wow, thanks steve for the article, i just read it all and it really does clear things up. i'm next going to read his long series of 'steady state vs interval training' articles.

the one thing i like about him is that he's quoting from peer reviewed journals and not from some blog he read or something he heard...it's solid sources, and second i like the fact that he doesn't claim that his word is law but instead puts alot of stuff out there for people to think about.

i think the article should be put in the stickies because there's lots of unsuspecting newbies (and regulars) who are now under the impression that doing ss cardio is equivalent to doing 'nothing'.

I'm a little frustrated that this statement keeps getting put out there.

I don't think at any point that I said ss-cardio = "nothing". I said it becomes LESS EFFICIENT, which is not anywhere near the equivalent of "nothing". Less efficient is still something ... and yes, I read the article by Lyle and I agree with most but not all of what he says. I've also read other articles (from reputable sources which I can find on my other computer at home if I need to) that talk about why HIIT works well for weight loss than ss-cardio ... not because ss-cardio is "nothing" but because it provides a more intense workout and a longer after-burn in a shorter period of time. It means that people aren't required to put in hours of cardio in order to get the same metabolic effect.

hey kara,
i guess i was trying to do the right thing and not call anyone out. i actually was talking about jynus who in his last very many posts to various users has repeatedly referred to ss cardio as "useless". the problem with making a blanket statement like that is because it's implying that one might as well be sitting down watching telly instead of doing ss cardio....

case in point, the user treehugger who started this thread comes back to ask if her husband who is currently doing 45mins of running is doing 'nothing'.
i'm just saying that it's one thing to support one type of cardio over another...but it's another thing altogether to totally discard one over the other.

i hate cardio more than anything til, i read about a technique called "guerilla cardio" its only 12 minutes and its very intense. minute 1-4 do a light jog, minutes 5-8: sprint for 20 seconds then rest for 10 seconds, sprint for 20 rest for 10. minutes 9-12 is the cool down, so do a light jog! This kicks butt!!

Lyle's one of the most well researched guys you're going to find out there.

Just to be clear, I know that's not what you were saying. I feel the need to say this since you're responding to parts of my reply as well as other's replies to you.

What specifically?

First, be clear I'm not suggesting HIIT isn't "better" than steady state cardio for fat loss. I would never do such a thing... comparing two different modes of exercise without context beyond losing fat is silly.

Secondly, what do you mean by "HIIT works well for weight loss than ss-cardio."

Are you trying to say one is better than the other in all instances? I think it's pretty obvious to most anyone that higher intensity exercise is better than lower intensity exercise in terms of energy expenditure and possibly body composition but without couching such a comparison with a blurb about individual circumstances, you're really doing a disservice to the masses. Painting things in such black/white terms leads people to believe there's only one way of doing things. You generally don't do this Kara and this is the exact issue I took up with Jynus above.

I know people are pushing concepts such as HIIT too hard when I have 300+ lb people coming into my gym saying things like, "Why am I doing steady state work when HIIT is the only thing that helps fat loss."

Shit, I've even had people asking me things like, "Can't too much steady state cardio make me fat."

It's absolute statements such as "HIIT is better for fat loss than steady state" when said without proper context that lead people astray.

This is all probably moot since I know you know better, Kara.

What I'm responding directly to you about is your statements pertaining to efficiency... namely:

First you say:

Then you say:

Huh?

To boot, I'm interested in hearing how efficient you believe the body becomes and why you can't combat said efficiency assuming it matters with increases in intensity (while keeping with steady state).

Secondly... people need to get off their pedestals when it comes to HIIT. I'm not speaking specifically to you here Kara. If we're going to be "scientific" about all of this, let's go down this route correctly. What we're really talking about here is physics, right? Sure, we can bring bioenergetics and physiology into it as well, but beyond these things we're dealing with simple physics.

In terms relating to physics, we're talking about power output, or the rate of doing work, which is measured in watts. Right? Rather than recreating the wheel here, a buddy of mine wrote a fantastic article that you guys would surely find useful:

Interval Training, HIIT, and Tempo Training for Fat Loss | AmpedTraining.com | Matthew Perryman, CSCS

Are you talking about EPOC?

I thought I showed you the big, most recent review pertaining to EPOC? Also, have you actually tested the significance of EPOC using a body bugg or something like that?

If not, I think you'd be surprised.

Define metabolic effect as you mean it here please.

Thing is, Kara, that time-efficiency for exercise isn't the only worthwhile parameter.
Sure, HIIT is more intense and therefore more effective for the same amount of time than low-intensity SS cardio, but why does that have to be the only significant variable?

Just because something is faster doesn't always make it better. Better is a value judgement, not a scientific term.

Heck, ultimately, the "best" (and here I am meaning most effective) form of exercise is the one you are actually going to do. And if that is low-intensity cardio (which I suspect is true for a lot more people than it is for HIIT or heavy lifting, but of course I have no evidence to back that up), then so be it. let them walk their way to health, and if it takes longer, so what? It's not (usually) a race.

Decent article but i don't think it's applicable. Comparing lance armstrong to someone who is just starting training is absurd. It's like saying that since pro oly lifters spend years training their lifts to gain 20lbs that resistance training is pointless because we are already all super efficient. "The oxidative system seems to be far more trainable although genetics play a limiting role here too. VO2max, or aerobic power can be increased by as much as 50% but this is usually in untrained, sedentary individuals" Yup, that resonates will with the 5% in the article doesn't it? Look, steady state has it's place for a beginner program. But Steve being disingenuous imo to make a point when he days that he doesn't see plateaus from steady state. All I need to do is look as far as this forum and the multitude of posts all the time that go something like "HELP, I've lost XX amount of pounds and can't lose anymore!" Go look yourself. It's out there. And look at their programs. lots of cardio. It's no coincidence.

There are even studies to support this notion as well. I'm trying to find the abstracts for this, steve might even have them linked for ease of use as he is normally on top of that. one was journal of applied physiology in like the last 5 years. other was in 90's. Abstract was simple, take a bunch of people and split them into diet only and diet + cardio only groups and compare fat loss. and they did it over a period of months, not weeks like in all these hiit vs cardio studies. guess what, cardio wasn't any better in both studies.

Wanna know why? Your bodies are made to do cardio efficiently. It's the way it's built. The untold point in all of this is that no one seems to make mention of the bodies energy systems that are used in doing work. Cardio uses the Aerobic Energy System for the most part. If you're going longer than 2 min, it's using this system. But there is also the Lactic Acid system and the ATP-CP system. During intense cardio the Lactic acid system might be somewhat utilized, but not very much, and for sure the ATP-CP system will not be touched. Now, the Aerobic Energy System in a nutshell means the use of oxygen with carbs and fat to produce the atp to move the muscles. And while lance armstrong might not improve his system much over years of training, any person new to training will, a lot, over a short period of time.

I won't link the exact details on it as it would fill pages, but again in a nutshell, as the body's general cardio capacity increases with the ability transport oxygen through the red blood cells, the bodies Aerobic Energy System will also become more efficient at using carbs to do all the needed work and not tap into fat stores to produce energy, meaning the required work load to oxidate fat will constantly increase in order to just get the same effect. Outstripping physical limitations like time needed to do exercise required, or the bodies ability to handle the stress in order to reach the required oxidation state.

Don't take my word for it, look around at everyone here. How many of you on your cardio cycles have hit plateaus a few months in? and it just seems like you have to go sooo much harder and longer just to start again? This is the result of improved cardio efficiency. Hell, this is why long distance runner run for hours upon hours every day, to improve their Aerobic Energy System in order to get the most output with the most efficient use of calories. They aren't losing fat, their bodies are finely tuned to simply burn carbs and pretty much leave fat stores alone. It's why long distance runners are fatter than short distance athletes, their exercise just stops burning fat for them at a certain level, even with hours upon hours of cardio a day. (though granted, they still are at a pretty low bf%, just not as low as a lot of power based sports) So how is it that when this basic fact of cardio functioning is known, it's still thought of as a good long term use of time as a fat burner? I do not know...

Since articles are the in vogue here, this is one that I found to be the most telling, and most confirmed myself through my training. BODY FAT: HARD FACTS ABOUT SOFT TISSUE What I found with myself and what I see all the time in others resonates with this. Using myself as an example, before I started lifting, i spent a couple years playing elite level ultimate frisbee. Which means for months on end, I would run my ass off. End result after 6 months of daily running for hours? nothing. I was still the same 190lbs as when I first started the season. Still the same body comp. Now, in 06, I retired from ulti due to wanting to take time off to recover my knees, and decided to lift. In 4 months time, with basically zero cardio, I shed 10lbs, reduced my waist size and gained size in chest, arms, and legs. I looked way more noticeably cut than i ever remotely came close to during ulti training. Now here I am doing the same thing again. (i got lazy for 2 years) My pics in before and after are a testament to this. I literally did not do a single step of cardio in all my pics. (aside from 2min warmup jog)

Where am I going with this you ask? Remember when I'm talking about the bodies energy systems? now THIS is the real key imo to fat loss and metabolism. Resistance training at a proper intensity will only use the bodies ATP-CP and Lactic Acid systems to produce energy and not touch the Aerobic Energy System. The energy demand caused from these systems is immense, and cause an EPOC that is many times greater than the Aerobic Energy System will. This is the key. Ask ANY person who is trying to _gain_ weight while lifting weights. You will get the same answer from all of them. It's DAM hard. We have to eat, constantly, over and over, till we're stuffed in the face, and then do it again 3 hours later in order to just hope for a few pounds a month of gain. and the only exercise we really do is weights....for 4-6 hours only a week. I see this in myself, where to even attempt to gain weight with zero cardio I need to eat well over 3500 calories a day, and in everyone else who weight trains in the same high intensity zone. And yet, all you cardio guys are on your bikes for hours upon hours, with waaayyy less calories, and just aren't seeing the same results? why is this? maybe cardio does indeed suck for fat loss? hmm

Well not quite. It's not that cardio sucks per say, it's that exercises that utilize the bodies ATP-CP systems are infinitely better when it comes to blasting off the fat. The caloric requirement needed to recover from such exercises is why it's king. To see a perfect example of this, simply look at the bodies of people who train in the ATP-CP zone vs the Aerobic Energy System. Without question oly lifters in specific weight classes will be incredibly lean, sprinters will be incredibly lean. Even power running based sports like soccer where the constant sprinting will allow for a good amount of ATP-CP utilization, they are also very lean. Compare to the long distance runner crowd who while lean, still will have a greater body fat percent, and not look near as toned or built as any of the others. Steve might not like absolutes, but I sure as hell do. Cardio sucks for fat loss compared to exercises that utilize the bodies ATP-CP and Lactic acid based systems. The EPOC and caloric demand to recover from exercises using these systems will result in a much greater level of fat oxidation than the Aerobic Energy System will, and the compounding effects of increases in muscle mass will result in a much greater resting metabolism over time allowing a much greater ease on keeping the weight off long term.

To add to that point, I don't even know why anyone would want a cardio looking body anyway. Look at the shape and frame of a long distance runner, is this seriously what you want? Not to mention that on a physical level, cardio is catabolic. I look at all those before and after pictures, and you see trends developing in the cardio only crowd. Head tilts forward with shoulders slouched. Wings in the back shoulder blades, tight chest. loose ab muscles with tight back, causing the pelvic cage to have a slight rotated backwards twist. When running the weaken core is noticeable from a much more pronounced transverse plane rotation. And at the end of it, you still don't have a "toned" look, but a "skinny fat" look. Ok fine, if this is the look you're going for, then by all means. But you should understand what it is exactly the end result will be.

Now after all this, if you made it this far, this might surprise you. YOU SHOULD STILL DO CARDIO. The multitude of health benefits from it are immense. Improved red blood cell count, improved vo2max, lower blood pressure, lower heart rate, the list goes on. And for a beginner to losing weight, it _will_ make an effective starting point to kickstart your routine as you simply won't have the ability to effectively use your body in intense ways to effective hit the target energy systems. And as many people here will tell you, those first few months you can lose a lot of weight with simple diet + cardio changes. But resistance training should be a focus from day 1 in any routine. Everyone has imbalances and weaknesses. Especially if you havn't been active in your life. and a cardio only routine WILL make it worse. So by all means, if you like doing it, the continue to run, jog, ski, whatever else makes you happy.

But also understand that in this trainers professional opinion, cardio is not the best long term suited method for consistent reliable fat loss. Maintaining? yes. A good starting point? yes. But effective long term fat loss? no, it sucks for that.

2 posts above mine, Steve was talking about how epoc isn't that great when measured vs steady state. I just read this right now so wasn't able to comment on it in my essay. I also found some links to the studies I was talking about, and found something specific on epoc as well to go along with it. take these for what you will.

Studies on exercise - Steady state vs HIIT vs Weight Lifting... - Low Carb Friends

edit: I just read through, and the followup posters make some interesting points as well with it. A lot of which make the claims from the original poster seem like it can go both ways. In the interest in fairness, I'll keep the link as I'm always for debate for both sides. Just as you seen, I'm also pretty stubborn when I form an opinion.

Cool article too. Even though there are opposing sides here, I'm learning a lot from both! Thanks guys!

So I look like this: Head tilts forward with shoulders slouched. Wings in the back shoulder blades, tight chest. loose ab muscles with tight back, causing the pelvic cage to have a slight rotated backwards twist.?????

since I've been doing steady state running, HIIT, and hills..?? Hmph I always thought I had a a great posture...I danced for 12 years......I realize about the *skinny fat* look. But I've also read that you can get a *toned* (even though toned does not exist) look by doing just core exercises, and not having to do weight & or resistance training...even though I may give it a shot, but with a professional. It's not something I want to keep up with for the rest of my life, but I wouldn't mind running along with the power walking I've been doing for the rest of my life.

And with the Plateau's from ss cardio, I didn't think it all had to do with just, that, most ppl including myself on here (as the large percentage of ppl whom you are referring to, don't have a clue as to what they should be eating, how they should be eating, how it affects their bodies, how sedentary their lives may be compared to someone elses, how rest is important, and the list goes on...cutting calories, not starvation, getting enough sleep. So I think it has a ton more to do (the plateauing) than just ss cardio. As I am sure you're well aware. It's really such a mixture of everything. As I have now hit a Plateau, and am still running most every day. I will continue, as I know every little bit helps.

PLUS I know what mixture of things that I've done wrong or am doing wrong to hit this plateau. I wouldn't go blaming it all on ss cardio (such as my running) perhaps if I were doing resistance & weight training, I would burn the fat much more effectively and quicker than what I am now. With running mainly so far, I've gone from chubbier to slender again.

Not trying to start an argument, but I respectfully disagree. My "proof" is that I've gone from ~450+ to 320 in 10 months, and went from a 54 to a 46 pant size during the same time, and the only type of excercise I have been doing up to this point is SS cardio. Still losing consistently, too.

That being said, I am going to start lifting weights after my upcoming vacation, and I have been shifting my cardio sessions from SS to intervals, and I also realize that cutting out the mountain dew and fast food probably also played a rather large part in me losing weight, but I believe I'm living proof that SS cardio is quite the opposite of useless, at least for some people.

Regarding the OP, I used to hate running. But, the better I got at it, the more I started to like it. At one point, I even joined my college cross country team for a season. (When I was a lower weight than I am now, but thats another story). I've also found the recumbant bike to be quite fun. Also, even though I love running, I used to completely loathe the treadmill. But, now I'm starting to enjoy it more - I've ran up to 3 miles on the treadmill in a workout. So, just saying all this because even if you hate running now, its possible you'll learn to love it, and you'll want to continually push yourself harder - Runner's high does exist, and it is great

and fyi: ^^ this would be a huge improvement over fat

my $.02

I totally agree with all of this. And you're right about the subjectiveness of "better" or even "best" which is why I mostly try to be pretty careful to moderate my comments with "in my opinion" or "in my experience". I need to be even more careful about that.

One of the reasons I feel that HIIT is a better option is exactly because of your last sentence there (or the last one I quoted, anyway). It's about the exercise you'll do. A lot of people psych themselves out with the idea that they have to do hours and hours and hours of cardio. Even this thread started out with "I hate cardio". I know a lot of people who give up on exercise because they don't have the time or inclination to put in an hour or more of cardio per day ... and somehow they've gotten into their minds that's what they have to do.

In that sense time-efficiency DOES become a hugely worthwhile parameter. They can get the same or better benefits from 20-30 minutes of HIIT as from an hour or more of ss-cardio. At that point, to get someone to see and believe that they don't have to spend an hour a day or more on the treadmill means they're more likely to get out there and do it.

And again, keep in mind that what I say in THIS thread in response to the original poster might not be what I say in another thread to someone else who *likes* ss-cardio and wants to keep doing it. Of course I keep forgetting that a lot of people on the internet don't read things in context ... so for me to tell the person who hates cardio that HIIT might be the best option, means that the next person who comes along who doesn't have the same likes/dislikes/restrictions/whatever is going to say "why is HIIT best [blanket statment]" ... not considering that I was answering someone ELSE's question.

Disingenuous?

lol

What avancement do I acheive from thinking critically and unbiased about all of this? I could see if I were selling some Super Duper Steady State fat loss product but I don't. So why would I be diingenuous about something I'm not vested in?

Hell, more often than not I'm using intervals in my own training.

I love intervals, I love tempo runs, I love high intensity training (except what's commonly referred to as HIT training). That's not what I take issue with AT ALL.

The only reason I chimed in on this thread is simple: I take issue with the absolutist reasoning some, including you, are using. I find it intellectually dishonest and misleading to those who know no better. I'll add that I don't believe you're trying to be dishonest or misleading... I think you are passionate and tend to sling words without thinking about their repurcussions in terms of all those reading it.

When we have rank novices reading, "Cardio sucks and is useless for fat loss" coming from a trainer in the industry... I think we have a problem.

Jynus, let's not go down this road of throwing straw mans all over the place. That's not a tactful way of debating at all. Here you are, again, making sweeping, blanket generalizations to fit your side of the debate. To boot, I'm not sure you're clear on what I'm specifically in disagreement with, given the diatribe you've written below.

The only way to deduce something like, "Look at all the plateaus caused by steady state cardio around this very forum" would be to systematically and critically assess each individual case and rule out the other possible (I'd say probable) causes of plateaus.

I've been on this forum quite a long while and have nothing to benefit from being disingenuous here. Being frank, the simple fact is more often than not, when troubleshooting plateaued members here, said plateaus have typically been caused by misjudgment or lack of control of caloric intake.

To boot, beyond my research, I derive little value in the data I derive from interactions with members on a forum. The "distance" leaves much to be desired in terms of critical evaluation. I liken it to studies done where dietary intake isn't controlled... there's simply not a lot of value.

My experiential observations come by way of my own, hands-on business where I have better control of the data which allows me, with more confidence, to make judgments regarding what specifically is causing what.

I'm not sure if this is one of the one's you're speaking of.

Separate and combined effects of exercise training and weight loss on exercise efficiency and substrate oxidation -- Amati et al. 105 (3): 825 -- Journal of Applied Physiology

Our bodies are made to do everything efficiently, hence the whole point and concept of biological adaptation and homeostasis.

I'm not touching all of this with a 10 foot pole.

More importantly, my original point was and still is the fact that absolutist terms such as steady state cardio sucks and steady state cardio is useless don't do a whole lot of good in this sort of realm. In fact, imo, they hurt more than help.

That's the only reason I got involved in this and another thread you said similar things in. I'm simply asking you to use caution when handing out advice with such "powerful" descriptors because people tend to take any authoritative figure's words as gospel over the net, unfortunately.

I haven't read anything specifically by LaForgia, but I believe all of these articles reference his work.

Resistance Training and EPOC
Exercise Afterburn
EPOC - Turning Up The Post Workout Calorie Burner
And yes, I have tested my own personal "burn rate" post HIIT (using a Body Bugg in fact) and post ss-cardio and I find that I burn more calories for longer after a good round of HIIT.