Page 2 of 4

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:59 pm
by Ricky
I'll just do 45 mins or so of high intensity running (185-195 BPM).

Get the best of both worlds.

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:11 pm
by Jungledoc
...or the worst!

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:00 am
by Wouter
If I need to lose some fat, I do an hour of cycling (30+ km/h).
It works better for me than sprinting, but I have to say I do some type of interval training during cycling: trying to overtake other cyclists, hills, cycling as fast as possible, ...

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:23 am
by Helena115
I just don't see how anyone can stand long steady state cardio. It's so BORING. I have to incorporate some sort of intervals when I go running, either it's straight HIIT or some variant of that. I'd go crazy otherwise. Or more likely, I'd go home and skip the workout :green:

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:31 pm
by ApolytonGP
I find being outdoors, that I get stimulation regardless of it being non-interval (whether cycling, running or blading). Also turns and hills and stoplights and such give some small variability to the workout (far from intervals, but at least mentally helpful).

I'm a big believer in "energy math" (calories in, out). And I'm pretty sure that you can burn more calories with aerobic activity than anaerobic. (Lyle says there are studies to this effect and it would make sense...think about mechanically performing a task involving actual energy displacement, for instance moving objects against a graviational field). So any kind of argument about "being in fat burning mode" or insulin-thinkgie or whatever falls on deaf ears to me.

Now...if your goal is some sort of ATHLETIC performance. Or hypertrophy. Then I could easily believe that training anaerobically might be more appropriate. For instance, sprinters should sprint...not run miles. Same thing for Ami football players.

But...I think a lot of the average population can benefit more from SS cardio than from the pain of intervals. So "finding a way to convince them" seems not the right concern. Since, I don't really accept that it is more in their interests. Actually I think the whole "interval thing" is a bit of a trainer fad. Like Bosu.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:46 pm
by callipygian50
ApolytonGP wrote: I'm a big believer in "energy math" (calories in, out). And I'm pretty sure that you can burn more calories with aerobic activity than anaerobic. (Lyle says there are studies to this effect and it would make sense...think about mechanically performing a task involving actual energy displacement, for instance moving objects against a graviational field). So any kind of argument about "being in fat burning mode" or insulin-thinkgie or whatever falls on deaf ears to me.
I'm not an expert about exercise by any means, but I'm a bit confused by whatever you are trying to communicate. Isn't the anaerobic vs aerobic issue separate from the fat burning vs. cardio (carb burning) issue?

Also, the physics example seems odd. Many weight training exercises involve displacing heavy objects and moving them perpendicular to a gravitational field; most exercises are anaerobic. In contrast, running on a flat surface involves modest up and down motions. During a sprint, running is anaerobic; slow sustained running in the cardio zone or walking in the fat burning zone are both aerobic, right? So, the moving stuff across gravity really doesn't seem very important to the aerobic/anaerobic nature of an exercise.

What are you trying to communicate with the discussion of moving objects through a gravitational field?

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:36 pm
by Ricky
ApolytonGP wrote:And I'm pretty sure that you can burn more calories with aerobic activity than anaerobic.
The charts in the books I have at home say aerobic workouts burn more calories per hour than anaerobic and I tend to believe them...

Aerobic exercise is definitely more efficient for burning fat but there's no reason you can't burn some fat lifting weights, as well.

Also, you are moving a heavy object when you run if you count yourself. There are a lot of muscles involved but it's the sustained movement that makes it an "aerobic" exercise.

I agree about the interval thing. This isn't rocket science but I guess a lot of people seem to like it, so OK. Again, I'm at VO2 max for about 40 minutes. I'm sure this does more than either HIIT or sustained cardio or even both.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:13 pm
by Nevage
Aerobic exercise does burn more calories than anaerobic yes, because you can sustain it for a longer period of time. And yes a lot of the calories burned come from fat (depending on the intensity of the exercise, higher=predominantly carbs). But the whole point of HIIT is the effect it has after you've trained (EPOC etc.) I believe you burn more calories overall from regular HIIT due to increased metabolism. Because our bodies burn fat the majority of the time, this is coming predominantly from fat stores.

This is a basic explanation but the right idea. There's a tonne of other advantages involved as well like increased buffereing capacity allowing longer duration of exercise before fatigue sets in. There's plenty of papers on comparing the differences of continuous training and HIIT for cardiovascular fitness and fat loss, let me know if anyone wants any.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:20 pm
by hoosegow
Now, now Nevage. We don't want to confuse the issue with silly stuff like facts and scientific studies and what not.

So KPj, Kenny, Nunn, et al, going back to part of my original question, how do you convince certain people, via information, that HIIT is superior to cardio.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:58 pm
by Nevage
Sorry forgot about the original question. I normally say studies show...

But only if they're good, reputable studies. If they want to know more I'll send them it. Scientific fact.

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:46 am
by KPj
I actually don't have much of a problem, or need to convince people to do it over SSC. All my arguments and need to justify myself evolve around the resistance training part. Also for most people, their eyes light up when I say we won't be doing much, if any SSC because most people only do it because they think they need to and not because they enjoy it.

I think it's because "Spin Classes" basically use HIIT, atleast for a portion of it and for the majority of them that I've seen or heard about. Intervals aren't all that new to most once they know what you actually mean.

When I'm explaining the whole structure and goal of the workout I always talk about creating a response from your metablism and the best way to do that is training at a high intensity. I try and get them out of the mindset of thinking too much about what happens in the actual session (i.e. total calories burned) and more into the mindset of "today my goal is to create a response from my body, and outside of the gym I need to fuel my body with food that will support my goals". I like using examples of increasing endurance, strength, or mass. You make yourself WORSE in the sessions. You break down muscle. You get weaker. You expend all your energy. It's outside of the session, when your body recovers and returns to it's normal state that the "magic" happens, providing you feed it with the right stuff.

I sometimes use an example of a recent TV program here, called "marathon man". It was comedian Eddie Izzard. He done around 40 marathons in 50 days (can't remember exactly), and didn't look any different at the end of it. You also have all the fat people who finish half marathons, 10K's, etc. If "calories burned" was THAT critical, then you wouldn't see that. You don't see many fat people running hills, though.

Don't know if that'll help, really. It's probably the one part of my programs that doesn't get many arguements at all to be honest.

KPj

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:52 am
by Ironman
callipygian50 wrote:
ApolytonGP wrote: I'm a big believer in "energy math" (calories in, out). And I'm pretty sure that you can burn more calories with aerobic activity than anaerobic. (Lyle says there are studies to this effect and it would make sense...think about mechanically performing a task involving actual energy displacement, for instance moving objects against a graviational field). So any kind of argument about "being in fat burning mode" or insulin-thinkgie or whatever falls on deaf ears to me.
I'm not an expert about exercise by any means, but I'm a bit confused by whatever you are trying to communicate. Isn't the anaerobic vs aerobic issue separate from the fat burning vs. cardio (carb burning) issue?

Also, the physics example seems odd. Many weight training exercises involve displacing heavy objects and moving them perpendicular to a gravitational field; most exercises are anaerobic. In contrast, running on a flat surface involves modest up and down motions. During a sprint, running is anaerobic; slow sustained running in the cardio zone or walking in the fat burning zone are both aerobic, right? So, the moving stuff across gravity really doesn't seem very important to the aerobic/anaerobic nature of an exercise.

What are you trying to communicate with the discussion of moving objects through a gravitational field?
Well, the problem with that is, you're expecting Apolyton to make sense. That's where you went wrong. I've made that mistake myself, more than once.

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:56 am
by Ironman
Ricky wrote:
ApolytonGP wrote:And I'm pretty sure that you can burn more calories with aerobic activity than anaerobic.
The charts in the books I have at home say aerobic workouts burn more calories per hour than anaerobic and I tend to believe them...

Aerobic exercise is definitely more efficient for burning fat but there's no reason you can't burn some fat lifting weights, as well.

Also, you are moving a heavy object when you run if you count yourself. There are a lot of muscles involved but it's the sustained movement that makes it an "aerobic" exercise.

I agree about the interval thing. This isn't rocket science but I guess a lot of people seem to like it, so OK. Again, I'm at VO2 max for about 40 minutes. I'm sure this does more than either HIIT or sustained cardio or even both.
That's raw calories burned during the exercise though. You also get the elevated metabolism for a day or so with the intervals.

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:41 am
by Jungledoc
Remember that Tabata's original study (yeah, I've looked at it myself, but I don't have it in front of me now, so this is an old man's recall) compared 4 minutes of intervals with 45 minutes of SSC. In VO2max improvement the two groups were equal. In fat loss, the interval group won. So instead of speculating or guessing about which one burns more calories, when you're just using calorie counts as a surrogate for fat loss anyway, why not look at the actual results in fat loss?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:23 am
by callipygian50
Jungledoc--
This link says the Tabata HIIT sessions were 14 minutes. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _n6011850/ This one says 4 minutes, and then describes doing a longer 16 minute method by doing 4 types of exercise, each following the 20s/10s for 4 minutes pattern: http://ezinearticles.com/?Tabata-Anythi ... &id=348486

Does the paper say 4 minutes? Or 14?

Either way, I'm all for the HIIT. I'm too old to do things the inefficient way.

If 20 sec/10 sec intervals are useful, I'm tempted to use jumping rope. I've always liked that better than biking. I don't think I can view a wall clock at the location where it's convenient to skip rope. I may need to find some sort of timer I can program to "beep" to force me to switch-- otherwise, I'll estimate and count skips. I suspect there is nothing magic about 20s/10s as opposed to 19s/11s or 21s/9s. Do any of you guys know if there are any special timers available for various exercise uses? (Maybe I can just make a recording with "beeps" at appropriate intervals. But if someone knows of a convenient exercise watch/heartmonitor/multi-function device, I'd like to know about it. )

Another question, is there any problem with doing SS cardio in addition to HIIT? Either on different days, or on the same day after a short rest? I want to boost my resting metabolism (partly for weight loss, partly because I tend to be cold all the time.) But I wouldn't mind boosting my resting metabolism and also burning the 300-500 calories I can burn during a bout of SS cardio.