IronOnline Cardio

Interval Cardio Discussion

Is the abbreviated cardio protocol something like three 20 minute interval (intense) cardio sessions a week or something else? Ivan

----

The sessions I'm referring to are similar to the 20 minute "trips" only you get what you need done in half that time.

Remember, it's NOT the duration (calories burned) that is purpose of these sessions. It's the EFFECT of the session that we are benefiting from — not session itself. It's about getting our body to burn more calories over the ENTIRE day, not just the time spent on treadmill. Less is definitely more in this case. Studies back it up cardiovascular-wise as well. Vince

----

Cardio for fat loss is a good idea, unless you want to maximize the amount of muscle you retain. If you want maximal fat loss and minimal muscle-loss then high intensity interval type training is the way to go. Circuit weight training is also an excellent adjunct for bodybuilders or others looking to maximize fat loss and keep muscle. Tom

----

Interval training versus longer cardio training at constant heartrate... Question is if in 20 minutes you can interval train, say 300 calories worth, or in 30 minutes at a "lower" steady intensity burning the same number of calories, is one method better than the other as far as fat loss is concerned? Chris L. Johnson

----

During the actual activity if you burn the same number of calories using either exercise protocol you will have slight differences in the substrate used (ie high intensity will burn more glycogen and lower intensity will burn more fat). After 24 hours there will be a slight increase in the amount of fat burned on the high intensity protocol since metabolism will be elevated for a longer period of time.

Chronically the high intensity protocol will maintain more muscle so you will eventually lose much more fat on the high intensity protocol. In a clinical setting some people are at such high risk, walking is a struggle. So we won't be doing any wind sprints with that population. However, once they become more fit it will be necessary to either increase their volume or their intensity to maintain weight loss. Walking for a whole day is not appealing to most people so increased intensity is usually a better option for a variety of reasons. Tom

----

There is some sound research on the higher-intensity interval cardio sessions being SUPERIOR to the conventional methods of slow-long-duration. However, these studies originate in Japan, Europe... we, in the US, are slow to accept anything that is not in "curriculum" of present course studies.

That said, I have found the higher-intensity protocol to be of significantly-greater benefit to the bodybuilder. The body responds to these sessions not only according to the calories burned (during the session) but IN RESPONSE TO the workout as well. In other words, the "afterburn" if greater.

Stubborn metabolisms are woken-up and lean muscle tissue is spared. Now, these sessions should be treated "with respect" to their demand on overall system. Perform no more than 3 per week.

And, to keep body from acclimating to these cardio workouts, it's prudent to alternate an interval session with one of lower intensity (longer duration). THIS approach is probably best for the "average" trainee. Someone with above average recovery ability can go with intervals for all cardio. Do mix-up the actual intervals and/or chosen exercises to, again, keep the body from adapting. Vince

----

There have actually been a couple interesting studies on this if anyone cares. I don't have the reference right handy at this minute, but here are the basics: Two groups were used .. one trained using traditional cardio (45 minutes, 5 days / week = 3.75 hrs), the other group used intervals for 60 minutes each week (I think it was 3 times at 20 minutes each).

The results were 9 times the fat loss for the interval group. This is one of two. BTW, I think Lyle McDonald references this, and one other study, in his book (for those who have it handy). I am sure there is some variation from person to person ... but generally, you don't get the prolonged 'calorie burn' from long, slow cardio that you get from intervals and higher intensity. Rick

----

There have been some interesting postings put forth that I don't believe and know, both theoretically and first hand, to be true. I will want to re-establish some givens before time goes on.

1) There is no time limit for cardio, either shorter or longer. Short interval training is not better than long slow cardio or vice versa for that matter. Truth is you need to do both. As you should cycle weight training, you should also cycle cardio efforts, both in time and intensity.

2) Cardio over 40 minutes or 50 or 60 for that matter isn't automatically going to burn muscle. The burning of muscle (excess glycogen needs) is a function of intensity, duration and an excessive caloric deficit.

3) The deal about cardio really is understanding your heart rate and where it needs to be for what your particular goal is. Most cardio equipment these days shows the scale range for age and range of effort (65 to 80% max HR). True "cardio" conditioning is going to lean towards the higher number and for those looking to burn mostly fat as a fuel source during a session of cardio will want to work around the lower number.

Even for someone real fit, 80% effort is not easy for any length of time. At 65%, it'll feel like a walk in the park. If you are just starting out, 80% is going to make you feel like a train hit you.

Again, it's what you are after and neither approach is superior nor is any particular time limit (low or high) the end all answer. Chris L. Johnson

----

I´ve been trying to get people away from low intensity cardio for 2 years now. I was very happy to see that someone as knowledgeable as Vince was also endorsing interval training. While it is scientifically correct that after a certain amount of time at low intensity the majority of energy will be derived from fats, the amount of time it takes and the overall energy expended are just not worth the effort. Why is it so popular then? I believe there are 3 main reasons:

1) Companies like Polar Heart Rate Monitors need a reason to sell their products and what better reason than trying to burn away fat by staying in a specific heart rate range. This applys to all kinds of cardio "tool" companies.

2) People prefer fuddling around without having to concentrate and make an effort.

3) People don´t believe that something short can work as well as something long. Regarding this article (haven't read it yet): Clarence Bass has similar findings on his website for quite a while. I love my short interval workout in the morning. Gets my day started and I feel really well afterwards ... Greetings Sami

----

The PERCENTAGE of fat burned during low-intensity exercise may be higher, BUT the TOTAL fat and calories burned during high-intensity cardio exercise is higher!! Why would anyone then wanna do low-intensity exercise? Is the low-effort theory of aerobic really a big mis-understanding? Henrik

----

Just because you may burn a greater % of fat calories with low-intensity/longer cardio does not mean that the overall fat calories are also higher. Actually it's quite the contrary. Which ever activity burns the greater total calories within that particular time frame wins out... burns more fat!

Cardio is needed primarily to "spark" the fat-burning process and enhance or maintain cardio-respiratory health. More is not better. To depend upon longer cardio sessions is inefficient for the bodybuilder needing to either build muscle size and/or has a difficult time holding size.

My cardio consists of two or three 6-9 minure sessions and two or three 15-23 minure easier sessions every eight to ten days. Always with intervals. Never to exhaustion except to challenge my ego from time to time while monitoring heart rate. Vince

----

I am not much into theory but with my experience, I do low intensity when I have had a hard weight workout and don't feel I have the stamina for it. I use intervals and high intensity when the opposite is true... I don't know which is supposed to work, but both ways have worked for me. Michael

----

High-impact aerobics or interval training may not be the best strategy for losing fat and simultaneously maintaining or increasing lean body mass. Low-impact movements seem to work better. One theory I have heard proposed (but I don't recall reading about this in any journal articles) is that the mechanical actions of high-impact movements send signals to cells that minimize the hypertrophy of structural and contractile elements within the cells. There is at least one study that supports the practical application of this theory. Tom

----

There is an element of truth to this. It's all in the precise control of the "burst" phases during intervals as well as keeping the total duration relatively low. In some cases, very low (3-6 min.).

I've had good success with multiple cardio interval sessions per day that were 3-6 minures each. Also of note, I find that a low-impact exercise such as a semi-recumbent bike to be better than a high-impact choice. Vince

----

Generally speaking, long, slow cardio makes it more difficult to put on lean muscle tissue. However, it may have less negative effect in those that already possess an abundance of muscle mass.

This is in accord with why I begin an obese person on a program that emphasizes resistance training (to build muscle) instead of one that focuses on aerobic exercise with a sprinkle of weight training (as they say: "to tone up"). You cannot "tone" what you don't have in the first place and long/slow cardio for an obese individual is all but futile for fat loss.

A person carrying greater muscle tissue will burn calories at a higher rate in any sustained activity (and still not wind up looking like a triathlete). Vince

----

I'm going to counter here, not because in theory I disagree with interval training, but because I have not met one single person NOR read about one single person, in any degree of superior conditioning, that credits short term interval training for significantly driving down bodyfat.

But before we go there, in theory, I do not see why interval training shouldn't work. What you have stated makes perfect sense on paper but here is where I get off the train. I have tried it both ways, interval and longer lazy cardio and every time I try interval training, lean body mass growth stalls as does my strength.

The best way has always been slow and steady cardio. All I can figure is this. For me, interval training is the same as weight training and while it'll build muscle and reduce bodyfat theoretically over time because muscle is built, it won't make a difference in the short term in terms of bodyfat reduction and is an energy conflict with my weight training intensity.

As near as I can tell, it takes away from my iron training and that is something I don't like. Chris L. Johnson

----

I spent some time the other day talking with a trainer at our gym — some of you may remember Steve Kopald, who was in the group in the early days but got a busy with a coaching job at the local college and signed off — about interval cardio work. He's a former bicycle racer, and I tell you this so that you know that long cardio is in his blood.

He's now switched both his cardio and that of nearly all of his clients to interval cardio, short duration, i.e. less than 12 minutes. The only clients he would put on longer, slower cardio would be new clients who are obese and/or very out of shape. Those he wants to coax into fitness slower — they can't handle the more intense work... yet. But as soon as he's confident they can, he moves them to interval work.

Whenever possible he encourages outdoor work: speed work on the track or running stadium stairs — things that are measurable. Otherwise, the treadmill or the "spin" type of indoor cycle are the easiest to implement for controlled interval training. Laree

----

High intensity cardio works! The result was that when I met Laree in late August one of the first things she said was that I looked a lot leaner than I did when I had been in Santa Cruz in 1999. The really great thing about interval cardio is that it's fun!! I have always hated indoor cardio, but Vince's workout programs have totally opened my eyes to how you can make it fun and challenging. Henrik

----

Henrik's experience with higher-intensity cardio intervals is pretty consistent with anyone who is willing to question conventional thought regarding aerobic conditioning. Whether for cardio/respiratory health and/or fat loss, correct application of "intervals" is an optimal approach to aerobics.

I must say that there ARE different applications of such training depending upon one's current fitness level. It's not a "one-size-fits-all" system. For instance, those at beginner level and/or with some kind of impairment will actually go LONGER duration. But with LESS-intensity intervals. The implementation is specific to the needs of each person but the core remains the same. Vince

Who was Dave Draper?

Most Popular Draper Columns

Jumpstart Your Workouts

Injuries and Rehab

Top IOL Pages

IronOnline Cardio