Steady State Cardio?

[quote]Nothingface wrote:
IQ wrote:
I must admit that I’m playing devil’s advocate a little here and I will read the study when I get a minute.

I agree with the bang for your buck argument which is why I do intervals now but I switch to SSSC for the same reason as the bodybuilders do. Admittedly I’m not training twice every day as they might but I’m not taking steroids either.

If I’m actively trying to lose fat I will be in a calorie deficit and trying my best to limit muscle loss, for this purpose I prefer SSSC. There is more than one way to accomplish most tasks, I just can’t understand why some seem to be so single minded.

You’re right in that both methods can be effective. The question is what do you consider steady state cardio? HIIT is very effective, probably the most effective. SSSC can be effective, but if not done properly can burn up too much muscle, that’s the real problem. The reason that marathoners have terrible physiques is that long distance running is their primary form of exercise, if not only form. If you want to have a some muscle and low bodyfat, then your first step is to build the muscle neccessary to have a metabolism that burns fat. Thus, your weight training must always be your main form of exercise. Then, either HIIT or SSSC will help burn fat, but the key is to not lose your muscle in the process. SSSC that is simply walking, non-panting cardio done frequently will not have the adverse muscle burning effects. Long distance running, burns too much muscle, thats what it comes down to. Either do your cardio in very high intensity, or very low intensity. Not in between, which is what most people consider steady state cardio. For more about this, look up Lonnie Lowery’s “100 workouts to ripped city”.[/quote]

Good comments, gents. Though the study results are intriguing and my personal experience suggests that HIIT is the way to go, I definitely agree with IQ that there’s ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that the answer may not be as simple as “SSSC causes fat gain,” and “HIIT burns fat like paper.” Clearly diet and other exercise modalities play a significant role here; a zillion jacked and shredded pro bodybuilders can’t be totally wrong.

We may have a case where the science has yet to lay out the full complexity of the truth. I mean, if SSSC does indeed cause fat gain, marathoners should be fat blobs.

DF

Have to agree with IQ in terms of SSSC and HIIT being essentially tools. At the same time, it is worth anyones time to experiment with actually sprinting on a track as their primary cardio option (if only for a brief period).

Just speculating, but it seems the majority who get sub-optimumal results from HIIT are using machines as their modality. Bikes, ellipticals, even treadmills don’t come close to the sort of intensity you can generate on the track.

Begin with two sessions a week - one consisting of short intervals and one longer, observe results and proceed from there.
J.

[quote]Hriliu999 wrote:

Bikes, ellipticals, even treadmills don’t come close to the sort of intensity you can generate on the track.

J. [/quote]

I’m not sure if I agree. I get seriously fucked up on my mountain bike going up the hill tracks.

Just wanted to throw this out there because some people may not know. Interval training is not necessarily done in an all out sprint, but just a much higher intensity than normal. It does not have the drain on the CNS of a hard lifting workout, but it is significant because it is cardio and unlike SSC does stress the CNS.

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Hriliu999 wrote:

Bikes, ellipticals, even treadmills don’t come close to the sort of intensity you can generate on the track.

J.

I’m not sure if I agree. I get seriously fucked up on my mountain bike going up the hill tracks.
[/quote]

That’s a good point. I will look for it, but the study that I saw in relation to EPOC indicated that the EPOC time reduced dramatically with the familiarity with the exercise. I don’t recall that the study tested both a new exercise altogether and wattage, though