HIIT or Meduim paced?

[kylewoods]

what cardio do you guys think works best, HIIT cardio or medium paced cardio for 45-60mins?

iv heard differnt views on this. some say that HIIT only burns carbs and not fat, im not sure what this means. other says its really good.

wot about medium paced cardio?

 

[KhorneDeth]

A lot of opinions from a lot of different people on this question.... you can search all day and all night and probably still not come up with a REALLY definitive answer.

But I approach it like this -- if you're a couch-potato just now getting off your ass, you're likely not in any sort of condition to put in any all-out HIIT sprinting/biking/whatever. So, even if it's just to build a decent level of fitness, walking and jogging and running for a length of time at a sustainable pace is good enough. Then, once you can run down the block and back without puking up yesterday's breakfast, you can break into some honest HIIT workouts.

After all, check out a couple pics of elite runners: those that do 10k's or marathons, and then those that do 100-400m sprints. You'll notice a drastic difference in build/body composition. Which do you want to look like?

Make your choice, and train the way they do.

-- KhorneDeth

 

[Madcow2]

I wouldn't consider any pace that can be maintained for an hour as medium or moderate. Think of intensity as speed. Your best 40 is going to be about 100%. Your best 400 is going to be a good bit less. Now I don't know how far you can run in an hour but it certainly isn't going to be anywhere near either of these and likely to be far far down the scale although. Now think about weight training with intensity as a percentage of a single rep max (i.e. max single is 100%, triple is 90%, 5 is 85% and so on). What intensity do you think is going to enable you to do reps for 5 minutes straight? How about 60 minutes? Now, which cardio stimulus do you think is most aligned with weighttraining? And do you still think 60 minutes is moderate intensity or pace?

There's a lot of area where you can run intervals that are not at 100% and get a ton of benefit (probably better to not run 100% all the time - sprinters certainly don't train like that) but constant pace running for long time periods is just about the polar opposite stimulus to weight training.

 

[silver_shadow]

with hiit i've noticed results very quickly. also, i'm asthmatic so if anyone says long slow cardio is better... i've found hiit to do alot of good things for my lung capacity. in short, hiit is better for fat burning and fitness IMHO.

 

[KillahBee]

I actually do a combo of both and it seems to work fine.

 

[silver_shadow]

I actually do a combo of both and it seems to work fine.

anything more specific? do u think there is an advantage to this approach?

 

[KillahBee]

anything more specific? do u think there is an advantage to this approach?

I think it all depends on goals. mine are not simply weight/BF loss. I am training for a 100-mile bike ride, so I am trying to work on my endurance and my short sprint power. so the combo of both work best for me in that aspect. I also get very bored with cardio, so switching it up like this works best for me. It also all comes down to diet for me.

 

[silver_shadow]

I think it all depends on goals. mine are not simply weight/BF loss. I am training for a 100-mile bike ride, so I am trying to work on my endurance and my short sprint power. so the combo of both work best for me in that aspect. I also get very bored with cardio, so switching it up like this works best for me. It also all comes down to diet for me.

oh ya... i forgot that your training for a 100-miler. best of luck on that.

 

[KillahBee]

oh ya... i forgot that your training for a 100-miler. best of luck on that.

thanks. I gotta do something to push myself with the back injury since I can't really lift heavy.

 

[nelmsjer]

KB, good luck on your race and get better, bud.