Turn on thread page Beta

Trust in Tom Venuto? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    After Tom's name being bombarded at me from all directions, mainly to recommend his product 'Burn the fat, feed the muscle' I was lead to believe that this guy knew what he was talking about.

    However, what you also hear is that HIIT is better, no question about it, than steady state cardio. So I was a little surprised to find that in an article by Tom he raised the question "Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT?".

    http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archiv...proven_5_x.php

    I was wondering what others thought of this article?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redefined)
    After Tom's name being bombarded at me from all directions, mainly to recommend his product 'Burn the fat, feed the muscle' I was lead to believe that this guy knew what he was talking about.

    However, what you also hear is that HIIT is better, no question about it, than steady state cardio. So I was a little surprised to find that in an article by Tom he raised the question "Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT?".

    http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archiv...proven_5_x.php

    I was wondering what others thought of this article?
    If you read the whole article it says:

    The results: 3 times greater fat loss in the HIIT group
    Even though the energy cost of the exercise performed in the ET group was twice as high as the HIIT group, the sum of the skinfolds (which reflects subcutaneous body fat) in the HIIT group was three times lower than the ET group. So where did the “9 times greater fat loss” claim come from? Well, there was a difference in energy cost between groups, so in order to show a comparison of fat loss relative to energy cost, Tremblay wrote,

    “It appeared reasonable to correct changes in subcutaneous fat for the total cost of training. This was performed by expressing changes in subcutaneous skinfolds per megajoule of energy expended in each program.”
    Translation: The subjects did not lose 9 times more body fat, in absolute terms. But hey, 3 times more fat loss? You’ll gladly take that, right? Well hold on, because there’s more.

    I think HIIT still causes more fat loss than ET. imo
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I too have heard from very knowledgeable educated people speak about how overrated HIIT/Interval training is.

    Lyle McDonald:
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...onclusion.html

    Here's a whole list of articles he wrote:
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/index.php?s=interval
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gloy1)
    I think HIIT still causes more fat loss than ET. imo
    He says:

    In fact, if you look at the charts, you can see that the HIIT group lost 0.1 kg (63.9 kg before, 63.8 kg after). Yes, the HIIT group lost a whopping 100 grams of weight in 15 weeks!

    The ET group lost 0.5 kilograms (60.6 kg before, 60.1 kg after).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redefined)
    He says:
    the weight could have been water weight, fat weight, any weight. it could have also been that the hiit group gained muscle while losing fat. and i bet all of them were on different diets. the 400 gram difference is the same as the HIIT people all drinking half an evian sports bottle due to dehydration.

    my opinion comes down to this in the end:

    i don't give a **** whether HIIT burns more fat then LISS, if you're after weight loss, you need a calorie deficit. and as for 'burning fat' the study showed that HIIT burns 3 times more fat than LISS. So who's gunna complain about that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redefined)
    He says:


    In fact, if you look at the charts, you can see that the HIIT group lost 0.1 kg (63.9 kg before, 63.8 kg after). Yes, the HIIT group lost a whopping 100 grams of weight in 15 weeks!

    The ET group lost 0.5 kilograms (60.6 kg before, 60.1 kg after).
    I said fat loss, not weight loss, theres a difference.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redefined)
    He says:
    He also says this later on in the article:

    Of course, that would be misleading because the weight loss was hardly significant in either group, because it doesn’t distinguish between weight loss and body composition and because interval training IS highly effective. I’m simply being a little facetious in order to make a point: Be careful with statistics.

    ...

    In conclusion, my intention in writing this article wasn’t to be controversial, to be a smart-alec or to criticize HIIT. To the contrary, additional research has continued to support the efficacy of HIIT for fat loss and fitness, not to mention that it is one of the most time efficient ways to do cardiovascular training. I have recommended HIIT for years in my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, using a 1:1 long interval approach, which, while only one of many ways to do HIIT, is probably my personal favorite method.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 29, 2009
The home of Results and Clearing

3,005

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.