want to confirm or deny the hypothesis, not just cling to our own biases) and that metabolic and chemical systems in the body are complex, it isn’t as simple as exercise more lose more, or eat less lose more.
My results were very similar to Paul’s. I did Body-for-Life and it worked well, but the true breakthrough came when I started road biking. Then I joined a club, wanted to get faster, and started doing longer but still intense sessions (mostly at 85% HR max). I typically go 1-2 hours 3x a week and wear a monitor.Apart from the weight-loss, which was noticeable, the visible cardio benefits were far greater than the 20 min HIIT. My resting pulse dropped and my endurance for weight lifting increased. In fairness, I am more regular about the biking than I was with the HIIT. But I think if you can find some aerobic activity you like and are willing to work to improve, the fitness will happen also — and it’s much more fun.
Hi,I was doing cardio almost exactly as you described.75-85% around 150 bpm.Then I read about HIIT.Too skeptical to switch, I simply warm up for 5-10 min., go to a HIIT routine (30 on – 30 off ) for 11 min. ANd then resume the 150 BPM for a total of 40-50 min altogether.