Archivi tag: steady state cardio

Alimentazione, Allenamento, Cardio - Running, Dieta - Perdere grasso e non peso!, Tenersi in forma

Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????

Lascia un commento

Title: Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????
By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
URL: www.BurnTheFat.com

Word count: 1860 words

Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????

By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT for short, has been promoted as one of the most effective training methods ever to come down the pike, both for fat loss and for cardiovascular fitness. One of the most popular claims for HIIT is that it burns “9 times more fat” than conventional (steady state) cardio. This figure was extracted from a study performed by Angelo Tremblay at Laval University in 1994. But what if I told you that HIIT has never been proven to be 9 times more effective than regular cardio… What if I told you that the same study actually shows that HIIT is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio??? Read on and see the proof for yourself.

“There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.”

– Mark Twain

In 1994, a study was published in the scientific journal Metabolism by Angelo Tremblay and his team from the Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory at Laval University in Quebec, Canada. Based on the results of this study, you hear personal trainers across the globe claiming that “HIIT burns 9 times more fat than steady state cardio.”

This claim has often been interpreted by the not so scientifically literate public as meaning something like this: If you burned 3 pounds of fat in 15 weeks on steady state cardio, you would now burn 27 pounds of fat in 15 weeks (3 lbs X 9 times better = 27 lbs).

Although it’s usually not stated as such, frankly, I think this is what some trainers want you to believe, because the programs that some trainers promote are based on convincing you of the vast superiority of HIIT and the “uselessness” of low intensity exercise.

Indeed, higher intensity exercise is more effective and time efficient than lower intensity exercise. The question is, how much more effective? There’s no evidence that the “9 times more fat loss” claim is true outside the specific context in which it was mentioned in this study.

In order to get to the bottom of this, you have to read the full text of the research paper and you have to look very closely at the results.

13 men and 14 women age 18 to 32 started the study. They were broken into two groups, a high intensity intermittent training program (HIIT) and a steady state training program which they referred to as endurance training (ET).

The ET group completed a 20 week steady state aerobic training program on a cycle ergometer 4 times a week for 30 minutes, later progressing to 5 times per week for 45 minutes. The initial intensity was 60% of maximal heart rate reserve, later increasing to 85%.

The HIIT group performed 25-30 minutes of continuous exercise at 70% of maximal heart rate reserve and they also progressively added 35 long and short interval training sessions over a period of 15 weeks. Short work intervals started at 10 then 15 bouts of 15 seconds, increasing to 30 seconds. Long intervals started at 5 bouts of 60 seconds, increasing to 90 seconds. Intensity and duration were progressively increased over the 15 week period.

The results: 3 times greater fat loss in the HIIT group

Even though the energy cost of the exercise performed in the ET group was twice as high as the HIIT group, the sum of the skinfolds (which reflects subcutaneous body fat) in the HIIT group was three times lower than the ET group.

So where did the “9 times greater fat loss” claim come from?

Well, there was a difference in energy cost between groups, so in order to show a comparison of fat loss relative to energy cost, Tremblay wrote,

“It appeared reasonable to correct changes in subcutaneous fat for the total cost of training. This was performed by expressing changes in subcutaneous skinfolds per megajoule of energy expended in each program.”

Translation: The subjects did not lose 9 times more body fat, in absolute terms. But hey, 3 times more fat loss? You’ll gladly take that, right?

Well hold on, because there’s more. Did you know that in this oft-quoted study, neither group lost much weight? In fact, if you look at the charts, you can see that the HIIT group lost 0.1 kg (63.9 kg before, 63.8 kg after). Yes, the HIIT group lost a whopping 100 grams of weight in 15 weeks!

The ET group lost 0.5 kilograms (60.6 kg before, 60.1 kg after).

Naturally, lack of weight loss while skinfolds decrease could simply mean that body composition improved (lean mass increased), but I think it’s important to highlight the fact that the research study from which the “9 times more fat” claim was derived did not result in ANY significant weight loss after 15 weeks.Based on these results, if I wanted to manipulate statistics to promote steady state cardio, I could go around telling people, “Research study says steady state cardio (endurance training) results in 5 times more weight loss than high intensity interval training!” Or the reverse, “Clinical trial proves that high intensity interval training is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio!”

Mind you, THIS IS THE SAME STUDY THAT IS MOST OFTEN QUOTED TO SUPPORT HIIT!

If I said 5 X greater weight loss with steady state, I would be telling the truth, wouldn’t I? (100 grams of weight loss vs 500 grams?) Of course, that would be misleading because the weight loss was hardly significant in either group and because interval training IS highly effective. I’m simply being a little facetious in order to make a point: Be careful with statistics. I have seen statistical manipulation used many times in other contexts to deceive unsuspecting consumers.

For example, advertisements for a popular fat burner claim that use of their supplement resulted in twice as much fat loss, based on scientific research. The claim was true. Of course, in the ad, they forget to tell you that after six months, the control group lost no weight, while the supplement group lost only 1.0 kilo. Whoop de doo! ONE KILO of weight loss after going through a six month supply of this “miracle fat burner!”

But I digress…

Back to the HIIT story – there’s even more to it.

In the ET group, there were some funky skinfold and circumference measurements. ALL of the skinfold measurements in the ET group either stayed the same or went down except the calf measurement, which went up.

The girths and skinfold measurements in the limbs went down in the HIIT group, but there wasn’t much difference between HIIT and ET in the trunk skinfolds. These facts are all very easy to miss. I didn’t even notice it myself until exercise physiologist Christian Finn pointed it out to me. Christian said,

“When you look at the changes in the three skinfold measurements taken from the trunk, there wasn’t that much difference between the steady state group (-6.3mm) and the HIIT group (-8.7 mm). So, much of the difference in subcutaneous fat loss between the groups wasn’t because the HIIT group lost more fat, but because the steady state group actually gained fat around the calf muscles. We shouldn’t discount simple measurement error as an explanation for these rather odd results.”

Christian also pointed out that the two test groups were not evenly matched for body composition at the beginning of the study. At the beginning of the study, the starting body fat based on skinfolds in the HIIT group was nearly 20% higher than the ET group. He concluded:

“So while this study is interesting, weaknesses in the methods used to track changes in body composition mean that we should treat the results and conclusions with some caution.”

One beneficial aspect of HIIT that most trainers forget to mention is that HIIT may actually suppress your appetite, while steady state cardio might increase appetite. In a study such as this, however, that can skew the results. If energy intake were not controlled, then some of the greater fat loss in the HIIT group could be due to lowered caloric intake.

Last but not least, I’d like to highlight the words of the researchers themselves in the conclusion of the paper, which confirms the effectiveness of HIIT, but also helps put it in perspective a bit:

“For a given level of energy expenditure, a high intensity training program induces a greater loss of subcutaneous fat compared with a training program of moderate intensity.”

“It is obvious that high intensity exercise cannot be prescribed for individuals at risk for health problems or for obese people who are not used to exercise. In these cases, the most prudent course remains a low intensity exercise program with a progressive increase in duration and frequency of sessions.”

In conclusion, my intention in writing this article wasn’t to be controversial, to be a smart-alec or to criticize HIIT. To the contrary, additional research has continued to support the efficacy of HIIT for fat loss and fitness, not to mention that it is one of the most time efficient ways to do cardiovascular training.

I have recommended HIIT for years in my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, using a 1:1 long interval approach, which, while only one of many ways to do HIIT, is probably my personal favorite method. However, I also recommend steady state cardio and even low intensity cardio like walking, when it is appropriate.

My intentions for writing this article were four-fold:

1. To encourage you to question where claims come from, especially if they sound too good to be true. 2. To alert you to how advertisers might use research such as this to exaggerate with statistics. 3. To encourage the fitness community to swing the pendulum back to center a bit, by not over-selling the benefits of HIIT beyond what can be supported by the scientific research. 4. To encourage the fitness community, that even as they praise HIIT, not to condemn lower and moderate intensity forms of cardio.

As the original author of the 1994 HIIT study himself pointed out, HIIT is not for everyone, and cardio should be prescribed with progression. Also, mountains of other research has proven that walking (GASP! – low intensity cardio!) has always been one of the most successful exercise methods for overweight men and women.

There is ample evidence which says that obesity may be the result of a very slight daily energy imbalance, which adds up over time. Therefore, even a small amount of casual exercise or activity, if done consistently, and not compensated for with increased food intake, could reverse the obesity trend. HIIT gets the job done fast, but that doesn’t mean low intensity cardio is useless or that you should abandon your walking program, if you have the time and if that is what you enjoy and if that is what’s working for you in your personal situation.

The mechanisms and reasons why HIIT works so well are numerous. It goes way beyond more calories burned during the workout.

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS Fat Loss Coach www.BurnTheFat.com

Reference: Tremblay, Angelo, et al. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. Vol 43. no 7 (July). Pp 814-818. 1994..

About the Author:

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness Tom Venuto 8

writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The

Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without

drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best

bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of

stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting:

www.BurnTheFat.com

Alimentazione, Allenamento, Cardio - Running, Dieta - Perdere grasso e non peso!, Tenersi in forma

2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

Lascia un commento

Title: 2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making
By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
URL: www.burnthefat.com
Word count: 999 words

2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

The controversies over cardio for fat loss are  endless: steady state versus intervals, fed versus fasted, long and easy versus  short and intense, and so on. Obviously there is a lot of interest in cardio  training and how to do it right. Sadly, most people are still doing 2 things  terribly wrong and it’s killing their results…… As best as I can figure, there  are two major reasons why people are still mucking up their cardio programs for  fat loss.

REASON #1: NOT ENOUGH FOCUS ON TOTAL CALORIES BURNED

Most people aren’t burning enough darn calories.

Why? Well, I guess they are too busy worrying about the “proper” type of exercise (which machine or activity), the mode (steady state or intervals), the “optimal” ratio of intervals, or the “best” duration.Some people coast along on the treadmill at 2.3 miles per hour or some similar sloth-like pace and they think that just by hitting a TIME goal, such as 45 or 60 minutes, that with “X” duration completed, they are assured to get the results they want. On the other extreme, we have folks who have found or created some mega-intense, super-duper short training protocol like the “4-minute wonder workout from Japan.” Just because the workout is high in intensity and it is performed in intervals, they too think they are assured to get the results they want.

What’s missing in both cases is the realization that total fat loss over time is a function of total calories burned over time (assuming you don’t blow your diet, of course).

AND…

Total calories burned is a product of INTENSITY times DURATION, not intensity OR duration.

Too much focus on one variable at the exclusion of the other can lead to a less than optimal total calorie burn and disappointing results. And remember, intensity and duration are *variables* not absolutes! (“Variable” means you can change them… even if your “guru” says you can’t!)

When you understand the relationship and interplay between INTENSITY X DURATION you will find a “SWEET SPOT” where the product of those variables produces the maximal calorie burn and maximum fat loss, based on your current health condition and your need for time efficiency.

REASON #2: TOO MUCH FOCUS ON WHAT TYPE OF CALORIES BURNED

As best as I can figure, there is one whopper of a mistake that is still KILLING most people’s cardio programs and that is…

Way too much focus on WHAT you are burning during the workout – fats or carbohydrates – also known as “substrate utilization.”

This idea comes from the notorious “fat burning zone” myth which actually tells people to exercise SLOWER and LESS intensely to burn more fat.

Hold on a minute. Pop quiz. Which workout burns more calories?

(A) A 30 minute leisurely stroll through the park

(B) A 30 minute, sweat-pouring, heart-pounding, lung-burning run?

Like, DUH!

And yet we have trainers, authors and infomercial gurus STILL telling us we have to slow down if we want to burn more fat??? Bizarre.

The reason people still buy it is because the “fat burning zone” myth sounds so plausible because of two little science facts:

  • The higher your intensity, the more carbs you burn during the workout
  • The lower your intensity, the more fat you burn during the workout

And that’s the problem. You should be focusing on total calories and total fat burned during the workout and all day long, not just what type or percentage of fuel you are burning during the workout.

It’s not that fat oxidation doesn’t matter, but what if you have a high percentage of fat oxidation but an extremely low number of calories burned?

If you really want to be in the “fat burn zone,” you could sit on your couch all day long and that will keep you there quite nicely because “couch sitting” is a really low intensity (“fat-burning”) activity.

(Of course, “couch sitting” only burns 37 calories per half hour…)

HERE’S THE FAT-BURNING SOLUTION!

In both cases, the solution to burning more fat is drop dead simple: Focus your attention on how you can burn more TOTAL calories during your workout and all day long. If you want to burn more fat, burn more calories and you can do that by manipulating ANY of the variables : intensity, duration and also frequency. If you build your training program around this concept, you will be on the right track almost every time.

BUT WAIT – THERE IS MORE TO IT…

Naturally, we could argue that it’s not quite this simple and that there are hundreds of other reasons why your cardio program might not be working… and I would agree, of course. But on the exercise side, the ideas above should be foremost in your mind.

On the nutrition side, you have to get your act together there too.

For example, many people increase their food intake at the same time as they start a cardio training program thereby putting back in every calorie they burned during the workout! Then some of them have the nerve to say, “SEE, cardio doesn’t work!”

Incidentally, this is the exact reason that a few studies show that adding cardio or aerobic training to a diet “did not improve fat loss”: It’s not because the cardio didn’t work, it was because the researchers didn’t control for diet and the subjects ate more!!

It should go without saying that nutrition is the foundation on which every fat loss program is built.

Choose the combination of type, intensity, duration and frequency that suits your lifestyle and preferences the best, and WORK THE VARIABLES to get the fat loss results you want, but whichever cardio program you choose, remember that a solid fat burning nutrition program, such as Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle is necessary to help you make the most of it.

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto Fat Loss Coach www.BurnTheFat.com

About the Author:

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness Tom Venuto 8

writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The

Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without

drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best

bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of

stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting:

www.burnthefat.com

 

Alimentazione, Allenamento, Allenamento con i pesi - Bodybuilding, Cardio - Running, Dieta - Perdere grasso e non peso!, Q & A - Domande e Risposte, Tenersi in forma

The Doctor Says, “Aerobics Will Kill You!”

Lascia un commento

Title: The Doctor Says, “Aerobics Will Kill You!”

By line: By Tom Venuto

URL: www.BurnTheFat.com!

Word count: 1492 words

The Doctor Says, “Aerobics Will Kill You!” By Tom Venuto www.BurnTheFat.com!

I recently got an email from a reader who was told by a fairly prominent doctor/authorthat aerobics and running will “kill you” (that was more or less the gist of it). As a result, you should avoid aerobics like the plague, says this MD. Since I’ve tolerated enough “steady state cardio is dead” and “aerobics doesn’t work” nonsense over the last few years, despite the success stories I keep churning out that clearly show otherwise, (not to mention my own bodybuilding success, which includes regular cardio), I thought I should not only answer my reader, but also make this topic into an article for anyone else who may have doubts.

Here’s the “killer cardio” question and my response:


——————————————————————————————
BURN THE FAT READER EMAIL:
——————————————————————————————

Tom, your articles are great. Here’s the problem. More runners die from sudden heart attack and stroke than any other form of exercise on the planet.
It’s because nothing is more foreign to human beings than getting their heart rate up and keeping it there for long periods of time.
Recent studies have shown that while there are benefits to aerobics, (like weight loss), in the long term, statistics show a direct increase in heart disease.
Part of the reason for this is that in an effort to adapt to the unnatural demands being put on the body, to economize, the heart and lungs actually shrink.
Just look at the long list of joint, bone, and muscle injuries that come along with running (it’s right there in the magazines).
As I know you know, a serious weight lifter, if he’s paying attention to form, should almost never suffer injury from weight training. The same is true for the following:
Instead of unnatural, self-abusive aerobics, the best way to actually increase heart and lung capacity and size is to go beyond aerobics. In short, spurts of intense exercise, such as wind-sprints, you move past your ability to produce ATP with oxygen as fast as you are using it, causing your muscles to become ATP depleted.
That’s the point at which your anaerobic energy system kicks in. This is also known as crossing your aerobic threshold.
Burst training, sprints, whatever you want to call it, it shouldn’t be done in addition to aerobics, it should be done in place of aerobics.
Incidentally, I am not saying that one shouldn’t walk, jog, bicycle, swim, etc, just be reasonable.
I had a heart condition that has been totally alleviated. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday of each week, I go through a 45 minute weight training session, followed by a 20 minutes of the interval program.
Check it out, I think this sort of thing would be a great addition to your already good program.
-Jeff

————————————————- RESPONSE: ————————————————

While I agree with much of what you said about the benefits of intense “burst” exercise, I find the anti-running and anti-aerobics arguments promoted by these “experts” to be horribly inflexible, dogmatic and, unlike what you suggested, totally UNreasonable.

Based on the science, I also find the argument that traditional cardio or aerobics is “unhealthy” to be wholly unconvincing. That doctor isn’t giving the full picture.

I subscribe to many sports medicine and exercise science journals and I’ve certainly seen research papers looking at sudden death in elite runners, etc. But most of them were case studies and epidemiology. Believe me, there’s another side to the story.

Marathon running is a highly publicized sport, and the media loves bad news, so the oxymoron of a runner dying of a heart attack makes a great story, which means greater visibility for what is actually a very rare occurrence.

It’s also easy to cherry pick case studies on just about anything to start up a big scare.

This comes from the American Journal of Cardiology:

“The overall prevalence of sudden cardiac death during the marathon was only 0.002%, strikingly lower than for several other variables of risk for premature death calculated for the general U.S. population.”

Although highly trained athletes such as marathon runners may harbor underlying and potentially lethal cardiovascular disease, the risk for sudden cardiac death associated with such intense physical effort was exceedingly small.”

I also find comparing serious endurance athletes pushing their physical limits to regular cardio for general fitness training to be an inappropriate comparison.

What does a rare cardiac event during a 26 mile run have to do with you doing 30 or 45 minutes of jogging or me doing 40 minutes of moderate work on the stairmaster to get cut for a bodybuilding contest?

Even sillier are the people who keep using the late marathon runner and running author Jim Fixx as an example of anything but a guy who had a genetic predisposition for heart disease (gun was loaded). Rumor has it he was a long time smoker, too.

I know some bodybuilders and weight lifters who died of heart attacks in the gym. Should we argue against against weight lifting too? Should we just play it safe and stay on the couch? Freak incidents happen and heredity is a factor.

Please note, I’m saying all this as a strength/physique athlete (bodybuilder), who understands full well that excessive aerobics is counterproductive to my goals and that weight training is priority #1.

But in the right amounts, balanced with proper recovery (as you said, “reasonable”) regular cardio can be instrumental in helping me lower my body fat and it can benefit you in many other ways, physically and mentally.

There are MANY ways to do cardio and all of them have their place at certain times for certain people.

What you’re talking about with sprints or burst training is also known as High Intensity Interval Training or HIIT for short.

HIIT can be a great way to get cardiovascular conditioning and burn a lot of calories in a very time efficient manner.

Furthermore, a paper just published recently in the ACSM’s Exercise and Sport Sciences Review (July 2009) discussed the research suggesting that intense aerobic interval training provides greater benefits for the heart than low or moderate intensity exercise.

The benefits discussed included:

  • Increased maximal oxygen uptake
  • Improved heart muscle contractile function
  • Improved heart muscle calcium handling
  • reduced cardiac dysfunction in metabolic syndrome
  • Reversed pathological cardiac hypertrophy
  • Increased physiological hypertrophy of the heart muscle
  • Overall improved quality of life and length of life by avoiding fatal heart attacks.

This is NOT an argument AGAINST regular cardio, it is evidence in favor of intense cardio.

I like HIIT and intense types of cardio! I don’t need to add it to my program because it’s already a part of it.

My first book about fat loss, BurnTheFat Feed The Muscle was first published in 2002 and I recommended HIIT way back then – as well as regular cardio, not one or the other. I Still do!

There were also people promoting HIIT long before me. It’s not any revolutionary idea – people just keep putting new names and spins on it for marketing purposes.

The problem is, to argue in favor of HIIT should not be construed as arguing against conventional cardio or aerobics.

Many of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models used slow, steady state cardio exclusively prior to competitions and they got ripped right down to the six pack abs. They didn’t die of a heart attack and they didn’t lose muscle either.

In fact, many bodybuilders opt for low intensity cardio specifically for muscle retention when they get to the tail end of contest prep where body fat stores are getting low and food intake is low. Adding more high intensity training on top of all the weight training is often catabolic in that caloric deficit situation.

Listen, HIIT and other types of intense cardio are great. It’s time efficient, making it ideal for the busy person, and its very effective for both fat loss and cardiovascular conditioning. It’s also more engaging, as many people find longer, slower sessions of cardio boring.

If you have a history of heart disease and you smoke like a chimney and at the same time you decide you want to take up marathon running, ok, I’ll concede to some caution.

But, “Aerobics is going to kill you!”??????

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Perfect marketing hook for a cultish “HIIT is the only way” type of program… little more.

Bottom line: sure, do your HIIT, do your sprints, do your Tabatas….

OR…

Do your regular steady state aerobics or running too…

Or, do a little bit of everything like I do!

Be sure weight training is your foremost training priority and then do whatever type of cardio you enjoy and whatever type gets you the best results.

If you like to run, then RUN, and tell the “experts” who say otherwise to BUZZ OFF and take their sensationalistic journalism and marketing with them!

Train hard and expect success!

Tom Venuto, author of Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle

Founder & CEO of Burn The Fat Inner Circle at www.BurnTheFat.com!

About the Author:

Tom Venuto is the author of the #1 best seller, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle: Fat Burning Secrets of the World’s Best Bodybuilders and Fitness Models. Tom is a lifetime natural bodybuilder and fat loss expert who achieved an astonishing 3.7% body fat level without drugs or supplements. Discover how to increase your metabolism and burn stubborn body fat, find out which foods burn fat and which foods turn to fat, plus get a free fat loss report and mini course by visiting Tom’s site at: www.BurnTheFat.com!