DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Whether its the treadmill, HIIT, Plyometrics, skipping or sled pulling....ask\put it here!

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:22 pm

kp1512 wrote:

Ok.

The short answers are:

Fed state cardio is always superior, although untrained athletes may see benefits from fasted low impact cardio.

Untrained athletes and fatties always throw a curve ball in studies, their bodies are not efficient at burning energy substrate (they are better at storing it) so you need to ignore any studies from In. J. Obs. etc which will say EPOC gives no benefits after 24hours. I'm sure in trained subjects EPOC is significantly pronounced even after 36hours.

But bump for that study on EPOC. There are studies, and then there are studies. :D


Superior for what though?


Superior for results in terms of improvements in fitness, and reduction in adipose
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:24 pm

burningnun wrote:
Karlos wrote:No i wasn't saying i'm using it solely for recovery..i was just pointing out why a bit of steady state suits me more than hiit. Im doing it more for some fat loss, but im also doing 1 10min hiit session (after Max effort deadlifts/squats) and some higher rep front squats.

How would you fit hiit into a powerlifter's schedule of-
mon- heavy upper
wed- heavy lower + HIIT
fri- light upper & lower

?

oh and currently im doing a 40 minute jog tue,thur and saturdays.

I put the hiit session after heavy squats to give my CNS a rest as both are obviously quite draining. Or would you just suggest i rest tue,thur,saturdays and sundays?


IMO for a powerlifter sled dragging is the best form of GPP/cardio/metcon/whatever you want to call it. It is the most sport specific in that it builds leg strength and it has no eccentric phase which makes it better than running for assisting recovery. There are also various ways you can do it all of which fulfill the above criteria and also allow you to target specific weak points on your legs. It's one of the bigger things I miss about training at home. Dave Tate wrote a good article about programming it which can probably be found on EliteFTS and I seem to remember it was on T-Nation too.

Downside is you need a sled.


Man you boys need to think outside the box.

Take an old tyre, some tow rope, a circular bit of 12mm ply, some weights and you have a sled. Sorted. :D
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby kp1512 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:27 pm


Superior for results in terms of improvements in fitness, and reduction in adipose


Only in certain circumtances and depending on goals

For presevation of Muscle Tissue Nope

For Fat loss for al anready Sub 10% maybe

Aside from that - pretty useless Id say
kp1512
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am
Location: London \ Manchester - UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:30 pm

health4ni wrote:Here's a good'un for you:

Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism wrote:Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502

Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8.

Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

The impact of two different modes of training on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism was investigated in young adults who were subjected to either a 20-week endurance-training (ET) program (eight men and nine women) or a 15-week high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program (five men and five women). The mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ, whereas the corresponding value for the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program. When corrected for the energy cost of training, the decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds induced by the HIIT program was ninefold greater than by the ET program. Muscle biopsies obtained in the vastus lateralis before and after training showed that both training programs increased similarly the level of the citric acid cycle enzymatic marker. On the other hand, the activity of muscle glycolytic enzymes was increased by the HIIT program, whereas a decrease was observed following the ET program. The enhancing effect of training on muscle 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) enzyme activity, a marker of the activity of beta-oxidation, was significantly greater after the HIIT program. In conclusion, these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure, vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent than exercise of low to moderate intensity. Moreover, the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the HIIT program appear to favor the process of lipid oxidation.


That study cost 2million Canadian dollars. All to establish that HIIT is better for fat loss than cardio type training.


Never knew that study cost $2mil - was it metabolic ward?

The conclusion from the Tremblay study were... "flawed".

If someone can dig me out the full study and not just the extract I'll show you why.

I do agree that HIIT/Tabatas/Sport Specific Cardio is better though.
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:33 pm

kp1512 wrote:

Superior for results in terms of improvements in fitness, and reduction in adipose


Only in certain circumtances and depending on goals

For presevation of Muscle Tissue Nope

For Fat loss for al anready Sub 10% maybe

Aside from that - pretty useless Id say


Hang on - just to clarify we are on the same page here. I stated fed state cardio is superior to fasted, are you saying that fasted state cardio is superior to fed state?

What leads you to that conclusion?
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby kp1512 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:39 pm


Hang on - just to clarify we are on the same page here. I stated fed state cardio is superior to fasted, are you saying that fasted state cardio is superior to fed state?

What leads you to that conclusion?


Oh im just saying in general lol HIIY versus Steady State - Id say a mix of them both in the same period is the best.

In terms of fed state - HIIT in a unfed state is just asking for trouble.

Steady State in an unfed state will of course burn more fat assuming its for an extended duration...and the argument going back to Muscle Media 2000 and Bill Philips and his HIIT fame - was that EPOC was the reason why HIIT was better which is teh biggest load of rubbish Ive ever heard...elevate your BG to over 8mmol and you can say good buy to any fat loss or substrate utilisation
kp1512
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am
Location: London \ Manchester - UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:55 pm

kp1512 wrote:

Hang on - just to clarify we are on the same page here. I stated fed state cardio is superior to fasted, are you saying that fasted state cardio is superior to fed state?

What leads you to that conclusion?


Oh im just saying in general lol HIIY versus Steady State - Id say a mix of them both in the same period is the best.

In terms of fed state - HIIT in a unfed state is just asking for trouble.

Steady State in an unfed state will of course burn more fat assuming its for an extended duration...and the argument going back to Muscle Media 2000 and Bill Philips and his HIIT fame - was that EPOC was the reason why HIIT was better which is teh biggest load of rubbish Ive ever heard...elevate your BG to over 8mmol and you can say good buy to any fat loss or substrate utilisation


Ok. I would suggest that HIIT is better due to EPOC, as during HIIT hypoxia (tissue oxygen debt) is induced (to a degree), induction of hypoxia will increase the body's GH response - both in terms of speed of onset and volume of release, which is a whoel different kettle of fish and not simply due to EPOC.

Isn't 8mmol a large amount of BG? After a large meal mine is ~6.9 (i think) which then drops to ~sub 5 (I think) after Chromium + Vanadyl.

Either way after ~>60% V02M carbs, even when consumed mid exercise, will not negatively impact on the level of lipid oxidation and will only improve performance, and that remains in place for a good 90mins.
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby kp1512 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:34 pm


Ok. I would suggest that HIIT is better due to EPOC, as during HIIT hypoxia (tissue oxygen debt) is induced (to a degree), induction of hypoxia will increase the body's GH response - both in terms of speed of onset and volume of release, which is a whoel different kettle of fish and not simply due to EPOC.

Isn't 8mmol a large amount of BG? After a large meal mine is ~6.9 (i think) which then drops to ~sub 5 (I think) after Chromium + Vanadyl.

Either way after ~>60% V02M carbs, even when consumed mid exercise, will not negatively impact on the level of lipid oxidation and will only improve performance, and that remains in place for a good 90mins.


But EPOC is rubbish and fundamentally flawed as all the studies have never taken into account the effects of the diet post exercise.

8mmol is medium - a strong carb meal should normally throw you to 9-12mmol for a good 90 mins.

Ahh ha! Just found that study / summary with research sources - excerpt

The Effect of Exercise Intensity on EPOC

It is well established that exercise increases oxygen consumption for several hours
after its completion (Gaesser and Brooks, 1984). As discussed, oxygen consumption
is used to assess caloric expenditure. Therefore elevated levels of 02 consumption
reflect a higher resting metabolic rate. Explanations for such a phenomenon are
connected to a number of historical events. It all began with Berzelius, who in 1808
found that lactate concentration was increased in ‘ the muscles of hunted stags(
Gladden, 2004)’ who relied on anaerobic pathways to attempt to escape their
predators. This was followed by Myeroff’s (1920) discovery that glycogen served as
a precursor for lactate (Gladden, 2004). Building on this work, Hill proposed the 02
debt theory, which suggested that 1/5 of the increase in 02 consumption was used in
the oxidation of lactate. This in turn provided the energy to convert lactate build up
during exercise back to glycogen, thus repaying the ‘debt’ incurred through
anaerobic processes. Scientists further noted that the 02 debt produced a curve that
was characterized by a rapid phase of 02 dissipation, followed by a slow phase of
decline. Margaria et al. (1933) called the fast phase alactacid, followed by the
slower lactacid phase. The alactacid phase was postulated to account for
replenishment of non lactic acid components of anaerobic energy utilization, such as
the phosphorylation of free creatine to form creatine phosphate. The lactacid phase
was said to replenish glycogen stores from lactate. However, Gaesser and Brooks
(1984) suggested that these explanations were to simplistic and that evidence
pointed to the majority of lactate being oxidized following exercise, with the
remainder serving as a carbon skeleton for a number of processes of which glycogen
replenishment is just one. Further, it was stated that the oxygen utilization could be
linked to a number of phenomenon, including the residual effects of hormones, and
increased temperature. In this historical review, Gaesser and Brooks (1984)
introduced the new terms - excess post exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) and
recovery 02 to eliminate the ‘ implication of causality in describing the elevation in
metabolic rate above resting levels after exercise.’

Today another historical battle exists. Across countries exercise participants purport
the superiority of high intensity interval training (HIIT) which is short over low to
moderate intensity long duration training. One of the purposes of this article is to
analyze the evidence for this claim and allow the reader to conclude from there.
Shawn Phillips, one of the leading spokesman for HIIT stated that
‘You knew deep down, anyhow, that busting your butt burned off more fat than an
exercise that allowed you to read at the same time, didn't you? Well, research shows
our instincts were right…

HIIT speeds up your metabolism and keeps it revved up for some time after your
workout. The bottom line is HIIT training burns a greater number of total calories
than low-intensity training, and more calories burned equals more fat lost. What I'm
suggesting is you forget about the "calories burned" readout on the stairstepper or
Lifecycle; if you practice HIIT training, the majority of calories burned will come after
your workout!’


The above statement paints an appealing picture. In reality however, the scientific
evidence suggests that it is unequivocally false
(Laforgia et al., 1997, Gore and
Withers, 1990, Freedman-Akabas, 1985). First, HIIT training is normally purported
to take less time than lower intensity sessions. However, to control variables
Laforgia et al. (1997) examined the effect of intensity on EPOC, while matching total
work performed in each session. Participants consisted of eight male middle distance
runners, who performed 30 minutes of 70 % V02 max treadmill running in condition
one, and interval training in condition two. Interval training consisted of 20, one
minute sprints at 105 % of V02 max. The session lasted 60 minutes, as sprints were
interspersed with 2 minute intervals in which participants performed active
recovery. It was found that the 70 % V02 max condition metabolized 31 extra
calories over the entire nine hours following exercise, while the high intensity
condition metabolized 64 extra calories as extrapolated by EPOC. This equates to a
negligible 33 extra calories for the high intensity condition. Laforgia et al. (1997)
suggests that a comparison of the excess calories above moderate intensity exercise
‘for the interval treatment is of little physiological significance to the energy balance
of athletes because this amount of energy is equivalent to the kilojoules in only 75 ml
of orange juice (1/3rd cup).’ They further conclude that ‘the major contribution of
both treatments to weight loss was via the energy expended during the actual
exercise. The excess post exercise energy expenditure is therefore of negligible
physiological significance as far as weight loss is concerned.’

In another study, Gore et al. (1990) examined the effect of both intensity and
duration on EPOC. Participants consisted of nine males with an average of 21 years
of age. Participants exercised at 30 %, 50 %, and 70 % V02 max, each at 20, 50,
and 80 minute durations. The effect of duration on exercise found no significant
difference in the 30 % V02 max condition, whose 8 hour EPOC was a little over 1
liter of 02, amounting to approximately 5-6 extra calories metabolized. The effect
of duration on the 50 % V02 max condition found that EPOC went from
approximately 3 liters at 20 minutes, to 5 liters at 50 minutes, and finally to 6 liters
at 80 minutes of duration. The effect of duration on the 70% V02 max condition
found that EPOC went from 6, to 10, and finally 14.6 liters of 02 consumed for 20,
50, and 80 minute durations. As a reference the 14.6 liters of 02 consumed in
excess in the 70 % V02 max, 80 minute duration condition was approximately 70
extra calories of energy expended or approximately 40 extra calories than the 50
minute condition at 50 minutes duration. While the data from this study clearly
shows a positive relationship between intensity and duration on EPOC, the amount of
calories metabolized in excess is concluded by the authors to be ‘ of little
physiological significance for weight loss…’ Further, the average amount of calories
metabolized during EPOC was approximately 4 % of the total energy cost of
exercise, which addresses the statement that , ‘the majority of calories burned will
come after your workout( Phillips)!

Further, the 70 % V02 max condition is comparable to the 65 % condition discussed
in the Romijn et al. (1995) study which metabolized the highest amount of fat during
training. This is significant because the EPOC in the supramaximal high intensity
condition in the Laforgia et al. (1997) study, was nearly equivalent to the 70 % V02
max, long duration session. This suggests two outcomes. First, if exercise is
performed at 65 % V02 max for a longer duration such as 60 minutes, then the
EPOC generated may possibly approximate HIIT training intensities, secondly during
the training session overall calories expended will be greater, with a higher
proportion of those calories coming from lipids, as opposed to the overwhelming
majority of glycogen utilization found in the supramaximal protocol.
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com Exercise Intensity & Nutrients 6

The next inherent flaw made in the hi intensity vs. low to moderate intensity
argument is that it fails to take into account the fact that bodybuilders are primarily
high intensity athletes. As such they may already receive the benefit of optimized
EPOC.

Melby et al. (1993) tested the effect of resistance exercise on metabolic rate during
the 2 hours following exercise and on resting metabolic rate (RMR) the following day,
measured 15 hours after exercise. Seven males with previous experience in
resistance training performed 60 sets of both upper and lower body exercises, over a
90-minute time span. 2 hours after exercise, the average total EPOC was 7 Liters of
O2, which adds up to about 35 extra calories oxidized in comparison to the control
group. The total EPOC after 15 hours of exercise accounted for approximately 180
extra calories metabolized. In another experiment (Jamurtas et al., 2004) ten male
athletes lifted weights for 60 min at 70-75% of 1-RM. It was found that the weight
lifting group utilized had a 150 calorie increase in resting energy expenditure as
extrapolated from EPOC.
kp1512
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am
Location: London \ Manchester - UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:56 pm

Ok. In the Laforgia study, they changed the goal posts and still the HIIT group performed better.

They did 20 x 1min sprints with 2min recovery periods, while the LIT group did 60mins of exercise.

Who in the real world is going to do this?

Answer: none :D
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby kp1512 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:08 pm

Tall wrote:Ok. In the Laforgia study, they changed the goal posts and still the HIIT group performed better.

They did 20 x 1min sprints with 2min recovery periods, while the LIT group did 60mins of exercise.

Who in the real world is going to do this?

Answer: none :D


Yes, but the fundamental points are that

- EPOC in all its data to date has NEVER taken into account the bodies responses on diet in the pre and proceeding 24 hours

This alone pretty much blows it out of the water. :D

[Sorry I have a bug bear with HIIT/EPOC and Fatloss - as soo many people push it and when the average joe bloggs tries it who god forbid is OVER 10+% BF it doesnt work to its potential and people generally lose strength - plus it got its popularity through a well known Supplements Manufacturer in the late 90's who had their reasons for pushing it based on limited studies - ]
kp1512
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am
Location: London \ Manchester - UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:27 pm

kp1512 wrote:
Tall wrote:Ok. In the Laforgia study, they changed the goal posts and still the HIIT group performed better.

They did 20 x 1min sprints with 2min recovery periods, while the LIT group did 60mins of exercise.

Who in the real world is going to do this?

Answer: none :D


Yes, but the fundamental points are that

- EPOC in all its data to date has NEVER taken into account the bodies responses on diet in the pre and proceeding 24 hours

This alone pretty much blows it out of the water. :D

[Sorry I have a bug bear with HIIT/EPOC and Fatloss - as soo many people push it and when the average joe bloggs tries it who god forbid is OVER 10+% BF it doesnt work to its potential and people generally lose strength - plus it got its popularity through a well known Supplements Manufacturer in the late 90's who had their reasons for pushing it based on limited studies - ]


I understand what you are saying, but incorporating diet into an EPOC study would not be accurate as you would be mixing results and it would no longer be an EPOC study but a body composition study.

EPOC is simply about the amount of oxygen debt created post exercise, HIIT creates a greater oxygen debt thus increasing thermogenesis in a third of the time than steady state does (based on 20min effort vs 60min effort) and in that respect is superior.

So I would suggest that while I understand your POV, the statement you made on blowing it out of the water is factually incorrect. :D

For untrained fatties with food issues - well thats a different kettle of fish. Just stick them on a PSMF with a weekly treat, have them do weights three times per week with daily steady state cardio until their GPP is up to a sufficient level to see the benefits of hypoxic training. IMHO :D
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby kp1512 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:03 pm

Yes what you say is correct - but the overlying point of HIIT and EPOC being better or as good as Steady State is wrong which is what alot of these studies on EPOC and HIIT alude to as they like to summarise a higher caloric utilisation and thus insinuate it is better for fat loss - when in the real world it's does not occur.
kp1512
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am
Location: London \ Manchester - UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:11 pm

kp1512 wrote:Yes what you say is correct - but the overlying point of HIIT and EPOC being better or as good as Steady State is wrong which is what alot of these studies on EPOC and HIIT alude to as they like to summarise a higher caloric utilisation and thus insinuate it is better for fat loss - when in the real world it's does not occur.


Lol.

Under a metabolic ward study I would suggest HIIT would be conclusively proven to be better than Steady State.

But I doubt anyone will find the funding for it :D
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby burningnun on Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Tall wrote:Man you boys need to think outside the box.

Take an old tyre, some tow rope, a circular bit of 12mm ply, some weights and you have a sled. Sorted. :D


I used a wheel I found and some chain. No wood needed.
82.5 kg powerlifter
User avatar
burningnun
Dedicated Member
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:33 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Karlos on Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:29 pm

kp1512 wrote:Yes what you say is correct - but the overlying point of HIIT and EPOC being better or as good as Steady State is wrong which is what alot of these studies on EPOC and HIIT alude to as they like to summarise a higher caloric utilisation and thus insinuate it is better for fat loss - when in the real world it's does not occur.


Surely studies which conclude hiit is 9 times better for fat loss than SS, must have some proof that the extra calories are derived from adipose tissue?
Use discount code BSD16 for 5% off your first order
Karlos
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Coop_de_Ville on Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:06 pm

In my opinion you need to balance your cardio work to gain the benefits of both types. Mainly because doing too much HIIT will take it out of you and in this instance you should balance it out with some steady state recovery/easy runs.

As both do burn fat. Do both to gain the best physiological benefit and allow the adaptation of your body to the harder sessions with the easy SS sessions.

A good cardio programme should have each session complimenting each other e.g

Monday-HIIT 5x3min at 85-95% HR

Wednesday-SS 40 mins at 60-70% HR

Friday-HIIT 30x 40secs fast 20 secs recover

etc etc

This way the body recovers from the HIIT and adapts whilst doing a SS run and getting the benefits of that.
What are your thoughts?
C_D_V
Coop_de_Ville
Super Contributor
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:18 am

Karlos wrote:
kp1512 wrote:Yes what you say is correct - but the overlying point of HIIT and EPOC being better or as good as Steady State is wrong which is what alot of these studies on EPOC and HIIT alude to as they like to summarise a higher caloric utilisation and thus insinuate it is better for fat loss - when in the real world it's does not occur.


Surely studies which conclude hiit is 9 times better for fat loss than SS, must have some proof that the extra calories are derived from adipose tissue?


9X fat loss was derived from the following:

3mm skin fold difference vs 1mm skinfold difference in 1/3 of the time. Total fat lost on that study was abour 1kg in 16 weeks.

The study you're on about was, to be frank, rubbish.
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby kp1512 on Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:47 am

Karlos wrote:
kp1512 wrote:Yes what you say is correct - but the overlying point of HIIT and EPOC being better or as good as Steady State is wrong which is what alot of these studies on EPOC and HIIT alude to as they like to summarise a higher caloric utilisation and thus insinuate it is better for fat loss - when in the real world it's does not occur.


Surely studies which conclude hiit is 9 times better for fat loss than SS, must have some proof that the extra calories are derived from adipose tissue?


Not entirely as at varied VO2 different substrates get utilised.
kp1512
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am
Location: London \ Manchester - UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Karlos on Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:08 pm

Yes, i know, but surely top studies can measure fat oxidation? They can't just say 'hiit is 9 times better for fat loss' merely according to calorie expenditure? :|
Use discount code BSD16 for 5% off your first order
Karlos
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby kp1512 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:40 pm

Karlos wrote:Yes, i know, but surely top studies can measure fat oxidation? They can't just say 'hiit is 9 times better for fat loss' merely according to calorie expenditure? :|


they can - thats the joke of it all :D
kp1512
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am
Location: London \ Manchester - UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby Tall on Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:37 pm

Karlos wrote:Yes, i know, but surely top studies can measure fat oxidation? They can't just say 'hiit is 9 times better for fat loss' merely according to calorie expenditure? :|


That studies results (9x better) were from fat oxidation.

Someone dig me out the study and I'll show you how bad a study it was.

Examples (from memory) of some of the results:

3x greater fat loss in 1/3 of time (9x better)
Starting avg measurement of tricep site: 12mm
Steady State Measurement: 11mm
HIIT measurement: 9mm
HIIT = 3mm vs SS = 1mm = 3x greater

etc etc etc

That study is rubbish
Tall
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby health4ni on Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:25 pm

A summary of a few new studies supporting EPOC:
http://alwyncosgrove.com/2011/03/new-studies-on-the-afterburn-effect/
Cluster Training
http://health4ni.com/ :: BSD Discount Code: BSD6505
User avatar
health4ni
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 5532
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:58 am
Location: Belfast, UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby kp1512 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:38 pm

health4ni wrote:A summary of a few new studies supporting EPOC:
http://alwyncosgrove.com/2011/03/new-studies-on-the-afterburn-effect/


good post Scott.

do you know what he meant by "metabolic circuit training" at the end? I mean what does that involve movement and rest wise?
kp1512
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am
Location: London \ Manchester - UK

Re: DO NOT KILL CARDIO Thread!

Postby health4ni on Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:04 pm

Example I did today with a client: 2-handed 1xDB Clean & Press for 5 reps -> sled pulls.

Basically, some fairly intense work often with weights. Another example: 5 burpees then 50 mountain climbers. Rest 30s, then 4 burpees and 40 mountain climbers etc down to 1 & 10.

Loads of things. Usually a mixture of BW training with some resistance work.
Cluster Training
http://health4ni.com/ :: BSD Discount Code: BSD6505
User avatar
health4ni
Ultimate Contributor
 
Posts: 5532
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:58 am
Location: Belfast, UK

Previous

Return to Cardiovascular Fitness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests

cron