Maximum fat loss through exercise - lifesprints
- Thread starter matt182
- Start date
I don't get it. HIIT works for fat loss. That's not a breakthrough. Are you just saying that it reduces abdominal fat? I think Tremblay covered that. However, that's not a good study to cite. The "nine fold difference" was so not glorious as it sounds. The HIIT group lost 0.1kg of fat in 15 weeks. So whatever ninefold difference there was, it was less than 0.1kg.
If I'm missing something, please point it out.
If I'm missing something, please point it out.
Thanks Kark 
just thought i'd put it up after all the effort.
Ride on: I didn't do that section, but as far as i'm aware, the Tremblay study wasn't used to glorify HIIT (even though we are talking about lifesprints, a particular type of HIIT; this is also why it is listed as a medical breakthrough, if you count 07 a new!), it was used to indicate the first study done on comparing HIIT with continuous. The results from that study don't really matter, the two in the "results" section do.
I couldn't read the entire article, could you prove to me it was fat loss not weight loss for the 0.1 kg? What methods did they use for this? By the way, you shouldn't always take average group weight losses at face value all the time, maybe some lost 5 kg or even 10 kg, but because others didn't do so well (covered in part of the website) it makes the overal reduction look minimal.
So the Tremblay was cited more because of it's historical value, in that case you're incorrect, it is a good study to cite.
just thought i'd put it up after all the effort. Ride on: I didn't do that section, but as far as i'm aware, the Tremblay study wasn't used to glorify HIIT (even though we are talking about lifesprints, a particular type of HIIT; this is also why it is listed as a medical breakthrough, if you count 07 a new!), it was used to indicate the first study done on comparing HIIT with continuous. The results from that study don't really matter, the two in the "results" section do.
I couldn't read the entire article, could you prove to me it was fat loss not weight loss for the 0.1 kg? What methods did they use for this? By the way, you shouldn't always take average group weight losses at face value all the time, maybe some lost 5 kg or even 10 kg, but because others didn't do so well (covered in part of the website) it makes the overal reduction look minimal.
So the Tremblay was cited more because of it's historical value, in that case you're incorrect, it is a good study to cite.
Last edited:
one thing though.. HIIT burns more fat? that's a bit weird.. high intensity exercise usually burns less fat and more carbs, doesn't it?
Also, one of the studies mentioned that dietary intake was ad libitum (the first in the results section, full stud: ). What works in an ad libitum dietary condition is, IMO, one of the most important things to study, as most people don't last long on a restricted diet (not that you should encourage people to eat what they want, but I'm sure you get my point). But what do you figure makes it so that the continious group compensates for the extra cals burned during exercise while the HIIT group clearly does not? The full study mentions things like decreased dietary intake could be a reason, but then they start talking about enhanced fat oxidation.. It puzzles me how often I see this mentioned with no reference to caloric balance. Do they mean that a shift towards more fat oxidation is somehow accompanied by a change in caloric balance? Or that somehow more fat is being used and more muscle being built, resulting in the same calorie balance? Though in this particular study, the HIIT group saw no increase in lean mass.. so a shift in caloric balance must explain it.. It's very interesting if one type of training can have you not compensate by eating more and thereby provide a shift in your caloric balance while another form cannot.
Also, one of the studies mentioned that dietary intake was ad libitum (the first in the results section, full stud: ). What works in an ad libitum dietary condition is, IMO, one of the most important things to study, as most people don't last long on a restricted diet (not that you should encourage people to eat what they want, but I'm sure you get my point). But what do you figure makes it so that the continious group compensates for the extra cals burned during exercise while the HIIT group clearly does not? The full study mentions things like decreased dietary intake could be a reason, but then they start talking about enhanced fat oxidation.. It puzzles me how often I see this mentioned with no reference to caloric balance. Do they mean that a shift towards more fat oxidation is somehow accompanied by a change in caloric balance? Or that somehow more fat is being used and more muscle being built, resulting in the same calorie balance? Though in this particular study, the HIIT group saw no increase in lean mass.. so a shift in caloric balance must explain it.. It's very interesting if one type of training can have you not compensate by eating more and thereby provide a shift in your caloric balance while another form cannot.