Can you quantify that and also speak specifically to what you disagreed with in terms of Lyle's article?

Edit: And also at what intensity you are referring to when you speak of steady state.

Edit 2: And with regards to the EPOC exerts you provided, the problem is you're leaving out absolute values in terms of caloric expense relative to EPOC. We know higher intensity bouts of exercise cause higher EPOC. But what's the applicability and absolute impact here?

From my review of the literature and work with body bugg... I'd say it's not a whole heck of a lot. Definitely not worth worrying about to the degree I see some people.

Thanks for that, Kara, as this is the main point of contention I have. This contention really wasn't even with what you've said in this thread either.

I think if you're (not you specifically) going to hold yourself out there as an authority where thousands of people are grasping at your words, a higher standard of clarity needs to accompany said words.

If someone like Jynus was working with one of his clients and this client really wasn't exercising hard and retreating to weak attempts of "exercising" on the treadmill... and in response to this Jynus said, "Come on man, let's ditch this BS and notch up the intensity with some HIIT or something of the sort (assuming the client had no contraindications)... well then, I'd have nothing to refute.

But the fact remains that in multiple threads overgeneralized statements have been made on a medium of exchange that calls for stricter commentary for reasons I've mentioned above.

I don't want to come across as some stickler out for argument. Frankly I have better things to do with my time as I'm sure you and everyone else does. If I didn't feel this was important for the sake of clarity of newer or ignorant members... I'd leave well enough alone.

Hi Treehugger, I'd like to know why you think you need cardio in addition to your TKD? If it's because you want to train your cardiovascular system and obtain the health benefits from it, great! If it's because you believe your weight loss is tied to it, I have a suggestion: change your thinking, stop "taking" from exercise and instead start "receiving" from it. What I mean is that far too many people look to exercise to simply burn off calories - I have done this in the past, too, and I never found it all that inspiring. When I engage in a physical activity that I truly enjoy, I'm not thinking about how many calories I've burned, whether my workouts are intense enough, etc.

Gyms are not the only place where workouts occur and running is not the only form of cardio available outside a gym. If you don't love it, don't do it - you will ultimately burn-out b/c I personally think it's disrespectful to do something you hate. Our bodies want to move, are designed to move and benefit from movement - be open and creative about how you will move. Here's a personal example, I started doing aerial acrobatics (pole and hoop - I have a youtube channel) a little over a year ago because I thought it looked totally cool and something about it made my spirit leap, I certainly did not do it because it's mainstream, hahaha. I'm not suggesting that everyone who tries aerial work is gonna flip-out over like I do, but I am suggesting there is an activity that is perfect for you. I also swim and practice yoga, because I love to (oh, I also dance around my kitchen listening to hip hop on Pandora radio - that is definitely cardio, it just doesn't feel like it!).

There's also a book I just finished reading called The Maffetone Method, by Phil Maffetone. His philosophy is pretty much all based on and speaks to aerobic training (he's trained elite athletes like Mark Allen as well as individuals who were previouly sedentary), he believes in the use of heart rate monitors and staying in heart rate range so you feel like you could do the whole workout all over again, but you don't (that moderation thing is something I am personally working on, as I tend to overtrain, get injured, sick and then suffer adrenal burnout and that means no workouts for a very long time . . . I don't recommend my previous approach at all - btw, when your adrenals get fried you can actually put on weight or stall your weight loss efforts). Maffetone also emphasizes rest and recovery, a very important element when exercising, and something I have only recently come to discover the value of. This book does not go into resistance training at all, so if you are looking for info there, I'm sure others on this forum have fab suggestions.

Find an activity you love (be open to suggestions, you may be surprised to learn what's out there AND floats your boat) and that you are training in a way that you can maintain over the long haul - give yourself the gift of movement, don't expect to take weight loss from it (I believe food choices have more to do with weight loss, not necessarily fitness, anyway) and see if that doesn't make exercise fun and enjoyable for you.

Wow, I'm about to triple post... someone ban me.

lol

But for the sake of completeness...

Let's be sure to remember that maximizing caloric expenditure is only one piece of the puzzle. Recovery is huge with regards to an exercise plan while dieting and with the way HIIT is touted around forums such as this nowadays... it leaves a lot of people forgetting about intensity's relation to stress/recovery.

And this is exactly why I hate the either/or, black/white mindset so many HIIT advocates carry. The extreme thinking and mindset leads the less educated into thinking it's the only way to exercise.

I don't know about you, but last I checked doing 5-7 days per week of HIIT, lifting weights, and eating in a deficit coupled with all the other stresses life hands us is a surefire way of out-pacing your body's recovery ability. Remember, stress is cumulative. (For those interested, read the book, "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers")

Are there people here suggesting this? No, but some of the wording would/could leave unsuspecting members thinking high intensity each day of the week while dieting is The Way. Especially when the alternative is coined as "useless."

I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over but I also feel, besides Kara's acknowledgment, that my main point is being glossed over as the HIIT vs. SS bit overclouds everything, thus magnifying the need for my point to be acknowledged, lol.

I also forgot to share a link to this article which I'm sure some people will enjoy reading.

I'm still working on getting all this "right"...lol This is my week, can you tell me if I'm on the right track?

Mon: Taekwondo class 1 hr (intensity level varies on this really). I've been adding my own little workout home: about 20 minutes on the total trainer, 15 minutes on heavy bag & a few floor exercises aobut 10 minutes)

Tues: Taekwondo...plus own workout (above)

Wed: my workout

Thurs: Taekwondo sparing class, kicks butt leaves me totally breathless thinking I'll surely die.

Frid. my workout

Sat: I try to run w/ my husband, usually ends up to be running for 15/walking for 15.

Sunday: Running/walking

My diet is pretty predictable: http://weight-loss.fitness.com/weigh...er-b-gone.html

I read some advice on here that said to eat breakfast and snack (healthy) so I've been giving it a whirl and lost a pound...crazy! Eat more=lose wieght...cool though

TIA

***read another post here that said NO to the eat more = lose wieght theory...lol So many theories, so little time.....

very true. In my essay there, i didn't post about what I think people should be doing, so I hope people aren't taking that as an open invitation to do resistance training and hiit every day. which is silly, you'll exhaust your bodies cns in no time. even at my conditioning level, my workout is 5 hours a week, where only 3 are going full out strength and 2 more of a higher rep power based approach. I couldn't handle any more than that due to not enough time for sufficient rest. In anyone starting out, I would never recommend more then 2-3 full body workouts a week. if it's a split, then no more than 1-2 parts or patterns per week.

agreed, but I don't think i'm being so black and white when I say cardio sucks for fat loss. it just does. The issue I have at hand is that I need to expand moreso on this statement so it doesn't sound so black and white so the appropriate context is delivered compared to other forms of training, over a certain period of time. No where did I say though that "this is what you have to do or you won't see results". Or I hope I didn't. I will try to be better because I do recognize that everyone is a lil different so a one size fits all philosophy won't work, but I am also strong in my opinions that certain training methods will deliver better results over others depending on your goals.

agreed. my bad, i'll do better in proper wording.

i'm also starting to dislike the steady state vs hiit the more i research into this, I think it does a disservice too as there is a lot more to training and fat loss than just those 2. In my main thesis point, I touch on this, which leads me to your excellent link:

Reading this I may have to rethink my thoughts on epoc, but at the same time I don't see him link any studies to come to this conclusion. Whereas I've read more than a few that support the bodies elevated state of epoc. It kinda reminds me about the creatine debates as to what actually causes people who take it to show the gains they consistently do. Go back and forth over why it happens. point is, it happens and is real. This seems much the same kinda argument. The end point of this article though supports my position to a perfect T. Regardless if it's epoc, or muscles directly synthesizing glycogen, the end result he's basically saying is same as my main absolutist point. A much greater caloric burn and fat oxidation when your body is using atp-cp and lactic acid systems to do work. I agree that hiit is not the only way to target these systems. there are many different forms of training to effectively hit these systems to maximize your results. steady state cardio however is not one of them as it doesn't utilize the atp-cp or lactic acid system.

-------------------------------------
To running girl, I did want to correct a little bit about my cardio type body. After i wrote it i thought aboutt correcting it, but it was 4am and i was like screw it, i'm going to bed. Steady state won't cause those problems per say, but it can make them worse due to the catabolic nature of cardio and the lack of certain muscle movements being neglected in favor of others. For example hunched shoulders and wings are a byproduct of a sedentary lifestyle and sitting down where the supporting muscles start to atrophe. Worsened by cardios further atrophe effect and a tightening of the chest from constant sagital plane push motions of the arms.

To test for wings for example, just stand normally, and get someone to see if they are able to put there fingers under your shoulder blades. If so, congrats, you're atrophied and winged. It should be impossible for even a little bit of finger to get under there if your back is active and balanced to your chest. Weak core can easily be seen by torso rotation while running on a treadmill. Arms should normally be pumping straight forward and back in the same plane as your legs. Yet a lot of people on them will have a torso rotation where the arms also go side to side from lack of proper core development. Very common for a lot of people who don't do resistance movements. Seeing as you have a active past with dancing, it's very possible your muscles are still active and balanced enough throughout your body and posture is good, in which case it's a moot point for you. But it's a big issue for a lot of people.

As for your toning example, you're somewhat correct. If my core you mean the current taught meaning of it in the body working as one unit to support and move itself, then yes, the best core exercises like squats, deadlifts and lunges will be more than fine to tone yourself. But while "tone" is individual as to how you want it to look, the bottom line is it's still having muscle mass on your body with a body fat low enough to see it. Meaning that on some level, having muscle mass is required, also meaning that if you're currently atrophied from lack of activity and don't have an adequate muscle base, unless you're doing resistance training, it's impossible to get "toned"

wooo, double post!!!

1) The main point of contention I had was that he was comparing lance's training for years to get a 5% in cardio efficiently to the general population as if it applied somehow to them. I don't think it's applicable because all elite caliber athletes are very close to their genetic peak and require hundreds of hours for minuscule gains due to diminishing returns. While to the person just starting out, the gains will come fast and slow exponentially the longer you do it. In the same sense, you can't compare my gains off well over 200lbs on my big 3 lifts in 6months to a powerlifter who will train years for just 50lbs. Maybe I misunderstood what he was trying to say, but it seems that he was trying to rationalize that because lance was studied to show very little increase in cardio efficiency after years of training, that the same would hold true for the general population.

2) any intensity the relys primary on the aerobic system to produce energy. so basically anything 80% mhr and down aprox.

3) agreed to a degree. it's hard finding specific studies that give hard numbers. That being said I don't know if I would trust a body bug. I would love to find a study done in an oxygen chamber that gives hard numbers on caloric expense over time from various training methods.