Pages
Categories
- Commentary
- Interviews
- Motivation
- Nutrition
- Prehab / Rehab
- Product Review
- Research
- Research Review
- Training
- Uncategorized
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
My Newsletter
Sign up for my newsletter to be kept in the loop with the latest happenings at Mark Young Training Systems
Meta
Autor: markyoung
~ 26/07/10
In my recent article Intervals Don’t Work I discussed the scientific evidence surrounding the use intervals for fat loss. By why, if science says intervals aren’t that much better than endurance exercise, does everyone report such great success with intervals?
In my mind, there are a few possible reasons for this:
1. Actually Doing Cardio
Before interval training became en vogue, many people weren’t doing much (if any) cardio. Whether it was due to fear of cardio burning off hard earned muscle (which it doesn’t), boredom from endurance style cardio, or lack of the “cool factor” associated with intervals people just weren’t getting it done. The additional calories from doing something instead of nothing could easily account for the “success” of intervals for those that were previously doing nothing for conditioning.
2. Working Intensely
Many who were actually doing cardio before considered walking on a treadmill sufficient to burn calories. Of course, exercising at this intensity is hardly different than sitting on the couch watching Gilligan’s Island reruns so it should come as no great surprise that doing high intensity interval work brings about greater results. Had they done higher intensity steady state work the result would likely have been similar.
3. Efficiency
Those that were doing cardio before and doing it with success (i.e., busting ass and burning kcals) realized that it takes time and hard work to lose extra fat via cardiovascular exercise. Intervals (even if not technically better in terms of fat loss) were a welcome addition since they made achieving the same results possible with less of a time commitment. So not better, but faster.
4. Appetite Supression
While everyone knows that it is quite possible to burn off the same number of calories from endurance or interval training, intervals have the added bonus of appetite supression. This could lead to less eating for those who are doing intervals and not consciously dieting. It could also result in greater ease in sticking to a nutrition plan for those who need a more formal eating plan. Personally, I lean slightly toward this as the most likely player for the relative success of intervals because the calorie deficit from any exercise is fairly dismal compared to the calorie deficit that can be achieved with food.
What do you think?
.
Great article…love the cartoon.
Comment by Chris Melton — July 26, 2010 @ 7:14 AM
Mark,
For more “traditional” slow go/low(er)-intensity steady state work, what do you think of walking outside (particularly in a hilly area)with an X-vest on and also using a Versaclimber?
Typically my main focus is on diet and resistance training, but I find that if I need to lean out a touch (or simply keep fat gain in check) that these two options allow for racking up a decent number of calories burned when performed 2 times a day (1 in the a.m. and 1 in the evening)without having to resort to more exotic protocols or using ones that are especially taxing on the lower body and possibly the CNS in general.
In these instances, I am simply relying on frequency and volume of low(er)-intensity choices (or more precisely a low-intensity effort with the given choices) to help me rack up plenty of added physical activity without running my body into the ground with other trasining and life demands. Perhaps I am simply deluding myself and a more scientific examination of what I am doing would reveal that it isn’t what I think that it is, but these two choices seem like they’d allow for more caloric expenditure when compared to sitting on a bike and pedaling, even when performed on the lower end of the intensity spectrum, with one doing so by simulating training at a higher bodyweight, and the other via working just about as much total muscle mass as possible at one time.
Again, I may be way off base here or attributing things to this process that are the result of something else (or simply a figment of my imagination, hah, hah), but I figured I’d throw it out there and get your take, since you always have a knack for framing things in a very logical manner and separating fact from fiction. Mind you I am not against intervals, I just find that since I have the time and enjoy clearing my head, this lower intensity stuff is a great supplement to my other training while leaving me feeling invigorated instead of drained.(it also helps that my eating habits are disturbingly mechanical, since this makes any potential increase in appetite from such cardio no obstacle at all in my case)
Comment by Cliff Zalinsky — July 27, 2010 @ 1:41 AM
By the way, thank you for always being a class act and for continuing to write high quality articles for sites like TMuscle, even when unsavory types stop by to level undue criticism (and oftentimes utter nonsense) in your direction.
Comment by Cliff Zalinsky — July 27, 2010 @ 1:44 AM
Hey Cliff,
Thanks so much for the kind words. I sincerely appreciate them. Despite my attempts to provide quality information there is always the risk of making someone upset. I suppose that just goes with the territory.
As for your question, using the ACSM metabolic calculations I figured that a brisk hour walk at about 3.5mph on a level surface at 180 pounds would burn around 230 calories. Adding a 40 pound vest to the same walk would increase the calorie output to 281 calories. Assuming 2 times per day cardio on 7 days per week the total calorie expenditure without the vest would equal 3320 cals while the vest would bring the total to 3934 cals. The difference being just over 700 calories between the two conditions. Of course, this doesn’t count what would likely be a modest post exercise calorie expenditure, but I think you get the idea.
Doing this would almost afford you an extra 500 calorie deficit per day which isn’t too shabby and may help to drop a little fat. Walking faster or walking hills obviously increases the calorie output as well. I can’t comment on the versaclimber specifically, but any activity you do will create more of a deficit to help with fat loss.
The big picture though, is that moderate exercise as a whole doesn’t burn a ton of calories, but assuming your diet is relatively solid and you just need a little edge to keep the fat gain in check this should work just great.
Hope that helps!
Comment by markyoung — July 28, 2010 @ 10:29 AM
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Young, Jeffrey Noel. Jeffrey Noel said: Mark Young Training Systems » » More Thoughts on Intervals – http://goo.gl/kXiy [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention Mark Young Training Systems » » More Thoughts on Intervals -- Topsy.com — July 29, 2010 @ 4:26 AM
[...] this article Mark Young provides more thoughts on [...]
Pingback by Good Reads for the Week « Bret's Blog — July 30, 2010 @ 2:35 AM
[...] In this article Mark Young provides more thoughts on [...]
Pingback by Bret Contreras » Good Reads for the Week — December 22, 2010 @ 7:12 AM