I was talking to a so called trainner the other day, disscusing some trainning techniques and such. When I asked him what he thought about Interval Training for cardio. I told him that I train like a bodybuilder and have found that for me doing Intervals for my cardio seems to be much more effective for fatburning, as well as for keeping muscle size, than doing long bouts of steady state cardio all the time.
He then proceded to tell me that I did not know what I was talking about and that if I was losing muscle do to long bouts of cardio that I was just not eating enough calories, so I must be doing something wrong. I then tried to explain some of the facts from my point of view and he just cut me off and said that steady state is way more efficient at burning calories than intervals and that I was basically wasting my time.
He said that he was right and I was worng! So my question is: Is he right? I did try to tell him that I do do some steady state cardio occasionally, jsut not on the days I weight train. So is the answer just to eat more calories and hope for the best?
HIIT doesn’t necessarily make you “lose muscle”, but you should know how big of an impact it has on your body.For one, it can drain your Central Nervous System, and even your Nervous System.In addition to that, it burns calories like no other! It won’t eat away at your muscles, but if you do it repetitively, it will be dam near impossible to GAIN muscle-or Strength for that matter.
Nearly all bodybuilders DON’T do HIIT. This is because weight training 4 to 6 days per week is highly demanding as it is, especially if there’s a large focus on compound lifts and there’s some use of intensive things like drop sets and rest pause.
Many goofy RDs and trainers believe that steady state cardio is the best because they believe that we use mostly fat for this activity and that HIIT uses glycogen.
This outlook is way too simple and the types of nutrients used for different activities depends on the person’s nutritional status at that moment they’re doing the activity.
HIIT DOES result in greater EPOC, but I think it’s inappropriate for bodybuilding.
I’ll be doing HIIT–well, 100 to 400 meter sprints on an outdoor track, not boring, feefy shit on a treadmill or stationary bike–in the summer, but I won’t be following a bodybuilding program, nor will I be lifting 4 to 6 times per week.
One might ask though, do pro bodybuilders not use HIIT much, if at all, because it doesn’t work; or because it’s just too rough on the joints with all that heavy-ass lifting they do? If it’s the latter, then it might be better for people who still have a ways to go, since they still aren’t pushing enough weight for that to be a real issue.
Just playing devil’s advocate, not supporting one point of view or the other.
In my opinion, it depends on how you look at it. He seems to be looking at the question in regards to the respiratory exchange ratio (RER.) The lower your RER is, the more fat you are burning for fuel. .7 is the most ideal RER, but is only attained while you are at complete rest. An RER of 1.0+ signifies the body primarily using glycogen for fuel. This is attained by strenuous, fast paced activities.
So steady state cardio does burn more fat than glycogen, but at a slow rate. HIIT burns more glycogen than fat, but caloric expenditure is much greater. So technically you are both right in certain situations, and both wrong in other situations. It all depends on your total caloric expenditure and your RER throughout the exercise. It can go both ways.
Here is some good info re HIIT and low int cardio…BUT at the end of the day, I would go with whatever yields BEST overall results. Personally, HIIT proves very useful for dropping fat and keeping/gaining lean mass.
Here is some good info re HIIT and low int cardio…BUT at the end of the day, I would go with whatever yields BEST overall results. Personally, HIIT proves very useful for dropping fat and keeping/gaining lean mass.
GJ[/quote]
I’ve heard the spiel from the Poliquin camp for years! Yeah, sprinters have lower bodyfat levels than distance runners, but high-ranking distance runners are VERY lean too!
And that aerobics schedule he spoke of - steady state, 30 to 50 minutes, 3 to 6 times per week - is the EXACT setup that most bodybuilders use!
And he’s wrong on sprinters doing almost zero aerobics work. Actually, most sprinters do 25 to 45 minute tempo runs twice or thrice per week.
Oh… I also believe that sprinter versus distance runner question is a little jerky considering that people better have a cardio base before they attempt any sprinting…
… and that cardio base would be built on 20 to 45 minute runs several times per week. Not to mention that nearly all Joe Schmoe clients will have to lose a considerable amount of fat and gain some strength and mobility to even start sprinting too.
I go less for “HIIT” and more for “IT”, doing cardio at a rate where I can’t sustain it for more than 3-4 minutes, easing up for a minute, and than going back.
IMO HIIT is too strenuous to do while weightlifting intensively, but maybe I’m just a pussy
Thanks for all the comments. I wasn’t trying to determine if I was right and He was wrong, I had just been reading a lot of articles on interval trainning lately and have found them to be very informative. I do weight train 4 to 5 days a week and do some steady state low intensity cardio some.
However i’m not sure that I was clear on what kind of intervals I was talking about. I know there are several different ways to do HIIT, but I was talking about sprint intervals like say, sprint for 30 sec. and recover at a slower pace for like 1 min. 30 sec. and then go again for a total of say 25 min. I just know that in the past when I used them that is when I saw the biggest gains as far as muscle size and getting lean. I hope that I cleared up some of the confusion.
Brick- you know I respect the hell outta you, but this is always the topic we always seem to disagree on -lol.
All of the Natty competitors I know use HIIT as the main fat loss tool, with some occasional low intensity stuff towards the end of their preps just for some extra caloric burn. Any type of exercise is potentially catabolic, so you ultimately want to get away with the least that you can,… and everyone will handle different types of stress somewhat differently. The final answer is always going to be what works best for you, whether one type, or some combination of the two in different proportions. Personally, I prefer doing intervals at a 1:4 ratio of sprints to steady work, but I also limit the sessions to 20-25 mins so they don’t become too taxing.
I might be wrong but I’ve always thought the pro guys ,like Ronnie Coleman in his videos, preferred steady state cardio because of their size. I mean, there’s a big difference in the stress joints when you’re sprinting at 300 lbs as compared to 200. When I went from 190 to 240 I definitely noticed it. Perhaps HIT is more effective for lighter guys than heavier? I mean, I’m sure a 300 lb guys going to get more out of walking 2 miles than a 150 lb guy.
Emil Zatopek, one of the greatest runners of all time… and an example of how all that long distance, steady state cardio makes you a fat retaining monster. Look at that belly on him. He’s gotta be 15+% in this photo.
I have to agree with Stu here too, I don’t have a problem with HIIT and find it very effective. I don’t tend to go above 15mins and only do it twice a week (same format Stu mentioned). Also, I don’t weight lift more than 4 times a week when doing HIIT.
Although it’s a good point about the “heaviness” issue.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Emil Zatopek, one of the greatest runners of all time… and an example of how all that long distance, steady state cardio makes you a fat retaining monster. Look at that belly on him. He’s gotta be 15+% in this photo. [/quote]
Not only that, but look at how it spared his muscle mass at the same time!! that guy’s huge and lean!!
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Emil Zatopek, one of the greatest runners of all time… and an example of how all that long distance, steady state cardio makes you a fat retaining monster. Look at that belly on him. He’s gotta be 15+% in this photo. [/quote]
Not only that, but look at how it spared his muscle mass at the same time!! that guy’s huge and lean!![/quote]
Running marathons doesn’t spare muscle. This example goes to show that you don’t become a fat hoarding beast from steady state cardio for a volume that’s NOWHERE NEAR what elite endurance athletes go through and that the whole “sprinter versus marathon runner” example presented to people that hardly get off the couch or chair is asinine!
It’s also asinine that BOTH muscular behemoths in the IFBB AND endurance athletes aren’t fat from steady state cardio!
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:Running marathons doesn’t spare muscle. This example goes to show that you don’t become a fat hoarding beast from steady state cardio for a volume that’s NOWHERE NEAR what elite endurance athletes go through and that the whole “sprinter versus marathon runner” example presented to people that hardly get off the couch or chair is asinine!
It’s also asinine that BOTH muscular behemoths in the IFBB AND endurance athletes aren’t fat from steady state cardio!
Nice try, SMARTASS![/quote]
Nobody is saying that endurance athletes are fat, the thread is about which form of cardio preserves the most muscle mass. That’s why your posting a picture of a skinny marathon runner wasn’t relevant to the thread.
(BTW I agree with what you’re saying, just thought the choice of photo was a bit odd)
And what I mean is, 5 to 7 sessions of 20 to 45 minutes of slow state cardio like walking on an incline treadmill (which really is barely considered exercise) is NOT going to make someone prone to fat-storing or degenerate their muscular body into that of a concentration camp victim! And that cardio workload is nowhere near the intensity or volume of an elite endurance athlete - like Zatopek pictured above running a 26 MILE MARATHON IN THE OLYMPICS - NOT a cakewalk session of riding a stationary bike half asleep as most people are on those things - bodybuilders included.
The photo is relevant because we now have personal trainers and fitness writers constantly using the “sprinter’s versus marathon runner’s physique” to promote interval training - sometimes in cases in which the trainee or reader is nowhere near in shape for sprinting or interval training.
They also fail to point out that 25 to 45 minutes of cardio isn’t going to destroy your physique.
By the way, most bodybuilders aren’t in shape or mobile enough for sprinting, nor do they have to be, nor does their schedule allow them to be.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Emil Zatopek, one of the greatest runners of all time… and an example of how all that long distance, steady state cardio makes you a fat retaining monster. Look at that belly on him. He’s gotta be 15+% in this photo. [/quote]
Not only that, but look at how it spared his muscle mass at the same time!! that guy’s huge and lean!![/quote]
Running marathons doesn’t spare muscle. This example goes to show that you don’t become a fat hoarding beast from steady state cardio for a volume that’s NOWHERE NEAR what elite endurance athletes go through and that the whole “sprinter versus marathon runner” example presented to people that hardly get off the couch or chair is asinine!
It’s also asinine that BOTH muscular behemoths in the IFBB AND endurance athletes aren’t fat from steady state cardio!
Nice try, SMARTASS![/quote]
I don’t think anyone is saying low intensity cardio makes someone a store fat, how would that make any sense?
The whole sprinter thing is brought up to show they’re more muscular (i.e. sprinting will retain more mass). Probably just depends on the person. Honestly I think I get better results from HIIT, but it’s obviously harder and I can’t really read or do anything else I could do during low intensity lol.
