So, I'm bored today... I really should be working, but....
I'm going through some newsletters in my inbox that I haven't gotten around to reading yet. Here's an relative article in one of Lyle McDonald's newsletters that's worth a looksie. Part II hasn't been written yet, to my knowledge.
Interval Training Versus Steady State Cardio Part 1
CONTINUED BELOW
I'm going through some newsletters in my inbox that I haven't gotten around to reading yet. Here's an relative article in one of Lyle McDonald's newsletters that's worth a looksie. Part II hasn't been written yet, to my knowledge.
Interval Training Versus Steady State Cardio Part 1
In recent years, there has been quite the over popularization of the concept of interval training, along with a rather major backlash against traditional forms of aerobic training, for fat loss. It's not uncommon to read how low intensity aerobics is useless for fat loss, everybody should just do intervals, regular aerobics makes you lose muscle, etc.
I have seen it claimed that aerobics will make you fatter, stress the adrenals, and all manners of fascinating claims. Nevermind that, over the decades, bodybuilders have gotten into contest shape with (often endless amounts of) cardio, runners, cyclists and swimmers are extremely lean, etc. Somehow, aerobic training has gotten a bad rap.
On internet forums, folks who have been taken by this idea are often trying to intervals 3-6 times per week (if they do cardio, they will only do intervals and since many do cardio every day) on top of heavy leg training. And wonder why they can't recover. It's gotten way out of hand.
I think what happened is that for about 2 decades, aerobic training has been (over) emphasized over all other kinds of activity. As well, people got the absolutely wrong idea about how to use it for fat loss so you have people trotting along on the treadmill at an intensity that is just slightly higher than sitting on the couch, burning a couple of hundred calories in an hour and wondering whey they aren't losing fat.
So folks, usually with a heavy resistance training bias or background, overreacted. And the backlash began. Basically, people get a little over-enthusiastic about a certain type of training (or eating), take it to some absurd extreme, get into problems, find an alternative and decide that the first type of training is useless, overrated, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah and they jump to the opposite extreme. They jump from one extreme to the other until, hopefully, they come back to some happy medium.
Well, I'm a happy medium kind of guy and I try to avoid that kind of binary either/or thinking; I find it more useful to examine training tools in terms of their pros and cons, benefits and disadvantages. So let's examine both steady state aerobics and interval training for fat loss (endurance performance is a separate topic) in that fashion.
In part 1, I'm going to define some terms and examine both types of activity; in part 2 (next week), I'll talk about how to decide which is best depending on the specifics of the situation.
CONTINUED BELOW