Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › Heart Rate vs. Weight Loss
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Heart Rate vs. Weight Loss - Page 3

post #31 of 39
5/30/09 at 6:58am
Didn't I say that HIIT had greater EPOC than low-intensity cardio/work?
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 39
5/30/09 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Becks23 View Post
Didn't I say that HIIT had greater EPOC than low-intensity cardio/work?
And didn't I say that given equal workloads it's the same? I purposely used distances because the workload is the sole factor. If someone runs a 5K by running three 6-minute miles with two minutes of rest in between each or runs a 5K by running three 8-minute miles the net difference is negligible despite the enhanced "EPOC" after each 6-minute mile. The 8-minute miles are paced and don't have a cooldown period because the "EPOC" occurs during the exercise itself. Too many people look at exercise in a vacuum where X and Y must be met to achieve Z. It's just not like that. You don't understand what you're referencing.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 39
5/30/09 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
And didn't I say that given equal workloads it's the same? I purposely used distances because the workload is the sole factor. If someone runs a 5K by running three 6-minute miles with two minutes of rest in between each or runs a 5K by running three 8-minute miles the net difference is negligible despite the enhanced "EPOC" after each 6-minute mile. The 8-minute miles are paced and don't have a cooldown period because the "EPOC" occurs during the exercise itself.

Too many people look at exercise in a vacuum where X and Y must be met to achieve Z. It's just not like that.

You don't understand what you're referencing.

You address all the piss poor misinformation thrown around this subforum that will start typing to address and then stop because I don't feel like dealing with it. Thanks for taking this role time and again...
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 39
5/31/09 at 8:02am
Just to confirm your argument... The calorifc expenditure of 6min/mile x 3 miles with a 2 minute rest = 8 min/mile x 3 miles no rest? Effects of elevated heart rates and metabolic rates are maintained hours after an exercise and aren't limited to that time "catching your breath".
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 39
5/31/09 at 9:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Becks23 View Post
Effects of elevated heart rates and metabolic rates are maintained hours after an exercise and aren't limited to that time "catching your breath".

Nope. Even so, EPOC is the same in both the cases I gave. It's generally a product of duration and intensity when it comes to cardio.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 39
5/31/09 at 10:05am
I don't have access to medical journal databases but even a quick search around the internet yields a number of sources that play highly in favor of HIIT > steady rate cardio with EPOC having an effect (liner with your intensity). I just don't understand anybody's unwillingness to go this route, it's a much better bang for your buck exercise with science that largely backs it. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n24220136/ A 1996 study from Baylor College of Medicine (Houston) reported that subjects who performed a HIIT workout on a stationary cycle burned significantly more calories during the 24 hours following the workout than those who cycled at a moderate, steady-state intensity due to a rise in resting metabolism. Why? Since HIIT is tougher on the body, it requires more energy (read: calories) to repair itself afterward. The previously mentioned 2001 East Tennessee State study found that test subjects in the HIIT program also burned nearly 100 more calories per day during the 24 hours after exercise. More recently, a study presented by Florida State University (Tallahassee) researchers at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) reported that subjects who performed HIIT cardio burned almost 10% more calories during the 24 hours following exercise than a steady-state group, despite the fact that the total calories burned during each workout were the same. Research also confirms that HIIT enhances the metabolic machinery in muscle cells that promotes fat-burning and blunts fat production. The Laval University study discovered that the HIIT subjects' muscle fibers had significantly higher markers for fat oxidation (fat-burning) than those in the steady-state exercise group. And a study published in a 2007 issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology reported that young females who performed seven HIIT workouts over a two-week period experienced a 30% increase in both fat oxidation and levels of muscle enzymes that enhance fat oxidation.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 39
5/31/09 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Becks23 View Post
I don't have access to medical journal databases but even a quick search around the internet yields a number of sources that play highly in favor of HIIT > steady rate cardio with EPOC having an effect (liner with your intensity). I just don't understand anybody's unwillingness to go this route, it's a much better bang for your buck exercise with science that largely backs it.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n24220136/

A 1996 study from Baylor College of Medicine (Houston) reported that subjects who performed a HIIT workout on a stationary cycle burned significantly more calories during the 24 hours following the workout than those who cycled at a moderate, steady-state intensity due to a rise in resting metabolism. Why? Since HIIT is tougher on the body, it requires more energy (read: calories) to repair itself afterward.

The previously mentioned 2001 East Tennessee State study found that test subjects in the HIIT program also burned nearly 100 more calories per day during the 24 hours after exercise. More recently, a study presented by Florida State University (Tallahassee) researchers at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) reported that subjects who performed HIIT cardio burned almost 10% more calories during the 24 hours following exercise than a steady-state group, despite the fact that the total calories burned during each workout were the same.

Research also confirms that HIIT enhances the metabolic machinery in muscle cells that promotes fat-burning and blunts fat production. The Laval University study discovered that the HIIT subjects' muscle fibers had significantly higher markers for fat oxidation (fat-burning) than those in the steady-state exercise group. And a study published in a 2007 issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology reported that young females who performed seven HIIT workouts over a two-week period experienced a 30% increase in both fat oxidation and levels of muscle enzymes that enhance fat oxidation.

You can believe what you want, but metabolic science has ruled most of these studies largely irrelevant. Saying that 'HIIT' per se is a factor is ridiculous since there's no established criteria for what qualifies as 'HIIT'. A HIIT-advocate could eschew a marathon but still will lose to a trained marathon runner because the HIIT-advocate's training is so sub-par that high intensity to him is moderate-low to the marathon runner. I have to laugh when I see these interval folks who can barely run a mile at a time doing sprints on a treadmill at the same pace I see housewives run 5Ks.

Because of individual differences and no defined threshold, saying 'HIIT is better' is erroneous. Those studies control only one factor (the exercise) yet report on another factor (body composition). This inherently proves correlation, not causation.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 39
5/31/09 at 10:49am
Do you have any links I can check out that refute these claims? I'm by no means trying to start any flame wars I just want to broaden my understanding of this.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 39
5/31/09 at 10:55am
Yes, but if you need to rely on links you don't understand what I'm talking about...
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › Heart Rate vs. Weight Loss