HIIT versus Steady-state cardio

[teamfatboy]

for your cardio do interval training ie- one min fast one min slow, can burn more fat. 35-45 min

I've asked before, and I'll ask again: I've seen (admittedly potentially low-quality) that suggests HIIT can be catabolic. A quick google search suggests there may be something to it - but even Bodybuilding.com seems to be unclear, and links it to diet.

Yes, I think it's accepted that HIIT brings EPOC ( Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption) benefits, but when weighing them up against any muscle-eating, what are the pros and cons?

Views from the experienced out there?

[ohjoshua]

imo

HIIT is good for weight loss (fatties) esp good if diet is not sorted.

Steady state is good for fat loss (body builders or any one trying to get rid of just fat) must also have their diet sorted or a waste of time.

[buffazn]

i loathe cardio so if i can get the job done in 5 rather than 25min, even if thres a (very) slight chance of (very) slight muscle loss, im ok with that

[Matrix]

Hi Intensity Intervals are largely anaerobic, meaning without the presence of oxygen. Fat requires oxygen present to be used as a fuel source, so HITT cardio wont burn as much fat DURING the session, it will burn more stored glycogen as a fuel instead.

Steady, low intensity cardio is primarliy aerobic, meaning in the presence of oxygen. Low intensity cardio performed at around 60-70%MHR will use a greater percentage of bodyfat during the session, but will burn less total calories per minute as it is easier. Also, due to its low intensity nature, your post workout calorie burn will be less than HITT. HITT stimulates a greater excess post exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), which means that you are using more oxygen (and calories) for a longer time after your session because your metabolism is elevated for much longer.

I disagree with the comments made that HITT is just for weight loss and low intensity is for fat loss in bodybuilders, I would try mixing in both. Some low, slow sessions (perhaps after weight training or first thing in the morning) and some short HITT on your non training days.

Sticking to any one kind can lead to plateaus. One word of warning though as doing too much HITT will destroy your bodies ability to recover for your next workout so you may wish to limit it pre competition to preserve energy for your workouts when you are carb depleted, I know I did.

As for HITT being catabolic, I say that performed occasionally(not every session) it is not very catabolic at all, look at sprinters, they do very little aerobic work and are among the leanest/strongest athletes around and their training is all HITT, whereas middle and long distance runners are often very lightly built because they have mainly developed slow twitch muscle required for running long distances, yet their bodyfat levels are actually higher as they have literally run off most of their lean muscle mass through massive amounts of aerobic training. HITT can also have a great effect on raising your anabolic hormone levels(GH etc) so I would recommend trying both types for best effect, especially in the off season to keep fat levels down.

[poos_n_wees]

IMO, HIIT will give you the most bang for your buck... but you can't do that all the time, it'd be too taxing on your body (especciaaalllyyy when dieting :shock:). That's prolly why it's important to vary/balance what you're doing in accordance with your a) caloric intake b) weight-lifting and c) overall activity level (i.e. sitting on your ass all day vs. labour intensive job).

I think all forms of cardio have their place in a program. If you were to incorporate HIIT, imo - it wouldn't be in your best interests to do it in a fasted state if your goal was to maintain muscle.

[ohjoshua]

imo

HIIT is good for weight loss (fatties) esp good if diet is not sorted.

Steady state is good for fat loss (body builders or any one trying to get rid of just fat) must also have their diet sorted or a waste of time.

yeah obviously a gross over simplifcation...

just trying to make a point that when people dont have their diet sorted and are consuming too much carbs and fats slow steady state isnt going to cut it....

[teamfatboy]

IMO, HIIT will give you the most bang for your buck... but you can't do that all the time, it'd be too taxing on your body (especciaaalllyyy when dieting :shock:). That's prolly why it's important to vary/balance what you're doing in accordance with your a) caloric intake b) weight-lifting and c) overall activity level (i.e. sitting on your ass all day vs. labour intensive job).

I think all forms of cardio have their place in a program. If you were to incorporate HIIT, imo - it wouldn't be in your best interests to do it in a fasted state if your goal was to maintain muscle.

Thanks Matrix and P&W

Sums up my dilemma in a nutshell....I'm on a hi-protein, low-carb diet (don't have exact ratios to hand) with the aim of dropping bodyfat. There's 40m pre-breakfast cardio, 25m pre-sleep cardio, and a weights session running about an hour, six days a week, but 9-5 i'm on my ass in a desk job. B/fat has gone from 19.1 to prolly 16% (results next week) in four weeks, b/w from 104.8 to 97.9 in six weeks. From the last girths, I was told the weightloss was approx 2:1 ratio of fat/muscle mass.

I like HIIT, I think I get a better endorphin kick from it than steady state, but if it's contributing to catabolism I'd drop it in a heartbeat. ('xcuse the pun!).

I think the point about doing HIIT fasted is what I was trying to work out...so maybe I'll do steadystate pre-breakfast, and intervals pre-sleep.

Thanks a bunch folks, appreciate the contributions.