Intervals vs. Steady State Cardio Part III

So we've gone over intervals and shown why they are superior to fat loss than steady state cardio.

But, i guarantee some of you are saying, "But Mike, I started walking 45 minutes a day and lost 20 pounds over the coarse of 2 months. Don't try and tell me steady state cardio doesn't work."

Okay fine. You got me. Sort of.

If a person who previously was completely sedentary and didn't do anything other than sit at a desk all day and then came home and sat on the couch all of a sudden decided to start exercising, well of coarse they're going to lose weight. They are doing more activity then the previously were doing. They're burning more calories just by doing that new activity. But, I would still argue that if you lost 20 pounds during that 2 month time period with steady state cardio, you very well could have lost more weight using intervals and only doing them 20-30 minutes 3-4 times a week. Again, intervals win out on the exercise efficiency war.

Another question I'm sure someone is asking is "What about the 'fat burning zone?' Aren't you supposed to keep your heart rate in a certain range in order to burn more fat?"

The fat burning zone is a big myth. I mean think about it. Are you really going to try and convince me that someone running their butt off is burning less fat than someone going at a pace that isn't even causing a break in sweat? Using the logic that slower is going to burn more fat, that means you'd burn more fat sitting in front of the television watching Oprah rather than taking some sprints on the bike.

In the end, your net calories burned is going to be higher when using a 20-30 minute interval session rather than using a 45-60 minute steady state cardio session.

Try it. You'll love to hate intervals but, you'll soon get over that when you see the numbers on the scales dropping from week to week.

www.leanbodyfitness.com