WHY do people THINK HIIT and sprints are better for fat loss than longer activity?
Actually, if you look at the research, when the two types are controlled for energy expenditure, fat oxidation over a 24 hour period is equivalent .
Did you know this ?
February 9th, 2011 at 6:06 am
I agree, I tell you why it’s cause all the magazines pimp it as some super fat loss tool.
The post energy expenditure of HIIT is what? 70 calories tops? That isn’t anything to get excited about.
Plus at higher intensities(heart rates 75%+) require rapid fuel sources. This means carbohydrates, fats, proteins are all going to be used for energy. Gluconeogenesis is a neat thing when the body requires fuel…. If your diet isn’t great(which most who are fat do not have a great diet obviously) this is a sure way to lose muscle mass via the protein breakdown.
Oh one more thing for those interval elites…… LISS at a heart rate of 35% will utilize mostly fatty acids for a fuel source. Assuming your training and diet are in check LISS is a better option(note training and diet are correct).
February 9th, 2011 at 6:31 am
no-
you are wrong-
approaching sprints in an HIIT fashion actually trains your body anaerobically- which not only increases your aerobic fitness level, but anaerobic- there was a study done (i believe in japan) that indicated this.
as well as that by approaching yoru workout in this fasion, you are actually challenging your muscles which can in fact make them grow-
HIIT can create an afterburn sensation which as opposed to flat rate running in a traditional “cardio” manner- also burns calories during a period of muslce repair for 24-48 hours after the fact.
all aerobic excercise does is increase your endurance- which is only good for marathon training- unless you are running a marathon and training specifically for that HIIT is by far the more optimal candidate.
also if you look at how your body works- you need to keep challenging yourself- with periods of “rest” (lower intensity) in between higher intensity workout intervals your body is able to recover, and thus train harder overall-
doing a flat rate excercise does nothing but fatigue you- and again, unless it is endurance you are going for- you are looking for optimal output to train for optimal results, which in everything but endurance training (since then the optimal output would be to in fact increase the length of sustained moderate leve excercise), means testing yourself and your muscles as much as you possibly can.
as we train- our bodies need bigger and more difficult challenges in order to improve, HIIT provides that in allowing you to reach higher thresholds you would not normally reach.
however, what is “optimal” is not always what is “best” what is BEST is what you will stick with.
if you hate doing intervals- you won’t stick with it. so obviously flat running- even though it is less efficient, is better for you since you’ll actually do it (if you enjoy it).
its the same as the old high reps vs low weight or high weight vs low reps- which studies consistantly show that high weight low reps is optimal and high reps is only optimal to improve muslce endurance.
EDIT:
jane- i hope you are reading the email exchange we are sending- and you seem to lack an understanding of what is bieng said by me- as well as the citing of that study in japan.
1- i’m not saying you cant see results from steady state- you can’.
but the question at bar is : what is more optimal.
2- you have yet to show a single experiment, i’ve cited the study by izumi tabata, phd. (read your email for details).
that basically showed the output for anaerobic excercise was 28% higher and aerobic excercise increase was 14% higher than the steady staters which only showed an increase of 9.5%.
i’m posting this here so you’ll check your email.