Interval Training Doesn't Work
by Mark Young
07/19/10

Is interval training really that effective for fat loss? An investigative report.

Experience tells me that both methods work, higher intensity stuff (intervals, tabatas, etc) works faster, and nothing works if your diet isn't right.

I could care less what studies say at this point.

Very interesting article. I myself am a big fan of HIIT, and tabata style training. I'm preparing for a contest in 3 months and am comtemplating the best way to burn the most fat while maintain as much muscle mass as possible. I think a combination of both, maybe interval early on while my diet is higher in calorie and switch to steady state as i start reducing my calories more.
Very happy with the article, always good to hear both side of the case when it comes to interval vs steady state.

Interesting...I never held much stock in intervals(for me personally anyway). But 8 second sprints for 60 rounds? Who in the hell would have anything left in the tank for weight sessions during the rest of the week?

Wouldn't intervals be more conducive to body builders because of the hormonal cascade that follows? Intervals boost growth hormone and IGF-1 while steady state cardio really only raises cortisol

I've tried doing intervals on a Precor machine. Pain in the nuts (raising and lowering the resistance for each sprint/jog). Also, it didn't seem to work. Perhaps because I'm not able to do 60 intervals (though I was doing 30-second ones, not 8-second ones), but still, you'd have to be in some sick shape to be able to do them for very long at that rate. And it didn't seem to be (I'm guessing) enough work performed to do the fat-loss job before you just can't do any more sprints.

Steady state seems to work better for fat loss, but you definitely lose some muscle in the process too. (At least if you're natural.)

Interesting article. Before any BJJ competition I do interval training whether is by reps or time or trying to beat a certain time. The variables are a lot. One of my favorites is a variation of the Tabata Method. I will pick 4-5 different exercises; for example thrusters, box jumps, ball slams, sprawls and spiderman pushups. I will work 20 sec and rest 10 sec and then switch the exercise. I will do this until I complete a round of between 6-8 minutes.

It all depends on the competition. After each round I will rest 2 minutes and repeat. I've done this for a total of 4 5 min rounds or 3 8 min rounds. I tend to get very lean. Obviously I do not measure myself but I know what I see on the mirror and on the scale. Using this method I lost 20 lbs in 5 weeks getting ready for the Pan Ams this last April. I went from 183 to 163.

I grappled at 167.5 with the gi on. Anyway, for performance this is a fantastic method. I don't think I could bring myself to doing steady state cardio... boooring.

Pics or GTFO...

Let me qualify - on the forums normally before someone gives this kind of advice they'll have pics in their profile to show that it works. So does this guy have pics of himself or any trainees?

Anyhow, playing hockey I've never used intervals for anything besides conditioning, but tempo runs at 10 x 100m always helped my "special endurance," lactate threshold, and kept me leaner than when I didn't do them.

I think the bottom line is that everything works if you do it properly. And properly means your training, nutrition, and rest are in check.

This is very intriguing, and I'm guessing this article will generate some controversy for sure!

This is one of those cases where the pendulum swings to one extreme for a few years, then to the other, and then back again. You might say this is thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis in action.

I have a friend who swears by what he calls Medium Intensity Cardio, or what most would just call plain jogging as hard as you can till you puke. Ie slow enough to be physically possible to perform for 45-60 minutes, but no slower than that.

My friend is a 315 lbs strongman, yet he still swears by his old-school roadwork. Back when he was a 220 lbs bodybuilder he was actually outcompeting lightweight long distance runners who had been running for years. To me it's pretty obvious that running balls to the walls for 45 minutes is going to do more for your physique than like 10 total minutes of interval cardio, even if you run faster during those intervals.

Problem with MIC running is that not everyone can be 220+ lbs and still have a great 5k time, I guess :p

Who are we talking about here??

Who should GTFO...? I'm lost I guess.

Wait. Last I heard, there were no studies showing that steady state worked... An I wrong about that or does anyone else recall that as well?

I like both methods.

Sprint intervals -
Pros: 1) Depending on diet (w/ low/no carbs near the session) growth hormone is jacked up fairly quickly from sprint intervals and it stays that way for several hours, 2) improves anerobic and aerobic fitness

Cons: 1) The level of intensity required makes it next to impossible to maintain for substantial periods of time, whereas steady state cardio can be sustained much longer.

Steady State - I feel (slightly) better psychologically about my fat loss when I include a few sessions per week. Is it worth much more than that? I think that question substantially remains unanswered.

If you're dieting (eating in a caloric deficit and manipulating carbs (see above) leads to fat being used for fuel, when combined with proper training, which among other things manipulates various hormones), strength training, and doing sprint intervals (which improves aerobic fitness), for most intents and purposes I don't think steady state offers much of additional benefit besides the psychological boost.

IMHO, most people could benefit more from using that gym time stretching or doing some form of cross training (pilates, swimming, yoga, etc) to keep them healthy and focus on the bigger picture.


Side note: I think (for various reasons) the best application of steady state cardio is for ppl just starting a fitness program, but it's a double edged sword as most here well know in that ppl can become reliant on a form of training less effective than strength training.

Might aforementioned Medium Intensity Cardio be the missing link? A lot of people seem to think of light walking and such when they discuss steady state cardio. Hard running for 45-60 minutes, while technically steady state cardio, is actually closer to HIIT running than walking. It goes without saying that working very hard for an hour is going to burn a lot of calories. Thoughts on this?

Oldest
Argument
Ever

Both work.

I dont like the article, it works and has worked for many many people.

The part that got me was the population difference. For the very heavy, first of all, intervals are nearly impossible. I don't know of anyone in the 30% body fat range that could pull off 60 rounds of 8/12 effort rest. Have to wonder if getting to the 60 rounds is the battle. Hell once you are there you have burned a lot of fuel.

For already lean, I have always wondered if the HIIT approach was wrong. First is to have a caloric deficit. Second is HEAVY, intense, frequent weight sessions, with low volume, and longer duration, low exertion physical exercise. power walk.
I have seen criticism of the afterburn effect, as the article mentioned. EPOC highest after long duration high intensity effort. The total amount not being anything really significant.

God, what to think and what to do. I may need some comfort food after this.
Heck it may just go back to creating a caloric deficit and doing a heavy load based routine.

I see a whole lot of people at the gym/s doing a whole lot of steady state cardio and pretty much all of them are overweight. I don't believe it's a flaw in the method but a flaw with the diet. We can discuss which is better than which but if people don't shut their pieholes they'll never lose weight. They most important aspect of training I believe is nutrtion. I would like to see a study where people eat a healthy diet and have consistently trained for sometime.

People can't go do any type of cardio and burn let's say 600-700 calories and go home and eat that big ass burger with a big ass muffin totaling 1500 calories. Who the hell is going to lose any weight like that?

jp_dubya is absolutely right. You can't have people being that fat doing HIIT or whatever intervals. Someone would have to pick them off the floor after they had a freakin heart attack! Ughh...

As to what to do... do what works. I think we are in the era of overthinking. There are certain principles that work, have worked and will always work. Experiment. I truly believe if anyone has clients that they don't give a shit about studies or what not. To a client the most important thing is HOW the fuck is he/she going to get me to lose weight. Period. Sometimes it is just trial and error.

When I was 215lbs, sprint intervals were awesome. When 279lbs....not so much.
The leaner I was, the better HIIT seemed to work. The fatter I was, the better fasted, steady state cardio seemed to work.

There is a reason athletes love HIIT and there is a reason heavy weight bodybuilders use steady state at 30-120 minutes a day to get super ripped.

Good article.

So the guys at Elite FTS must have it wrong then, I guess the hill work, prowler work, and complexes aren't as good as sitting on a bike for an hour.

Give me a break, not only have I seen this work first hand (at 15 second sprints with 1 minute rest periods for 20 minutes gave me amazing results) but there are countless TOP natural bodybuilders who use interval work pre-contest with great results.

If i can get even the same results in 20 that I can in 60 minutes why not? Oh because it's hard work... I'm sorry I actually like to feel like I am working hard. Go listen to Layne Norton's throughts and studies on HIIT you might be singing a different tune.

EDIT: As it was mentioned before... howcome everytime I go to the gym and see people doing HIIT or sprint work they are always the lean and muscular ones, and the countless number of people camping on the elipitical for an hour are the ones that look... well... you get the point.

well one finding that hasn't been debunked is that fat loss from weight training tends to be subcutaneous. Fat loss from diet tends to be visceral. I wonder if the studies ever really looked at where the fat loss was?

I just have a big ass gut and carry a lot less fat on my legs, arms, ass, etc.
Going to break out Lyle McDonald's rapid fat loss book and go through it again.