Ive tried the interval training in the past and it works. I just went back on high intensity interval training for the last week, i can feel it working already. Very little muscle is lost in this type of cardio. Also been doing circuit training with the weights and thats one hell of a fat burner.
Last edited by the nut; 06-02-2006 at 01:15 PM.
What would be the main reasons to say that a type of cardio is better than other? Heart? Oxygen intake? Sweat? Temperature? Lowering glycolysis levels?
Okay, well the two main considerations (in our case) are energy expenditure and cardiovascular conditioning.
Slow steady cardio is on type that many people do. It's easy and it burns calories. It does not do much to imorive your cardiovascular strength and endurance.
High Intensity Interval Training has a lower total energy cost because it cannot be performed for long periods of time. It is excellent for improving cardiovascular strength.
However, HIIT is better IMHO. Because it causes metabolic changes which last longer after the session. So ultimately more calories are burned. Even though the cost during the actual exercise is less. And you need it for your heart. And it's less time consuming. And your results won't decrease because you're becoming more efficient.
The marble wastes,
The more the statue grows.
Depends on what you want to do, but for the average person who is not an athlete, Anaerobic interval training is better because it improves both anaerobic and aerobic conditioning.
Depending on the sport, anaerobic conditioning can be of prime importance as well. Football is a great example where aerobic conditioning takes a back seat. Then, some sports require you to develop both; soccer is a prime example. There are also sports where aerobic conditioning is top priority, like someone competing in a triathlon.
I know you know this, but I thought I would elaborate a little bit on this.
The only time it's bad to feel the burn is when you're peeing...