On my usual internet vision quest for information, I ran across this beauty:
burnthefatblog.com/archives/2008/04/steady_state_cardio_proven_5_x.php
Debunking the study most commonly used to support HIIT- the 9 times greater fat loss figure is thrown around a lot, like here: http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539
I love HIIT but this certainly raised an eyebrow for me.
I’m sure both are good, but you can’t beat the time effectiveness of HIIT.
How many people complain of not having time to exercise?
give them 15 mins of HIIT and they can fit it in a lot easier.
try both and see what works best for you. I still believe that HIIT is superior to steady state not just because of the calories burned, but because of the changes that occur in the body due to the high intensity.
Why is this on the Supps&Nutrition board?
(bump)
Mainly because there’s really no other forums that this fits in, but this is the most fat loss oriented.
I find that riding a bicycle over a very long distance three or four times a week is really effective.
I have tried the HIIT on a machine in the gym and just kind of get bored. I find myself pushed a lot harder if I am on a real incline trying to get up it on a real bicycle. Plus, mountain cycling is awesome. Period.
Get a bike and ride it hard for a long distance. It is more interesting than doing several miles in a stationary position - that idea doesn’t sit well in my head…
Sprinters tend to be lean and mean.
Marathon runners tend to be skinny fat.
Coinkidink, I think not!
I believe that both are effective, but need to be used in an intelligent manor. I know HIIT would be a bad idea while in my large caloric deficit, but will be extremely beneficial when I am eating a small surplus of calories or around maintenance.