Article on Steady State vs HIIT and if HIIT really is that effective... - JP Fitness Forums

LaraT · 04-16-2008, 09:04 AM

Burn The Fat Blog: "Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????"

It is from Tom Venuto. Not dissing HIIT but questioning its "superiority" over SS by dissecting the research.

kedg · 04-16-2008, 09:09 AM

Wow - this was very interesting. I was impressed, and I'm a statistician...

realcdn · 04-16-2008, 09:18 AM

I think (and I'm definitely an amateur) that the problem with steady state cardio is the body's ability to adjust to it, and that people don't adjust it in kind. I'm not a gym person, however, I use a treadmill at home. I recognize that I have to change it up to keep my heart rate up. However, I know people that talk about reading while on the treadmill - how can they?

I mean, I usually have the television on, but I know I miss half of what's being said. That's okay - it's really just to distract me from watching the timer. I've used my iPod, but I need to change over to music (from audiobooks). I would get to a certain point and I'd lose track of the plot. I actually bought a heart rate monitor this week to make sure I push my heart rate up fast enough (something I sometimes don't do).

There's also the time issue. I think that's where the concept of HIIT is appealing. Hey, if you can spend less time and even get the same result, I can see why more people would stick to it.

Cynthia · 04-16-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realcdn

There's also the time issue. I think that's where the concept of HIIT is appealing. Hey, if you can spend less time and even get the same result, I can see why more people would stick to it.

That's completely true for me. I love getting in and out of the gym in 30 min or less.

This was an interesting article, thanks for sharing.

feralBoy · 04-16-2008, 12:51 PM

I like the article. I think the point is not about the effectiveness of HIIT over steady state, but the misrepresentation of data. That study just seemed awful. 13 men, and 14 women? is that even a large enough sample size?

I'm sure there are better studies out there on HIIT over steady state.

realcdn · 04-16-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feralBoy

13 men, and 14 women? is that even a large enough sample size?

I'd say no, but that's the stats person in me talking. To accept a sample size that small I'd want to see another study that would support representational sampling (giving an idea of what sample size would represent a good cross section). I'm not always sure that studies done on people can be trusted, especially with fat loss/muscle gain. Unless you're locking them all in a room, feeding them the same (adjusted for size) amount of food, and controlling their other movements, how can you really be sure it's the exercise only?

ie. I worked in two different plants doing roughly the same job (title). One I was at my desk most of the day, the second I almost never sat down except for breaks. How do they account for other environmental factors?

My favourite saying: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

LaraT · 04-16-2008, 01:09 PM

This is the study that seems to always be cited in articles about the superiority of HIIT over SS in regards to fat loss. I have read several other studies and they all seem to have small sample sizes from what I recall.

I do think that HIIT is not the end all be all it has been made out to be and Steady State is not the "ineffective" modality it has been made out to be. Both have their places in a workout routine IMO.

Phaedrus49er · 04-16-2008, 01:34 PM

FWIW, to be statistically significant, the number of test subjects must equal or be greater than 30; otherwise, the margin of error is rather large, and any conclusions but be heavily scrutinized.

Lyle McDonald has been on a SS-versus-HIIT kick in his blog lately. Definitely worth checking out.

cycomiko · 04-16-2008, 04:49 PM

Strange how it pops up just after lyle starting his bloggin on it

<oh noes>

Silly Sally · 04-19-2008, 07:29 AM

Thanks for the link to McDonald's blog. What a smart guy; wish he'd train ME!

This was the most interesting "fact" in the whole blog:

Quote:

A follow-up study by Tremblay actually showed that the interval group saw a significant increase in the enzymes responsible for fat oxidation; surprisingly this effect happened fairly quickly. Given that obese individuals often have a defect in fat oxidation, this could be profoundly beneficial.

Not sure where this debate will end up - maybe like the chicken and the egg?

Ruthie · 04-21-2008, 01:24 PM

I was just idly scanning through Alwyn's blog and there he is here quoting that same study to prove that HIIT burns 900% more fat Alwyn Cosgrove's blog: Moments of Clarity Part II. Mmmmm...

Phaedrus49er · 04-21-2008, 02:27 PM

If it feels good, do it

Lisa~ · 04-22-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus49er

Lyle McDonald has been on a SS-versus-HIIT kick in his blog lately. Definitely worth checking out.

I really encourage all of you to read through Lyle's two weeks of blog posts on this topic. Great stuff.

Ruthie · 04-22-2008, 08:34 AM

Yes I was reading it yesterday and I found it really interesting.

GinnyLou · 04-22-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

I really encourage all of you to read through Lyle's two weeks of blog posts on this topic. Great stuff.

Very good stuff. Thanks for the roadmap to those blogs.

I have been going back and forth on this whole debate, in according to my own workouts and what works best for me. Haven't come to a direct conclusion yet, but I find all this research and thought, just fascinating.