is it just going fast that counts or does resistance come into it? i use a cross trainer.. i can go f*in fast on it but it doesn't necessarily get me as out of breath as has been suggested.. i could up the resistance to something very difficult tho and try to go as fast as i can in a higher resistance -cos that would knaker the hell out of me after a minute!

Its pretty simple. Perform an exercise that completely exhausts you in 1 minute or less. Because the intensity is extremely high it is best to use a controlled movement. The bike is most likely the best, that is what all the researchers use when conducting studies on HIIT. Crank the resistance to a level that when you give MAX effort you fatigue out in less than a minute. Then recover for 2-4 and then perform again. Do 4-6 sprints and your done, should take no longer than 20 minutes.

This is the only type of cardio you need. NEVER do steady state again, it is a complete waste of time.

And how do you factor in the neural component of this with an individual who has been dieting for a prolonged period of time with drastically reduced recoverability?

This statement is NOT true. For example, I do steady state cardio, and it seems (with diet optimal), I am doing just fine with steady state cardio. We cannot provide a blanket effect on everyone. In addition, cardio (even steady state) can be a good calorie manipulator when one knows the calorie intake and could blend into a routine dependent on the individual and personal goals.

That's an absurd statement

Regardless of which you believe is better, neither is a "complete waste of time"

Too much CNS-intensive work can become very counterproductive for someone who has been in a prolonged hypocaloric atmosphere.

Okay let me clear this up. First of all I am not some meat head trying to start an argument. I am an educator and want to help the population get up to speed on where exercise physiology is. It is a sad state when most people get their knowledge from Muscle and Fiction or other pubs such as mens health. I am not saying that is where all of you get your knowledge but if you do I challenge you to read industry journals and books form places like the human kinetics catalogs. Now for HIIT (SIT) out performing steady state. If you examine human physiology from an evolutionary stand point you can begin to understand why this is the case. Lets do an analogy to further discuss this topic. If I were to lay out on a table a stack of 1 dollar bills, 5's, 10's, 20's, 50's and 100's and each stack had the same number of bills, then told you that you may have one of those stacks. I think just about everyone would choose the 100s. That is because is has the most value. That is the same case when you compare steady state to SIT. Yes there are a few benefits to steady state, but there are also many negatives. If you are going to spend time exercising why choose lesser value. If your goal is fat loss, or to improve fat free mass, or to slow the aging process, or prevent disease then you should always choose SIT over steady state. It wins in every category. Quite honestly there is not even a debate, the research is quite definitive on this. You don't hear it in mainstream because they are always behind science and because their motivation is money. If you want to read a great research literature review on the subject I suggest that you go to the links below.

I am not trying to promote these guys but they have some articles that do a good job of explaining the fundamentals.

Metabolic Effect
Metabolic Effect
http://www.xiser.com/store/pdf/HIIT_...c_training.pdf

First of all I would never as a practitioner put someone on an extremely reduced caloric diet. Even body builders do not need this. There are better and safer ways to promote extreme fat loss. Someone that is dieting would have a far more negative effect from steady state than HIIT due to the hormonal response.
When elevating stress hormones in the absence of growth hormones would be even more detrimental to those in caloric restriction. HIIT would be even better for that person because they could workout less and have more days for recovery. HIIT training can burn much fewer calries (some studies show 48% less caloric expenditure with HIIT but participates lost 4x the fat) but provide much more fat loss. Its still basic physiology, steady state creates a catabolic state where HIIT promotes an anabolic state. I cannot think of one person on the planet that would want to promote a state of destruction in their body.

So if you're bulking and want to do HIIT 2 times per week when should you do it?

I've heard not to do it the same day you lift because you risk overtraining and I've heard not to do it on off-days cause they should be used strictly for recovery...

So do HIIT after you lift or do it on the non-lifting days?

im also interested in knowing that actually 'Tone'...

also, i have been told to stay clear of any cardio work whilst bulking...
but by doing HIIT it sounds like you burn fat over time, rather than just calories in one sitting?

would HIIT be good thing to include in any regieme, even bulking? -to keep fat levels as low as poss durin a bulk?

***bump***

Whoa there bud.

Nobody is arguing. Stand by your statements and don't get your panties in a bunch. We are sticking to the topic at hand....

Not accusing you of being some meat head looking for a fight, lol.

Maybe in the gym atmosphere, this holds true.

In these forums... not so much. There are plenty of very knowledgeable, educated folks around here that spread the good word on a regular basis. And trust me, they are not pulling their info off the shelves of the grocery store.

Touche...

I'm responding as I read though your post.

You don't need to break this down to grade-school level discussion. I assure you we can handle big words. If you want to discuss physiology.... discuss physiology.

I mean christ, if you brought up the impacts of HIIT on things like insulin sensitivity or AMPK.... sure, maybe I'd respect what you're saying a bit more.

What you're doing though, is asinine. Making blanket statements like HIIT is always better than SS is just ridiculous. Weren't you taught back in grade school to stay away from making absolute statements.

A truly knowledgeable person understands that there is a time and a place for pretty much all modes of exercise, including lower intensity, steady state work.

Always, huh?

Just throwing it out there without adding any context to that recommendation?

And you educate people?

You have no concept of fatigue management, do you?

Yea, I'm trying to find where anyone mentioned this and I'm not seeing it.

I see things like "prolonged caloric deficit" and "reduced recoverability."

But nobody mentioned "extremely reduced caloric diet."

Don't tell me your reading comprehension is as lacking as the info in your posts.

It's funny. I know a few trainers who strictly coach figure competitors. Funnily enough, none of them would be battering their clients with high intensity stuff soon before a show.

But you completely ignore the idea of reduced recoverabability when dieting for prolonged periods of time and/or reaching the extreme ends of the bell curve with regards to low body fat levels.

Leptin.

It's a hormone.

Educate yourself on what happens in relation to it and other hormones downstream from it when in a prolonged hypocaloric state.

You are so silly with your absolutes.

A few positives but many negatives with steady state? ha!

Ashame you dont take pride in your english and paragraphs as you do with yoru health

Id like you hear some of you physiological reasons for why HIIt is better while steady state basically a waste of time - no baby talk i want proper terms!

The bold bit made no sense or is wrong. If steady state expended about 1000 kcals while HIIT 500kcals how could fat loss be far greater in HIIT, considering less calories AND the primarary fuel is carbs. Dont say EPOC because that wouldnt be near enough.