Too much of a good thing? (Metabolically expensive workouts)

[stingo]

Espi's been posting about this in my log, but I'd figure I'd ask the question here. I've been in the 230-240 range for about a year and a half or so. The majority of my workouts since about May 07 were fat loss style programs (Fat Loss I, II and III from NROL, and programs in that style from my trainer), but even with that, my weight's remained about the same. I believe that Espi is suggesting (and correct me if I'm wrong) I should back off on the intensity of my workouts as that would make it easier for me to gauge my nutrition and let diet take the weight off. While I can see what she's saying, it seems a bit counterintuitive to me as well - but, either way, it'd be nice to cut off some more body fat. Any help/responses appreciated. Thanks.

[Aoife]

If I'm understanding correctly, having not read the mentioned conversation... That seems relatively lucid reasoning. I would figure that that's the reason that even for NR fatloss plan (the overall plan types) still have you switch it up and dive into the realm of strength training (low rep) and whatnot. I mean, if you've not really changed up how you're working out, even though you've changed the actual workouts, I can still see you adapting to it and losing progress to an extent...

I mean, it seems logical to me...

[JoshDunn]

If I follow correctly then you could just change the workouts more then you have been. Ie one TT program isn't that different from another TT program. Not sure what you've done but maybe find a different author and try their methods for a bit. Eg If you haven't done many of Chad Waterburys programs maybe try one of them as with the 10x3 will be somewhat different from the usual run of the mill fat loss workouts.

Have you been periodizing your diet over the year?

[gobbla]

It's a loaded question thats answer is going to be dependent on how much time your schedule allows. If you're using all the time you have now (say, 3-4 days a week x 1hr) then you're going to be well served keeping the intensity high. If you have hypothetically more time, then add low intensity (foot stomp) calorie burning exercise.

You need to ease off the intensity now and then (complete off week or deload) but if you back off too much then you're shooting yourself in the foot.

[Espi]

You are missing the point.

To lose weight you have to eat less than you need.. upon which the general advice then adds: and .. move more.

How much more one needs to move is up to debate.

This is what I've posted in his log and will repost here.

After years of spinning my wheels because I'd not be able to eat less calories.. I came to the horrible conclusion

losing fat =
1 DIET DIET DIET DIET
2 just enough HEAVY lifting to retain muscle
3 just enough extra cardio or metabolic work to burn more calories

Too much of 3 and I"m SPENT and not able to function properly.. unless I overeat. Hence why I mentioned spinning my wheels.
So, I really have really cut way back on doing tons of work in the gym and let my diet do the work for me.
I'm feeling more alive at home and get more work done.

Once in a while I disobey my own rules and tend to overdo it in the gym.. within 2 weeks I end up overeating or feeling like a zombie and get reminded why simply eating less , and doing FAR less in the gym but try to be more active with relatively easy activities (simple walking/cycling, even just going up & down the stairs for futile things)

No, it's not sexy. But it's what WORKS.

PS: recently there's a lot of people who are wearing a device, called a BodyBugg. They have come to the most 'horrific' conclusion, that simple household tasks and SS-cardio burns more energy than they had assumed. While OTOH, working out in the gym, be it lifting heavy weights, metabolic workouts or HIIT, burned LESS than they thought.

Most people wearing those devices, started changing their habits. They wouldn't necessarily do much less in the gym, though some of them cut out HIIT, but they would nearly always increase their non-strenuous activity level. Like paying more attention to cleaning their homes. Going for daily walks and making sure to walk over 10 000 steps a day. And they are actually seeing results from it.

So, it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way again. After years of damning SS-cardio and praising HIIT, it's back to the basics.
1 diet
2 heavy lifting
3 SS cardio
4 a very limited amount of HIIT cardio or metabolic work (complexes etc.) to prevent overtraining while underfed.

[fengshway]

I think different body types might respond differently. espi's approach is very much counter to the way alwyn cosgrove teaches. gobbla alludes to it in his post--if you google "the hierarchy of fat loss", he outlines what kind of training to do and how to prioritize.

I will just tell you my experience--higher intensity complexes ala cosgrove do NOT trigger me to overeat in the way that espi describes. since the challenge started, I have lost one pound of fat per month and have put on about a half a pound of muscle per month. now granted, I am not setting world records here for fat loss, and my pics do not really tell the whole story--my clothes fit better than ever, and I am running faster than ever at 44 years old!!!! but I am only doing a 100-200 calorie deficit per day--I am eating on average between 2400-2800 clean calories daily.

I guess I really subscribe to the whole gflux theory. at least it seems to be true for me. restricting calories and working out hard definitely don't work for me. but restricting calories and working out less intensely NEVER worked for me either--it always resulted in compensatory weight gain.

the key for me has been the restricting part---there is a certain threshold of calorie restriction that triggers me---restricting more than about 300 calories under maintenance seems to send me into overeating.

my solution seems to be working--higher intensity cardio, intense weight training, tiny calorie deficits with long periods of maintenance at a lower body weight. it took me one year to lose this last 15 pounds. but I believe they are gone for good!

I also think that it is important for people who have lost a significant amount of weight to have periods of time where they simply work on maintaining before going for more fat loss. I am down 70 pounds from my heaviest, and I know tom is down even more. protecting the weight loss that you have already achieved is success in my opinion.

[JoshDunn]

Have a read up on Berardi's G-flux articles. I remember reading and doing hypertrophy programs that said to not do ANYTHING outside the gym as it burnt calories that were going to be muscle. G-Flux (my understanding) is do your structured gym and HIIT stuff but also do as much extra activity as you can manage.

[gobbla]

In agreement with espi with the caveat that HIIT\Metabolic work can be substituted for heavy weight training if that's what the person does anyway.

High Intensity work = Maintain current level of X while you're in a calorie deficit
Low Intensity work = Burn calories, shouldn't interfere with ^^

[Espi]

Heck, I've had a link to the G-flux article as my sig for over a year. And actually do subscribe to it.

The key thing here is exactly what Fengshway says: the deficit should not be too large in order to maintain optimal fitness.

Recently I've come to the conclusion after reading what Lyle McDonald had to say about what approach gives the best fat loss, that there are generally 2 apporaches that give good results
1 keep a tiny dietary deficit and work out hard
2 have a very large deficit, but don't work out hard (low volume heavy lifting, SS-cardio)

The 3rd approach : working out hard but creating in a too large dietary deficit mostly doesn't work well. It results in either overeating or overtraining and even sickness as your immune health also takes a back seat when food intake is limited but you're forcing yourself to be very active.

I happen to have a not so swell working immune system.
Following 1 year of severe undereating and overexercising, in early 2004 I even got hit by spondylodiscitis (bacterial infection in the lower spine) that kept me in hospital for 8 weeks and in a cast for 3 months. This should have cured me like forever for any ideas to be working out hard at a huge deficit.
Yet, it happened again in a very moderate way: late 2007 I got shingles while most people getting this, are in their late 50s /early 60s.

So really: if your desire is to work out LOTS , eat UP! If fat loss is your first goal, cut way back down in activity level. But don't try to do both.. you'll end up overtrained, ill or just annoyed because of overeating.

[sharsell119]

Ugh. This is all so confusing! I had one trainer months ago tell me I was probably doing too much cardio and thus eating up some of the muscle I was gaining by my weight training, so I backed off the cardio a bit. Now just this weekend I had a different trainer tell me that if I add just 5 minutes of cardio a day to my existing routine I could lose the last few bits of chubbiness around my middle that I'd like to get rid of.

Makes me just want to scratch my head.

[Bytsi]

Originally Posted by Espi

If fat loss is your first goal, cut way back down in activity level. But don't try to do both.. you'll end up overtrained, ill or just annoyed because of overeating.

Just to clarify - my understanding (and experience so far) is that you can train relatively hard (in my case, NROL4W) and eat SLIGHTLY (ie: 100 calories) under maintenance to achieve slow (healthy) fat loss, through the increase of muscle tissue, EPOC, etc... Are you saying that I should basically use only diet and low-intensity exercise to lose fat - and then increase food and work out hard after the fat is gone?

In my case, I did that for years and years and years - calorie restriction combined withe relatively low intensity (at least compared to NROL4W) weight-training, plenty of SS and aerobic interval (not anaerobic high intensity) cardio. And here I am needing to lose fat. I did keep the majority of my weight off (from 10 years ago), but my bf% has climbed back up (along with the scale) to an unacceptable level.

Maybe different bodies respond in different ways, or maybe it's just changing it up, but I feel like NROL-type workouts and diet can work for me and help me achieve my goal of getting stronger and not spending hour upon hour in the gym while being ALWAYS hungry and ALWAYS mad at myself for not being strong enough to keep starving.

I know I can lose pounds (not just fat, but pounds on the scale) through mainly diet. But that isn't the way I want to live - Wouldn't I be better off finding a lifestyle that I can maintain (be it diet, exercise, or the combination) that works for me?

[Espi]

Relying solely on low-intensity FORMAL cardio and doing it hours on end, won't lead anywhere. The body will adapt and become so used to it, that it will be able to do it, while expending very little energy.
As an example, back in the period between 1997 and 2003, when I would do 300+ K rides, about 200-300K into a ride, my heart rate would drop down to 125 bpm while cycling at the very same speed. During the week, rest rate would also drop back from the usual 40bpm for off-season to just about 30-32 bpm. One time it even dropped to 29bpm. I was freezing nearly all the time!

Fast forwards to 2008. I do no more SS cardio that lasts more than 45 min at the time, yet have managed to drop fat successfully and even gain LBM, especially in the upper body that used to have an emaciated look. The only thing I do is lifting HARD, but I do very little metabolic work, just low rep sets with heavy weights.

For SS cardio , I nearly solely rely on what I do outside the gym. Since I live in an urban area, I can go anywhere within town by bicycle. However, rather than take my bicycle, I've switched to walking everywhere if it's closer than 2 K (1-1.5mi) away. Takes more time, takes more effort , but burns more fat.
Groceries are invariably brought home on foot etc. etc.

All very small changes with an unexpectedly large impact. Somehow, stop & go activities, even when it concerns slow-motion non-formal activities seem to make a bigger dent than you'd expect. The best part is that it doesn't make me hungry and is easy to do.

[stingo]

Thanks for the comments everyone. I think I like option 1 best, even though it's a bit harder to implement. That is, like Wendy, to eat close to maintenance and maintain a higher level of working out. I think my principal problem is that I've lost weight, but I have yet to seriously sit down and recalibrate my nutrition. So what Espi is saying is correct. I have to pick what activity level I want to perform at and then pick the level of nutrition needed to support it as well as some sort of fat loss. I've asked my trainer for his input so hopefully we can meet on it soon.

[PowerManDL]

Espi's got it right (as odd as it is to say that, it took years of berating her before she finally got it :p )

Point of order: HIIT sounds good on paper. It does a good job of getting people "in condition". If used properly it can be a part of a fat loss program.

The reality of the situation? I've seen over and over again that people relying on HIIT and other high-intensity methods just don't get there.

Who does? Bodybuilders and figure girls that I've seen actually get into condition are relying on diet and SS cardio.

Simple as that. High intensity modalities are simply too much for the kind of diet that it takes to get someone in that kind of condition. You either eat too much to lose weight, or you get hurt/overworked because you weren't eating enough to support the activity.

If you use it correctly, which will mean sacrificing lower body strength training (assuming sprints or cycling), then it can be a part of a fat loss protocol.

But I doubt anybody's actually going to get there by relying on large volumes of this kind of training.

[fengshway]

powerman, what do you think of alwyn cosgrove's article here:

TESTOSTERONE NATION

[fengshway]

oh, here is a cross post from my log so you can all see how conflicted I am about restricting my calories. for me, leaning out will have to happen over a few more YEARS, lol:

I am just posting these things to my log to keep me motivated. I would love for my body to change dramatically over the 6 months, but it just might not happen. I am maintaining a 70 pound weight loss, so further loss of body fat would definitely require a significant eating change. I already eat clean most of the time, and I eat reasonable portions. while I am tempted to do something dramatic like TNT or other plans that are conducive to losing body fat, I know what happens with my history when I restrict like that--diets for me lead to compensatory overeating every single time I have done them. I wish I didn't have such messed up eating problems, but this is what happens when I restrict calories too much or restrict carbs too much.

so I am choosing to focus on athletic performance, while still being accountable to monthly pictures and measurements. I realize that losing body fat would certainly improve my running, but I have to be realistic. I refuse to do anything during a fat loss phase that I am not willing to do for the rest of my life on maintenance. and the only thing that has worked for me is painfully slow weight loss. it took me a whole year to lose 15 pounds over the past year. and the closer I get to goal, the slower it seems to go.
__________________

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by fengshway

powerman, what do you think of alwyn cosgrove's article here:

TESTOSTERONE NATION

I think he's got more or less the right idea there.

Any way you cut it, you need a low volume of heavy work in there to keep muscle mass and strength levels, then follow that up with whatever you need to waste calories.

No matter how you shake it, it's going to come back to calories in vs. calories out. You have to burn up more energy than you take in by diet. So at first glance, it can seem like eating more and doing more activity will be magical. And high-intensity cardio does have all those studies to back it up.

Problems:

1) It's easier to not eat calories in the first place than it is to burn them off w/ activity. Unless you're just doing a crazy amount of work, you can do the same thing by just dropping the equivalent of a meal or two out of your diet.

2) High intensity work requires fuel. I don't just mean to fuel the activity, I mean to recover from as well. The end result? If you're doing enough high-intensity work to have an effect on your energy balance, then you're doing enough to affect your recovery and nutritional needs. In other words, you either eat enough to recover, or you don't recover.

3) EPOC and thus HIIT's main touted advantage may not add up to all that much to begin with.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by fengshway

oh, here is a cross post from my log so you can all see how conflicted I am about restricting my calories. for me, leaning out will have to happen over a few more YEARS, lol:

I am just posting these things to my log to keep me motivated. I would love for my body to change dramatically over the 6 months, but it just might not happen. I am maintaining a 70 pound weight loss, so further loss of body fat would definitely require a significant eating change. I already eat clean most of the time, and I eat reasonable portions. while I am tempted to do something dramatic like TNT or other plans that are conducive to losing body fat, I know what happens with my history when I restrict like that--diets for me lead to compensatory overeating every single time I have done them. I wish I didn't have such messed up eating problems, but this is what happens when I restrict calories too much or restrict carbs too much.

so I am choosing to focus on athletic performance, while still being accountable to monthly pictures and measurements. I realize that losing body fat would certainly improve my running, but I have to be realistic. I refuse to do anything during a fat loss phase that I am not willing to do for the rest of my life on maintenance. and the only thing that has worked for me is painfully slow weight loss. it took me a whole year to lose 15 pounds over the past year. and the closer I get to goal, the slower it seems to go.
__________________

Well, to be blunt, it sounds like you've made your choice.

You realize what further improvements in body composition will cost you, and you've decided not to take those steps. Which is fine.

But, I have to remind you that you're not magically different from anyone else. Your body still is a slave to thermodynamics.

As I said, I've yet to see anyone actually get to bodybuilding contest shape by *not* focusing on dietary restriction. Diet will trump activity *every* time.

That may not be what you're after, though -- you didn't expand on any goals. Without knowing what your'e actually trying to accomplish, it's hard to say.

I will say this: a lot of people, women especially, tend to have this notion that it's on/off, all or nothing. YOu're either eating clean and being totally obsessive, or you're just eating crap and not monitoring anything.

You can exist in moderation between the two approaches. Interestingly enough the hardest part of contest prepping women has been getting them to understand this, and the fact that you *don't* have to drive yourself into the ground with exercise, to end up looking decent.

I think this whole "eat more and do more activity" thing is reactionary to that....but it's pushing back too hard.

[cycomiko]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

I will say this: a lot of people, women especially, tend to have this notion that it's on/off, all or nothing. YOu're either eating clean and being totally obsessive, or you're just eating crap and not monitoring anything.

This is especially important to note in teh context of a 'free meal' or 'free day', where people (yaay o2) restrict normally for 6 days and then go hog mental on all of the food they didnt eat for the week, and the end result in no change, or an increase. So they decrease food intake more, to just go more mental at the other end.

More common in women than men. But I think some of the aspects of a freeday/cheatday etc can have negative programming effects on how food is seen as well. Aiding to enforce that "all or nothing" concept a bit further into routine thought. Models of behaviour change don't always have to be around setting good behaviours...

[kfisherx]

Again I am just a newbie at this but I have to agree with PowerMan here. I know what worked for me when I first started this program and wanted to loose fat. I know what I am going to do when I start to cut. It is going to be a good amount of ss and diet that will ultimately give me my 10%. My trainer subscribes to this too. I have yet to see any significant results from any of the peeps in this challenge who are relying soley on HIIT for fat loss.

[fengshway]

powerman, I really appreciate your post, you are correct! I have made my choice for now! I couldn't agree more on the "off" and "on" diet mentality--it is rampant, particularly with women. and for me, has always led to compensatory overeating. that is why I love what I am doing now so much--I feel great.

cycomico, yep, I've done the whole cheat day thing. same result as as what you described. I have a friend who lives locally, but she is a nationally known fitness model--she does that whole cheat day thing, and it always severely overeats on that day, especially "cheat" type foods. I am to the point now where I can have small quanitities of non-nutritious food occasionally and they are not triggering. I don't like the way they make me feel in frequent or larger quantities.

my current activity
NROLW 3 times per week
3 runs per week, one track, one tempo, one 7 mile longish run--fitness goal is to become a faster runner at the marathon distance--target marathon is 11-30-08, currently training for a 5k on may 3.

I am not sure if this qualifies as relying soley on HITT or not. my results are slow--one pound of fat loss per month, with 1.5 pounds of muscle gain over two months (calipers).

To have more fat loss, I would have to cut my calories further, for me, my slow results are diet related and not training related I think. (currently eating 100-200 calories below maintenance daily) macros 50/25/25, mostly all whole foods, homecooked.

If I wanted to kick the fat loss into higher gear, what would you all recommend? cutting more calories? adding ss cardio?

[Espi]

Fengshway, how fast you want to lose is entirely up to your goals. It seems to me, just judging on your face that you are very close to the weight you want to have and merely want to 'recompose' , viz. lean out and if possible, gain some LBM.

I'd say, if you're about 5-7.5 kg (11-16.5lbs) away from your target weight, there's no real reason to be in a particular hurry to buckle down on a low calorie diet and limit your training. Especially not if lifting or running/cycling/canoeing/skiin g (take your pick) is the love of your life.

If training goals are more important than body recomposition goals, then by all means don't aim for a deficit that is larger than 100-200 kcals in vs out. I'm not talking about a 200kcal diet deficit and trying to make the deficit bigger by exercise as this is just another way to have a bigger deficit.
No, 200kcal total deficit is plenty. And at times 100-150 kcal deficit may be better.

But math = math. It will take you 35 days to lose 1 lbs (3500kcal for 1lbs of fat). The upside is that one can sustain this kind of slow loss for a very long time without seeing performance suffer.
It does mean for *me* that I need to track calories closely. Especially the free meal days can make a huge impact. I'm simply amazed how people track their dieting days but then just 'forget' what they eat on free days. If I'd really put my mind to it (e.g for an eating contest ), I just know that I could come up close to 10 000 kcals. Bottomless pit as a stomach. Fortunately, I'm not suffering from binge eating disorder, I just happen to have a big appetite if I let myself eat as much as I'd like. So, I rarely go over 4000 kcal on a given day, more than twice a month. Even more fortunately, I'm rarely if ever hungry, hence 1000kcal days are also quite feasible. Which I don't do much either, as it leads to overeating on ensueing days = ineffective.

It can take almost 2 weeks of dedicated dieting to get back to balance again from just 1 large overfeeding day. Since I just know those overfeeding days will 'happen' spontaneously, it's wiser to eat a bit less on other days. Trying to limit them or cut them out has never been successful and frankly I don't want to: they are too much fun. They keep me sane and I don't see performance suffer.

Like Fengshway I accept a snail's pace loss. E.g. over 2007 I ate at a 70 kcal daily deficit and averaged 5.4 kg wt loss (almost 12lbs) for the entire year.
Contrast this to e.g. 8kg loss (17.6lbs) in just 6 weeks of VLCD in 2002. However, back then I also lost nearly half of my hair and saw it going grey in a very short period of time. Not pretty!

In the end it's all about goals & choices. Nobody ever said it's a bad thing to do metabolically taxing workouts.
I just am emphasizing that it's going to be very hard to recover properly from those workouts and it may very well happen you don't recover well and end up overtrained or even get ill or just will not lose weight since you are overcompensating by eating too much. Poliquin used to say "There's no such thing as overtraining, only undereating". Wise words.

But if your first goal is weight loss, there are easier (and more boring) ways to reach your main goal: simply eat (much) less , lift heavy and do nontaxing cardio that doesn't make you hungry.

[fengshway]

espi, thanks for your wise words. you are correct--I am about 10-15 scale pounds over what I would be comfortable with, but within that weight of 145- 150, I would like it to be more muscle and less fat. I know losing fat will really really help my marathon running. I am considering seeing where I am after this years marathon--11-30-08. after the race and after I recover for a week or two, I am considering focusing on a larger calorie deficit if I am not where I want to be body comp wise.

[stingo]

A very interesting discussion indeed - thanks to all who contributed, and keep your input coming. I've read and re-read the posts in this thread (and in my log, where the discussion started) and it's definitely giving me something to think about. It almost seemed counterintuitive to me to think that less activity and less eating would be better for losing fat, but reading the posts here is having me see the logic in that thinking.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by fengshway

my current activity
NROLW 3 times per week
3 runs per week, one track, one tempo, one 7 mile longish run--fitness goal is to become a faster runner at the marathon distance--target marathon is 11-30-08, currently training for a 5k on may 3.

I am not sure if this qualifies as relying soley on HITT or not. my results are slow--one pound of fat loss per month, with 1.5 pounds of muscle gain over two months (calipers).

To have more fat loss, I would have to cut my calories further, for me, my slow results are diet related and not training related I think. (currently eating 100-200 calories below maintenance daily) macros 50/25/25, mostly all whole foods, homecooked.

If I wanted to kick the fat loss into higher gear, what would you all recommend? cutting more calories? adding ss cardio?

Ya, it's definitely the diet at issue here.

It's always about compromises. Right now the marathon is your priority, so you have to eat and train for that goal.

Body composition is going to have to take a back seat. You could lower your calories to speed up fat losses, but you'd be compromising your ability to handle the training volume.

This is why I always tell people that getting a "hot body" isn't the same as just going out and running yourself into the ground. You have to consider both diet *and* training needs, and adjust accordingly.

The kind of activity you do will depend on your goals, where you are at the moment, and your diet.

Heavy lifting's always going to be the core.

Somebody on a mild deficit (15-20%) and at a reasonable BF% (at or above 12-15% for men, 20-22% for women) could very well get away with doing intervals 2-3x/week, if the volume of leg work is controlled.

Jack up the deficit much higher than that, and recovery goes out the window.

If the person has dieted down leaner than that, say 10% or less for a male, 18% or less for a female, then there's a good chance they're already on lowered calories and adding more hard activity isn't the best idea there, either.

On the other hand, somebody looking to get really shredded might have to make the trade-off in terms of dropping leg work and relying on higher intensity work.

It seems like too many people these days are trying to generalize the workouts of athletes to people that just want to be 1) "in decent shape" and 2) want to look like bodybuilders.

Yeah there's overlap, but they're not the same thing. You have to adjust according to dietary factors and the leanness of the person in question.

[fengshway]

powerman, thanks for your reply! the volume of my long run doesn't start ramping up until june or so. right now my weekly long run is 7 miles, which will gradually increase to 10 or so. the really longer stuff doesn't start until august or so.

I don't think I ever want to get "shredded" lol. or have a fitness model body--not happening after being 228 pounds lol. but I would like to be at a normal percent body fat, and I honestly have 10-15 pounds of fat before I would be there.

I guess my small calorie deficits might get me there in a year, even with my training volume. tiny deficits shouldn't compromise recovery that much or do they???

[RobLL]

I lost a huge amount of fat in about 4 months when I started low carbing four years ago. Then I added weight lifting and muscle. My weight went up, but my size stayed pretty constant, still more belly fat than I wanted. I liked my diet, it kept me from regaining fat, and it controlled (with insulin) my blood sugars. I was working out about as much as I seemed to cope with, 3 weight sessions a week, one HIIT (more left me not recovering - thanks Leigh, you persuaded me). But still sloppy in the belly. I started EAT STOP EAT intermittent fasting (dinner time to dinner time) twice a week, and I am losing one or two pounds a month.

[Karen P]

My advice is to really think about what you want and then put a time frame on it. Then, it's simple, figure out what you've got to do to get there by that time, and just do it. easier said than done, I know. But sometimes we try and make things too complicated. I'm guilty of that myself.

[Susan4]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

I have yet to see any significant results from any of the peeps in this challenge who are relying soley on HIIT for fat loss.

There have been several of the challenge ladies who've had significant results so far But everyone in it is also lifting, so not just relying on HIIT for fat loss.

I like HIIT for hill climbing endurance. But I'm gonna start adding more SS after reading this and also to build more SS all-day endurance for my summer fire trip.

Great thread! Confusing at times, but great!

[Espi]

Whenever you do SS cardio, don't try to do over 2 hrs a day as this will make the body adapt too much and can once again, lead to overconsumption of calories.
The most interesting type of SS cardio are the functional (dog) walks/bike rides that take relatively little time, but yet somehow seem to have a much bigger impact than prolonged SS-cardio.