Posts
A saying I have adopted latley is that every six months, I realize how stupid I was six months ago. And one of the main reasons for this state is that I have had the good sense to learn from smart people.
One of the main influences about the way I program and think about fitness comes courtsousey of Mike Boyle's Strengthcoach.com forum.
Here, I am given the opportunity to interact and learn from top fitness professionals engaged in real world discussions.
With this in mind, I plan to feature interviews and talking points on current discussions in this arena from some of my favorite coaches and influences.
One of the main influences about the way I program and think about fitness comes courtsousey of Mike Boyle's Strengthcoach.com forum.
Here, I am given the opportunity to interact and learn from top fitness professionals engaged in real world discussions.
With this in mind, I plan to feature interviews and talking points on current discussions in this arena from some of my favorite coaches and influences.
For this week's interval training topic, I am privledged to feature an interview from Mark Young, a highly intelligent trainer and coach who often serves as Devil's adovocate on issues ranging from the FMS to interval training (today's topic)
What I like most about Mark is his commitment to research and evidence based practice. While many professionals in our industry simply follow trends, Mark is always seeking to better our understanding of why we do what we do and how it can be done better.
In fact, his post on interval training was the inspiration for today's interview on the subject. To clarify some questions I had on this topic, Mark was good enough to answer a few questions to recap our forum discussion.
1.Based upon your study of interval versus steady state training, what are some of the basic myths which revolve around this modality in regard to fat loss?
Perhaps the most widespread myth is that interval training provides greater fat loss than steady state exercise. However, in the three (yes, only three) studies that directly measure fat loss in humans the results are pretty disappointing. I think the greatest difference between the two was 6 pounds of fat and that was over the course of 15 weeks in overweight women. The leaner women in the interval group lost even less fat!
Of course, there are studies that suggest markedly increased fat mobilization or greater EPOC (post exercise calorie burn) with intervals, but it doesn’t really translate into results in studies were actual fat loss is measured.
The other big assumption about intervals is that they’re remarkably time efficient.
While there is certainly some truth to this, even the shortest interval bouts proposed in recent studies involve six 30 second intervals each followed by four minutes of rest. And the whole bout is preceded with 2 minutes of steady state exercise to warm up. From start to finish you’re looking at around 25 minutes.
This is obviously much more efficient compared to the full hour of cardio performed by the steady state group, but it does put a damper on the potential usefulness of super short bouts like Tabatas for fat loss.
2. Playing devil’s advocate, what benefits could you find in relying on interval versus steady state training?
As mentioned above, intervals can be good in terms of being time efficient. However, you still have to be willing to put in at least 25 minutes if you want the results to be in line with what the studies have reported.
In terms of things other than fat loss, intervals are also great for increasing sprint performance, VO2 Max, time trials, and lactate clearance.
3. Because steady state cardio often means running or jogging-- a very weight bearing activity-- whereas intervals often change exercise, do you feel exercise selection plays a particularly important role in determining the success or failure of this method?
I think steady state cardio is only limited to running in those who aren’t creative enough to come up with other options. Cycling, swimming, kayaking, and weight training circuits (which are not technically intervals unless there are rests between sets) are all options for steady state activity.
If all someone does is run then they’re subject to the injuries runners get. The same is true of any other repetitive activity whether they do them in interval form or steady state.
4. In your personal experience either with clients or in your own training, what role does conditioning (Intervals, steady state cardio, complexes, etc) in over all fat loss?
In terms of fat loss, nutrition comes first with my clients. I’m pretty sure that isn’t anything novel, but if a client doesn’t have this down they might as well not waste their energy on any form of cardio with the expectation of getting leaner. (Of course, I’m a big proponent of just being active even if you diet sucks donkey nuts just for the health benefits).
I tend to lean towards more steady state work and straight sets when I start with a client and work towards complexes as they become more advanced. When I do add complexes it is usually a means to introduce more total exercise volume per muscle group or pattern than it is to burn calories. Truthfully speaking, a deconditioned beginner (i.e., most of the people aiming for fat loss) can hardly burn more than 5 calories per minute so I don’t like to rely on exercise to create a deficit. I also don’t think of complexes as intervals.
I use high intensity intervals sparingly with clients who are more conditioned. And I also don’t use them for more than 3 weeks at a time.
5. On the mental side of the equation, how do you feel clients react to performing intervals for conditioning versus longer cardio sessions?
If you’re doing intervals at the intensity that they’re supposed to be done to induce fat loss, beginners react by vomiting all over the place. They get a negative perception of exercise and don’t come back. Many will probably protest this view and they are entitled to their opinions…but they’re all wrong. lol.
I do like the trend of using strength training movements for cardio so long as you’re doing this as an adjunct to regular programming for strength/hypertrophy. I also enjoy kettlebells and other such implements, but each is just one tool of many. And I don’t call any of this interval training.
All in all, I’m not anti-interval. I am just anti-hype and feel a responsibility to lean a little harder in the opposite direction from the masses. Once the pendulum settles closer to the middle I think I’ll be more apologetic towards them.
What I like most about Mark is his commitment to research and evidence based practice. While many professionals in our industry simply follow trends, Mark is always seeking to better our understanding of why we do what we do and how it can be done better.
In fact, his post on interval training was the inspiration for today's interview on the subject. To clarify some questions I had on this topic, Mark was good enough to answer a few questions to recap our forum discussion.
1.Based upon your study of interval versus steady state training, what are some of the basic myths which revolve around this modality in regard to fat loss?
Perhaps the most widespread myth is that interval training provides greater fat loss than steady state exercise. However, in the three (yes, only three) studies that directly measure fat loss in humans the results are pretty disappointing. I think the greatest difference between the two was 6 pounds of fat and that was over the course of 15 weeks in overweight women. The leaner women in the interval group lost even less fat!
Of course, there are studies that suggest markedly increased fat mobilization or greater EPOC (post exercise calorie burn) with intervals, but it doesn’t really translate into results in studies were actual fat loss is measured.
The other big assumption about intervals is that they’re remarkably time efficient.
While there is certainly some truth to this, even the shortest interval bouts proposed in recent studies involve six 30 second intervals each followed by four minutes of rest. And the whole bout is preceded with 2 minutes of steady state exercise to warm up. From start to finish you’re looking at around 25 minutes.
This is obviously much more efficient compared to the full hour of cardio performed by the steady state group, but it does put a damper on the potential usefulness of super short bouts like Tabatas for fat loss.
2. Playing devil’s advocate, what benefits could you find in relying on interval versus steady state training?
As mentioned above, intervals can be good in terms of being time efficient. However, you still have to be willing to put in at least 25 minutes if you want the results to be in line with what the studies have reported.
In terms of things other than fat loss, intervals are also great for increasing sprint performance, VO2 Max, time trials, and lactate clearance.
3. Because steady state cardio often means running or jogging-- a very weight bearing activity-- whereas intervals often change exercise, do you feel exercise selection plays a particularly important role in determining the success or failure of this method?
I think steady state cardio is only limited to running in those who aren’t creative enough to come up with other options. Cycling, swimming, kayaking, and weight training circuits (which are not technically intervals unless there are rests between sets) are all options for steady state activity.
If all someone does is run then they’re subject to the injuries runners get. The same is true of any other repetitive activity whether they do them in interval form or steady state.
4. In your personal experience either with clients or in your own training, what role does conditioning (Intervals, steady state cardio, complexes, etc) in over all fat loss?
In terms of fat loss, nutrition comes first with my clients. I’m pretty sure that isn’t anything novel, but if a client doesn’t have this down they might as well not waste their energy on any form of cardio with the expectation of getting leaner. (Of course, I’m a big proponent of just being active even if you diet sucks donkey nuts just for the health benefits).
I tend to lean towards more steady state work and straight sets when I start with a client and work towards complexes as they become more advanced. When I do add complexes it is usually a means to introduce more total exercise volume per muscle group or pattern than it is to burn calories. Truthfully speaking, a deconditioned beginner (i.e., most of the people aiming for fat loss) can hardly burn more than 5 calories per minute so I don’t like to rely on exercise to create a deficit. I also don’t think of complexes as intervals.
I use high intensity intervals sparingly with clients who are more conditioned. And I also don’t use them for more than 3 weeks at a time.
5. On the mental side of the equation, how do you feel clients react to performing intervals for conditioning versus longer cardio sessions?
If you’re doing intervals at the intensity that they’re supposed to be done to induce fat loss, beginners react by vomiting all over the place. They get a negative perception of exercise and don’t come back. Many will probably protest this view and they are entitled to their opinions…but they’re all wrong. lol.
I do like the trend of using strength training movements for cardio so long as you’re doing this as an adjunct to regular programming for strength/hypertrophy. I also enjoy kettlebells and other such implements, but each is just one tool of many. And I don’t call any of this interval training.
All in all, I’m not anti-interval. I am just anti-hype and feel a responsibility to lean a little harder in the opposite direction from the masses. Once the pendulum settles closer to the middle I think I’ll be more apologetic towards them.
