Why HIIT Is NOT Better For Fat Loss (Blog)

[arehb]

Because of the increase in work capacity, after relatively few workouts interval training will make you burn more fat per workout than steady state training.

But the blog post is about HIIT and fat loss and not about Improving your V˙O2max so I don't think this study is too relevant to this particular discussion. Unless I missed something in one of the prior posts that is.

I think you may have read past the sentence in my post I quote above.

[nburge]

In fact, most of the research from that group of researchers is, as far as I know, about rehabilitation for heart disease patients.

There's some articles here: http://www.ntnu.no/isb/mfel1050/pensum (click on the links in the middle)
One of them has as title "High intensity aerobic interval exercise is superior to moderate intensity exercise for increasing aerobic capacity in patients with coronary artery disease".

I don't know what type of weight training they have their patients do. I suspect recovering heart patients might get really exhausted lifting not very heavy weights.

Googled abit and found an article here where some of the same guys writes about using 1RM strength training on heart patients to make them walk better. 1RM training should qualify as heavy weight training

Quite happy to stand corrected on this one - although I would suggest that work indicating aerobic improvements in cardiac patients from HIIT is somewhat less than relevant to an article about weight loss.

HIIT is good for some things. Studies show improvements in cardio capacity (usually over a short period of 3-6 weeks) and any activity is worthwhile to help lose fat, but the fact remains that most people can't do it at the right intensity to get the benefits from the studies (if they aren't nearly puking after their workout they probably haven't gone hard enough) and if they do hit that intensity they probably don't want to do it again in a hurry. Simply massaging down their calorie intake whilst increasing cardio workload is typically the easiest strategy for most people.

[arehb]

but the fact remains that most people can't do it at the right intensity to get the benefits from the studies (if they aren't nearly puking after their workout they probably haven't gone hard enough) and if they do hit that intensity they probably don't want to do it again in a hurry. Simply massaging down their calorie intake whilst increasing cardio workload is typically the easiest strategy for most people.

One thing about HIIT - you shouldn't go all the way. Only almost. If you go past 95% of max pulse, that's when you start puking, and that's when you get exhausted to such a level that extensive recovery is needed. Kind of like a really very hard deadlift session, according to my experience.

But regarding the necessity of dieting: The most famous study from the group of researcher I have been pointing to, is one where they put obese adolescent on a HIIT regime. They where given a 30 minute lecture at start about nutrition, from then on only HIIT, 4x4, two times a week. The control group received group councelling on the importance of eating healthy and increasing activity levels - stuff like that, from psychologists and nutritionists. After the 12 weeks with coached training sessions the participants where left to train on their own.

The HIIT group got higher weight reduction and got fitter than the control group. The HIIT group also had stronger long-term effects. This was a pretty big and serious study, giving alot of weight to the result.

That study was given extensive coverage in Norwegian mainstream media a few years ago. I've googled abit but can't find an exact source and no info on it in english.

(googles on)

Finally found it: http://www.ntnu.no/eksternweb/multimedi ... 44177a.pdf

Hmm seems like the weight reduction was pretty modest...

[atypical1]

So, table #3 from that study simply tells me that of two groups on very high carbohydrate diets the one that performed HIIT had greater weight loss. OK, I buy that I suppose but you cannot make the assumption like this study did that HIIT is better for weight loss than diet is considering the group doing HIIT also had a lower caloric intake too but both groups had a high carb intake.

This study points out what is wrong with research these days as they should have given both groups completely identical diets if they were trying to show that HIIT was better than diet.

james

[nburge]

I agree with James - the study doesn't place enough controls over what these people are eating (undoubtedly it would be challenging and expensive to try and do this). I would also imagine that very obese youths weren't doing much by way of exercise before the study, therefore anything that gets them off their ass should show an improvment.

Anyway, I don't think the article Medhi wrote was suggesting that HIIT did not aid fat loss, he was just stating that people shouldn't view it as some sort of "holy grail" of exercise and that steady state cardio can be easier to adhere to for most (not all) people. The EPOC argument is also rather mute as the difference shown (14% vs 7%) is typically mitigated by the fact that people doing HIIT do it for less overall time and burn less overall calories (note the word TYPICALLY in this statement).

Neil.

[Mehdi]

A caloric deficit is necessary to LOSE WEIGHT; but, it is not necessary for Fat Loss. If you changed the word Fat to Weight then your article is correct. If not, then it is not because lots of LSD training will not lead to as much muscle growth as HIIT.

Weight loss = fat loss/muscle loss/water loss. If not weight loss, you mean you'd lose water or muscle?

It is not necessary to lose weight to lose fat. I've been around 230 lbs for like 8 years. But I have lost aLOT of fat during the last three.

The muscle growth is irrelevant. Everybody here is (should be) eating healthy & getting stronger before even thinking about doing cardio. You get the muscle growth from the strength training.

Thats true. But if you are talking about the average gym guy just doing cardio all the time to lose weight intervals are definitely alot better.

You don't need to lose weight to lose fat indeed, you can even gain weight while losing fat.

Explain why intervals would be better than cardio even if someone wasn't doing strength training.

I can't stress enough to give an explanation for why you think a certain about thinks. How am I supposed to understand your point of view without you giving an explanation? Explain things people please.

[Mehdi]

Here's an interesting scientific article: Aerobic High-Intensity Intervals Improve V˙O2max More Than Moderate Training

I haven't read that article, but reading a text in norwegian from one of the authors behind that article, he says that interval training, contrary to steady state training, increase work capacity, stroke volume of the heart, lactate treshold, and oxygen uptake capacity. Because of the increase in work capacity, after relatively few workouts interval training will make you burn more fat per workout than steady state training.

He also writes that it is unproblematic to combine interval training and strength training, and that they have been doing so with heart patients over long periods of time with very good results. And that getting overtrained is so hard that it's difficult to do research on because it's a state that's very hard to induce.

And, that there's no conflict between muscle mass and strength, and doing endurance training. But if you decide to do stuff like walk to the south pole, *then* you will lose muscle mass.

Hm.

It does burn more fat during the workout. BUT: it doesn't matter if the exercise burns more fat or sugar (well it helps in certain ways, but I'm not going to get in details here). What matters ist hat you get a caloric deficit. And for that you need to burn more calories. HIIT burns less total calories, so less fat.

[Mehdi]

Anyway, I don't think the article Medhi wrote was suggesting that HIIT did not aid fat loss, he was just stating that people shouldn't view it as some sort of "holy grail" of exercise and that steady state cardio can be easier to adhere to for most (not all) people. The EPOC argument is also rather mute as the difference shown (14% vs 7%) is typically mitigated by the fact that people doing HIIT do it for less overall time and burn less overall calories (note the word TYPICALLY in this statement).

Neil.

Sums up what I believe. Good conversation overall people, mature, I like it.

[wsuwarrior]

Low-intensity workouts burn fat as a fuel more so than high-intensity. It takes some warming up for fat to be burned in the muscles, it is fairly slow as getting there. Sugar/glucose on the other hand is very fast at getting to the muscles and is used more in the HIIT.

I learned this in my Fitness Assesment & Management class this morning so Im not pulling it out of my ass.

[samlwebb]

Mehdi,
First of all thanks for all you have put on the Internet. Very generous of you.

My HIIT experience is based on crossfit style workouts and my nutritional background is in line with paleo / http://robbwolf.com. My understanding is that we have short term, carb based, calorie stores and long term, fat based, calories to burn. I think (and realize I will need clinical proof at some point) HIIT pulls from the fat stores quicker than SST, so the calories you burn and the EPOC are more beneficial to fat loss. Chemical reactions are going on in the body that make fat loss more complicated than calories in/calories out.

Personally I am a hard gainer (6'8" 180-190lbs, <10% body fat) and am more focused on putting on mass. However, I help friends train who are all looking for fat loss so I am very interested in your thoughts.

Thanks,
Sam

[Mehdi]

@wsuwarrior
HIIT uses sugar as fuel, just like lifting does. So you burn more fat as a result during daily activities. You learned it right.

@samlwebb
You're saying the same thing as wsuwarrior, so you're also right about what you're writing on fuel usage & stuff.

I wrote this in the article, so I'll stress it again. It doesn't really matter if you burn calories from fat or sugar for fuel. What matters for fat loss is that you have a caloric deficit. You can burn more total calories with steady state cardio and more easily. And the epoc from HIIT is insignificant as explained in the post (and remember you're getting an epoc from lifting, which everyone should be doing for fat loss).

Now there is indeed more going on than simply calories in vs calories out, but this still remains the first & most important thing to look at. I'm not going to tell you to fast 2x/week to get rid of stubborn fat unless you got your overall body fat down first.

HIIT & metabolic workouts are hot & popular. You're cool if you do them. New & advanced stuff sell, but it doesn't make them the best thing.

[Sam277]

I think really, people need to treat HIIT like a heavy weights workout, its meant to be full effort. You can't go heavy on squats and deadlifts on the same day, or deadlifts the day after squats, and you can't with HIIT either. Hence its name; High Intensity Interval Training. And if you're doing stronglifts, i fully agree that HIIT is too much. 3 total body workouts a week gives very little room for recovery, and every HIIT session increases the number by 1. If you do 3 TB workouts and 2 HIIT session a week, you're actually doing 5 workouts with no recovery. In this situation, i agree with mehdi, do cardio.

That's why i think you shuold focus on maximal fat loss OR maximal strength gains, not both, because you'll slow both goals. If you need to drop a lot of fat, make fat loss your priority and focus on a fat loss program. Use HIIT. Maybe use cardio too.

So in summary, i think it's a question of context. For me, HIIT is more effective, as long as you treat it as a workout in itself, and program with it in mind. Cardio is less demanding on the body, and i find it very easy to throw in to a program whenever. I'm on a split, and i prefer HIIT. IF i was on stronglifts i'd do cardio.

[knoted]

Good point well made Sam.

[nburge]

Ultimately the first place to go for fat loss is your diet. I spent the best part of a year on this programme thinking I was eating healthy and lifting and exercising and not losing fat - take calories out of my diet and BINGO! I lose fat.

Humans have a strong desire to look for excuses. We WANT there to be more to fat loss than calories in < calories out because no-one wants to starve themselves, or limit access to their favourite foods etc etc. Sadly, what we want and the real world are different.

I'll also give Sam a +1 because HIIT isn't something you should throw in every day. Cardio can be.

[specialstrength]

Good article, however the title should be changed to "FAT LOSS DURING STRONGLIFTS 5x5." Everyone knows (or at least those who follow research) that steady state vs. HIIT, HIIT always wins. For those who haven't read the research, here are a couple:

1) Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C (1994). "Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism". Metab. Clin. Exp. 43 (7): 814–8. PMID 8028502
2) Irving BA, Davis CK, Brock DW, Weltman JY, Swift D, Barrett EJ, Gaesser GA, Weltman A."Effect of exercise training intensity on abdominal visceral fat and body composition." Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Nov;40(11):1863-72.

If you read the first one and don't agree that when done alone (unlike what many on this website actually do) HIIT doesn't win, good luck. However, I do agree that when incorporated into a Stronglifts 5x5 program, steady state can be very useful.

I am not going to sit here and read all the posts from everyone, but I have seen a couple quotes that don't make much sense and made me laugh.

1) Mehdi states "HIIT burns less total calories, so less fat." - Read article #1 and rethink that.
2) Arehb states "One thing about HIIT - you shouldn't go all the way. Only almost. If you go past 95% of max pulse, that's when you start puking, and that's when you get exhausted to such a level that extensive recovery is needed" - Spend one day in a Human Performance Lab and you will understand the whole max heart rate is crap. I've seen multiple subjects reach HR over their predicted max (NO WAY THEY SHOULD BE DEAD! or atleast puking and in an extensive recovery state!)

Anyways, we can all agree that both types of exercise have a time and place. Done alone, HIIT trumps steady state every time. When incorporated into a strength training program, I would agree with Mehdi. Steady is probably the safer route, especially if you know nothing about programming.

Just my opinion, take it for what it is.