Why is HIT better than Cardio?

[Sim882]

Many people on this site seem to claim HIT is better than Cardio for fat loss.

I tried this out yesterday. Normally I run at 14 km on treadmill for 1 hour (no incline), and this burns 1000 calories according to the treadmill. So I decided to compare this to HIT on the treadmill, doing it on the hardest mode of speed intervals, with a slight incline. The comparative burn was 800 calories according to the machine.

I would have thought that like in this normal cardio burns more, because 1/2 the time in HIT your just power walking. Also, I would have thought that in HIT, since the intense part of it is quite anerobic, it would be mainly sugar that your burning during the HIT, whereas there would be a greater percentage fat loss in normal aerobics.

Now I'm aware that HIT has a slightly higher increase in metabolism post work out - but how significant is this? And will this make up for the fact that HIT burns mainly carbs during the workout?

 

[Razorguns]

what HIT activity burns 800 calories?

you can't compare a 45 minute jog which results in u being drenched in sweat - to running real quick from your car to your desk in the morning.

in order of weight loss:

lots of cardio
build muscle
hit
eat salads / water

in that order.

r

 

[crossy]

Personally i dont think you can do HIIT properly on a treadmill its to restrictive. The idea is behind HIIT is that when you run normally you body goes into a stready state because it has adjusted to the speed you are running at, effectively this conserves energy. With HIIT this is not the case it keeps your body guessing as you are running at diffrent speeds. The amount of calories burned at a lower heart rate should come from fat more so than a higher heart rate this is true but when running at a faster pace (higher heart rate) overall you will burn more calories so its stands to reason that because you are burning more calories total, that you will also be burning more calories from fat.

Hope this makes sense.

Ta Crossy