Dale Mabry

I agree that EPOC is overrated, but disagree that calorie deficit is the main factor for fat loss...Sort of. I think hormonal state is probably the most important thing, which affects caloric deficit. Something other than strict caloric deficit would have to be the main factor, otherwise, LSD cardio would beat HIIT for fat loss, and it doesn't. Also, hormonally, obese people are fucked up when compared to people with normal body fat. I think EPOC is overrated, but the aftereffects of HIIT have a major impact, and the only thing I can attribute that to is hormonal adaptations to more intense exercise. However, most people won't work out intensely enough or progress themselves far enough to see this change, so I tell them energy balance since they can grasp that concept easier.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

LarryIsCorrect

HIIT is great for the cardiovascular system (now and then) but for fat loss the media has MISREPRESENTED The Dr. Tremblay Study 1994 in the journal Metabolism

"
It absolutely did NOT find "9 times better fat loss"


Tom Venuto and Finn actually read the study in full text and very , very carefully.


Here they explain:


Burn The Fat Blog: "Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????"


I LIKE sprints now and then. (I personally don't care for steady state running at all ) but DO like WALKING briskly A LOT (which is steady state) up to 2 hours sometimes for a HUGE calorie burn and no muscle loss. Add lifting in with that and you ahve one major calorie burning for the day to start fat loss.

Take a 220 pound man have him walk at a brisk pace for one hour and he will have burned 580 calories, walk 90 minues 871 calories , walk 2 hours (small rest in between) and he will have burned 1,161 calories. That is HUGE



"OVERALL CALORIE BURN , NOT exercise intensity, is the DETERMINING FACTOR for fat loss". - Anthony Colpo

Dale Mabry

Direct quote from study, and quoted by the author.

“For a given level of energy expenditure, a high intensity training program induces a greater loss of subcutaneous fat compared with a training program of moderate intensity.”

Also, Venuto mentions that IT leads to a lower appetite. I would imagine that is hormonally controlled? Intensity determines primary energy substrate used, time determines total substrate utilization.

Interval training induces similar, if not better results for fat loss, with less total calorie expenditure, Venuto even states that in his blog. Regardless of the study being correct/incorrect with how much more effective HIIT was, you accomplish more with less energy expenditure. Even if the loss was the same, you couldn't say total cals is the most important thing since there was half as many calories burned in HIIT, the difference would have to come from somewhere else. IMO, it's hormonal and related to intensity.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

Dale Mabry

Actually, let me rephrase my statement..

For weight loss, energy balance is most important, for fat loss, it is the interplay between intensity and energy balance. That is probably more accurately my stance.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

Witchblade

I know that study. It's crap. Neither group lost a significant amount of weight, so there's no comparison to be made.

In theory caloric deficit shouldn't be the only/main factor involved in weight loss, but in practice it is. Kind of a depressing thought that it doesn't matter what you eat as far as weight loss is concerned.

Edit: see dale's comment above. I think energy balance is still the main factor involved in fat loss though.

My Journal
My Linkdump [LSFW]
IM Official FAQ [WORK IN PROGRESS]