HIIT Cardio or Slow Cardio?

[Benphaggot]

Which of the two are best for loosing fat and maintaining as much muscle as possible?

High intensity or low intensity?

[respawn]

copied and pasted from a post I made a while ago with the fat burning zone being a myth. Short answer HIIT is like 140% more effective or more.

The article below says its 50% - 65%. this means do say an hour at this rate like the bodybuilders do and you will target fat as fuel. Now yes exercising more intense will burn more calories but the calorie burn changed from fat stores to carb stores. So walking for an hour will target fat burn more compared to HIIT training for example in the studies below. However doing HIIT training will burn much more calories over all plus the after burning effect so even more. in the link you find the two tests. people at 50% and people at 75% MHR over 30 mins. people exercising at 75% burned double the calories.

so 50% for example 60% fat to 40% carbs
and 75% the ratio is 35% to 65%

so over the 20 mins;
50% 200 calories 120 calories of fat burnt and 80 calories from carbs burnt
75% 400 calories 140 calories of fat burnt and 260 calories from carbs burnt

after burn effect
I might have the maths wrong here so correct me if I do.
In the tests they had. yes lower intensity burned more calories over 3.5 minutes vs 3 15 seconds sprints total of 45 seconds. BUT the after burn affect showed 95% more calories burnt post workout due to a metabolic disturbance. So in total over 30 mins it would be 760 calories correct in the above test over 20 mins?

Now it seems that the fat burning zone is true but only while training. even though you burn more fat at this rate in theory, if your doing higher intensity then yes you will target less fat but double the total calories. In the maths I did above you see over 20 mins with double the calories burnt its 20 calories more from fat.


Article here.

http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/01/...ing-zone-myth/

[JoshyCii]

HIIT is by far more effective at burning fat, and is less of a catabolic state (muscle breakdown)...so I'd go with HIIT

[RedJay67]

I have a further question on this:

HIIT is a relatively quick workout due to the demands it puts on your body whereas low intensity can go on comfortable for hours. Wouldn't being able to take a slow cardio 2 hour bike ride be the way to burn the maximum amount of fat for that day because 1 hour HIIT seems like it would be very difficult for even the fittest of people.

[respawn]

I have a further question on this:

HIIT is a relatively quick workout due to the demands it puts on your body whereas low intensity can go on comfortable for hours. Wouldn't being able to take a slow cardio 2 hour bike ride be the way to burn the maximum amount of fat because 1 hour HIIT seems like it would be very difficult for even the fittest of people.

did you read my post mate. read it above and you will have your answer.

[RedJay67]

did you read my post mate. read it above and you will have your answer.

I did but it was a little confusing for me. Taking out the afterburn effect because I have read varying things about just how long it last, it seems that me taking a 2 hour bike ride at 65% is the maximum amount of fat that I will be able to realistically be able to burn on a day to day basis. 2 hours a day at 65% can be maintained everyday without any negative effects on my body.

HIIT Airdyne workouts burn more per minute but can't be maintained for the time I can comfortably consume fat at the 65% level. If I am pressed for time I do a couple cycles of Tabata on the Airdyne to consume max in short time.

[respawn]

I did but it was a little confusing for me. Taking out the afterburn effect because I have read varying things about just how long it last, it seems that me taking a 2 hour bike ride at 65% is the maximum amount of fat that I will be able to realistically be able to burn on a day to day basis. 2 hours a day at 65% can be maintained everyday without any negative effects on my body.

HIIT Airdyne workouts burn more per minute but can't be maintained for the time I can comfortably consume fat at the 65% level. If I am pressed for time I do a couple cycles of Tabata on the Airdyne to consume max in short time.

afterburn effect is the main part. the link goes in to the afterburn effect more from memory. but its well known of its effect. pro's will do a few hours cardio for fat loss. but they are pretty much unable to do HIIT really as they weigh so much and walking, steppers or cycling is such low impact for them.

If you have 2 hours spare in your day every day then go for it. trial it out over a few weeks then try HIIT for a few weeks. see which you like best

[RedJay67]

afterburn effect is the main part. the link goes in to the afterburn effect more from memory. but its well known of its effect. pro's will do a few hours cardio for fat loss. but they are pretty much unable to do HIIT really as they weigh so much and walking, steppers or cycling is such low impact for them.

If you have 2 hours spare in your day every day then go for it. trial it out over a few weeks then try HIIT for a few weeks. see which you like best

I was onboard the afterburn effect until recently I heard a few Docs I follow saying new tests had found it was overblown in the past (I wish I could remember exactly where I heard it). I will have to investigate it and find it again...if I find it in print I will post. I might of just dreamed that I heard it because that has happened before.

I have done both and the long rides work for me but I have always focused on cardio aspect -- at 158, I am not looking to lose fat. I usually log between 25-50 miles a day on the bike while surfing the net or watching movies because I made myself a deal a couple of years ago regarding my viewing habits only being allowed if I am exercising.

I appreciate your time in answering my questions. Thanks.

edit: quick search confirms that I must of dreamed up the negatives on the afterburn....damn brain is getting old.

[respawn]

damn it that link doesn't work anymore. must have been removed but it was a very recent study as in this year I am most sure.

thing is it works and has worked for millions all over the world. just read that you may have dreamed it lol. all good.

there will forever be new studies come out that says the current study is wrong. then in time there will be a new study to say something else or to confirm the old study was right in subjects they tested. this will happen for god knows how long. these guys need to make money some how so they need to try and find different results to what is written these days.

You read a lot of science on pages with credibility. don;t just read the conclusions. Layne Norton says the people that do this are the worst kind, worse then bro science. read the whole thing. they mention where in the past studies have found one answer due to their results in studies or the theory and what was done to back the theory. doesn't the bottom they will say that it is correct or it needs more solid evidence to be deemed correct regardless if there were positive results. someone will get paid to write this even if they say there is still no clinical evidence to back something and more evidence is needed for proof because there were two different results conflicting each other.