Fitness.com The Global Fitness Community
Fitness.com The Global Fitness Community

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    matt182 is offline Needs to Deload
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,717

    Maximum fat loss through exercise - lifesprints

    home (lifesprints)

  2. Google
  3. #2
    Karky is offline Former member of VulgarityGang
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    had to quit when he became a mod
    Posts
    9,801
    Cool site.. I take it you're one of the students running it?

  4. #3
    Ride_On is offline Third Set
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    663
    I don't get it. HIIT works for fat loss. That's not a breakthrough. Are you just saying that it reduces abdominal fat? I think Tremblay covered that. However, that's not a good study to cite. The "nine fold difference" was so not glorious as it sounds. The HIIT group lost 0.1kg of fat in 15 weeks. So whatever ninefold difference there was, it was less than 0.1kg.

    High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) 5x Less Effective Than Steady State Cardio????

    If I'm missing something, please point it out.

  5. #4
    matt182 is offline Needs to Deload
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,717
    Thanks Kark just thought i'd put it up after all the effort.

    Ride on: I didn't do that section, but as far as i'm aware, the Tremblay study wasn't used to glorify HIIT (even though we are talking about lifesprints, a particular type of HIIT; this is also why it is listed as a medical breakthrough, if you count 07 a new!), it was used to indicate the first study done on comparing HIIT with continuous. The results from that study don't really matter, the two in the "results" section do.

    I couldn't read the entire article, could you prove to me it was fat loss not weight loss for the 0.1 kg? What methods did they use for this? By the way, you shouldn't always take average group weight losses at face value all the time, maybe some lost 5 kg or even 10 kg, but because others didn't do so well (covered in part of the website) it makes the overal reduction look minimal.

    So the Tremblay was cited more because of it's historical value, in that case you're incorrect, it is a good study to cite.
    Last edited by matt182; Oct. 10/09 at 02:53 PM.

  6. #5
    matt182 is offline Needs to Deload
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,717
    Was just looking at the results section, looks like the first two graphs are clearly wrong. Will have to fix it up later.

  7. #6
    Karky is offline Former member of VulgarityGang
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    had to quit when he became a mod
    Posts
    9,801
    one thing though.. HIIT burns more fat? that's a bit weird.. high intensity exercise usually burns less fat and more carbs, doesn't it?

    Also, one of the studies mentioned that dietary intake was ad libitum (the first in the results section, full stud: http://www.lifesprints.com/images/Trapp,_EG-2008.pdf). What works in an ad libitum dietary condition is, IMO, one of the most important things to study, as most people don't last long on a restricted diet (not that you should encourage people to eat what they want, but I'm sure you get my point). But what do you figure makes it so that the continious group compensates for the extra cals burned during exercise while the HIIT group clearly does not? The full study mentions things like decreased dietary intake could be a reason, but then they start talking about enhanced fat oxidation.. It puzzles me how often I see this mentioned with no reference to caloric balance. Do they mean that a shift towards more fat oxidation is somehow accompanied by a change in caloric balance? Or that somehow more fat is being used and more muscle being built, resulting in the same calorie balance? Though in this particular study, the HIIT group saw no increase in lean mass.. so a shift in caloric balance must explain it.. It's very interesting if one type of training can have you not compensate by eating more and thereby provide a shift in your caloric balance while another form cannot.

  8. #7
    matt182 is offline Needs to Deload
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,717
    Not sure what you mean. Maybe read the discussion more?Often that helps me. The increased fat oxidation would be independent of calorie. Anyway i'm busy of late so will be missing

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: May. 27/09, 10:22 AM
  2. Healthy fat loss with no exercise!!
    By ups1984 in forum Nutrition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Aug. 06/08, 12:22 PM
  3. weight loss exercise?
    By huxley in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sep. 18/06, 04:28 PM
  4. Exercise break & weight loss?
    By friuli in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Oct. 03/05, 08:05 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jun. 30/04, 12:29 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Members: 203,983
Threads: 47,637
Posts: 399,576
Top Poster: Karky (9,801)
Welcome to our newest member, MartinVict
Seeking reputable...
Last post by mathewberle11 ( 2 Replies )
Today 05:33 AM in Supplements
Supplements necessary
Last post by mathewberle11 ( 16 Replies )
Today 05:00 AM in Supplements
Warm up Running
Last post by reyonger ( 0 Replies )
Today 01:08 AM in Running and Cycling
A Simple (and Badass)...
Last post by pran123 ( 34 Replies )
Yesterday 08:24 PM in Weight Loss
healthNews Environment
Last post by pran123 ( 0 Replies )
Yesterday 08:20 PM in Weight Loss

Body Building | Supplements | Weight Loss | Sports |