[Chiron]

Originally Posted by dos

AC is referencing a study that backs a claim that steady state training is inferior for fat burning....period. Say what you want about the study design, controls etc. but these WERE the findings....you can't dispute them. Its not like they said, 'hey, let's put the anaerobic group on a calorie restricted diet...and in the meantime, let's put the steady-state group on calorie surplus'. I have not seen the entire study but I would guess that they had enough subjects, control and design to feel confident in their findings.

Originally Posted by dos

Okay, lets, for the sake of putting things in perspective say the steady-state DIDN'T gain an oz. of fat....the interval group LOST 5 1/2 lbs. of fat. Isn't this the focus of the blog post???

But no one has stated that intervals aren't superior to steady state for fat loss. I even said that in my first post questioning the findings. And I hate steady state cardio. lol But there is a difference between saying something is inferior vs. saying it's counter-productive. You're acting like we're attacking AC when no one has done any such thing. No one's said anything like "I think AC's lost his mind." We're questioning a study where the aerobic participants gained fat while there are tons of studies and real world evidence showing aerobic exercisers losing fat. The fact that we're skeptical really shouldn't be surprising considering the study itself is nowhere to be found. It's just good healthy skepticism.