great research on endurance training vs HIIT training....
- 04-24-2006, 06:54 AM
great research on endurance training vs HIIT training....
Since I have started cutting in the last week i have been researching et vs hiit. Here is some interesting research I came across:
Angelo Tremblay, Ph.D., and his colleagues at the Physical Activities Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Quebec, Canada, challenged the common belief among health professionals that low-intensity, long-duration exercise is the best program for fat loss. They compared the impact of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise and high-intensity aerobics on fat loss. (Metabolism (1994) Volume 43, pp.814-818)
The Canadian scientists divided 27 inactive, healthy, non-obese adults (13 men, 14 women, 18 to 32 years old) into two groups. They subjected one group to a 20-week endurance training (ET) program of uninterrupted cycling 4 or 5 times a week for 30 to 45 minutes; the intensity level began at 60% of heart rate reserve and progressed to 85%. (For a 30-year-old, this would mean starting at a heart rate of about 136 and progressing to roughly 170 bpm, which is more intense than usually prescribed for weight or fat loss.)
The other group did a 15-week program including mainly high-intensity-interval training (HIIT). Much like the ET group, they began with 30-minute sessions of continuous exercise at 70% of maximum heart rate reserve (remember, they were not accustomed to exercise), but soon progressed to 10 to 15 bouts of short (15 seconds progressing to 30 seconds) or 4 to 5 long (60 seconds progressing to 90 seconds) intervals separated by recovery periods allowing heart rate to return to 120-130 beats per minute. The intensity of the short intervals was initially fixed at 60% of the maximal work output in 10 seconds, and that of the long bouts corresponded to 70% of the individual maximum work output in 90 seconds. Intensity on both was increased 5% every three weeks.
As you might expect, the total energy cost of the ET program was substantially greater than the HIIT program. The researchers calculated that the ET group burned more than twice as many calories while exercising than the HIIT program. But (surprise, surprise) skinfold measurements showed that the HIIT group lost more subcutaneous fat. "Moreover," reported the researchers, "when the difference in the total energy cost of the program was taken into account..., the subcutaneous fat loss was ninefold greater in the HIIT program than in the ET program." In short, the HIIT group got 9 times more fat-loss benefit for every calorie burned exercising .
How can that be?
Dr. Tremblay's group took muscle biopsies and measured muscle enzyme activity to determine why high-intensity exercise produced so much more fat loss. I'll spare you the details (they are technical and hard to decipher), but this is their bottom line: "[Metabolic adaptations resulting from HIIT] may lead to a better lipid utilization in the postexercise state and thus contribute to a greater energy and lipid deficit." In other words, compared to moderate-intensity endurance exercise, high- intensity intermittent exercise causes more calories and fat to be burned following the workout. Citing animal studies, they also said it may be that appetite is suppressed more following intense intervals. (Neither group was placed on a diet.)
Looks like i will be incorporating an HIIT program into my routine shortly.
- 04-24-2006, 07:51 AM
I love HIIT training on off days. Just look at a marathon runner and look at a sprinter. Case closed.
04-24-2006, 10:56 AM
Great post Teg and well said jminis.
The superior increases in cardio conditioning and BMR are alone good enough reasons to do HIIT but not being bored to death by marathon cardio sessions is priceless.
04-24-2006, 11:49 PM
simple and yet so trueOriginally Posted by jminis
Steve Moneghetti former olympic marathon runner
Kelsey Nakanelua 100 meter olympic sprinter
04-25-2006, 11:52 AM
You should look up a thread here on EPOC, Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption. While it seems to hold true that HIIT is somewhat better than just plain old running, a lot of people had what seemed to be valid criticism concerning the methodologies of the studies used to prove that. Here's the thread with an article on the subject I posted a while ago:
I can't find the main thread where a lot of people weighed in on the studies' validity, etc., it's possible that was in another forum. If so it would be the forum on the HST site.
Edit: I found the article on the HST boards, Just do a search for EPOC and it should come up. I can't post a link because you have to be registered/logged in to access the thread.
Last edited by CDB; 04-25-2006 at 12:17 PM.
04-26-2006, 03:59 AM
It's interesting that runners seem to get skinnier and less muscular on average as the running distances go up. A 100m sprinter is usually much more muscular and ripped than even a medium distance runner.
With the strong scientific evidence backing up HIIT plus the stark differences in the physiques of sprinters vs distance runners, how anyone could not believe that high intensity training is better than endurance training is beyond me.
04-26-2006, 12:38 PM
I think there are just a lot of other factors to consider, such as diet, genetics, other aspects of training, etc. I don't think many marathon runners are pushing up huge weight in the gym. I do know some sprinters though and they use plyometrics and heavy weight compound leg movements fairly often. All in all though, my admittedly limited personal experience with cardio favors HIIT in that area, especially for fat loss.Originally Posted by tegman
04-26-2006, 12:43 PM
I concur, being that I have just brought it back into my Cardio routine, from doing 1 hour of moderate paced Cardio daily divided up between 30min sessions to 40 min of HIIT divided up to 2 20 min sessions. The amount of Fat, as well as detail in legs are phenomenal!!!
04-26-2006, 02:13 PM
Yes the above is all true but I have to add a detail: all the research is done about people who do only either HIIT/sprint or endurance cardio.
HIIT is in many many ways like a weight-training session. If you lift 5-6 times a week, HIIT just might counterproductive IMO.
04-27-2006, 12:00 AM
I have a friend that i grew up with that was a sprinter and triplejumper in highschool. He got a scholarship to go to a pac-10 school for track and placed second in the pac-10 championships his senior year. He had always been a phenomenal athelete from a young age. He ate whatever he wanted to and still had a 40inch vertical leap, 17.5 inch arms and 4-5% bf measured by hydrostatic weighing at the univeristy his senior year. So, I strongly agree that genetics does play a huge role in athletic performance and physique.
But, for us NORMAL people I don't think the hiit vs endurance training debate will end anytime soon. In the end, it just boils down to what works for you.
Similar Forum Threads
- By meathead249 in forum Training ForumReplies: 40Last Post: 12-31-2012, 12:26 AM
- By JayRock in forum Weight LossReplies: 1Last Post: 10-03-2011, 09:40 PM
- By pizzathehut in forum Training ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 04-26-2010, 06:37 PM
- By Frank Reynolds in forum Training ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 01-10-2008, 08:01 PM
- By parttimer in forum SupplementsReplies: 7Last Post: 07-06-2006, 03:43 PM