Thinking about changing my workout routine

[JaxMMA]

Hello everyone,

I think it's been a while since I had the knowledgeable members of MAP comment/critique my workout routine.

Over the past 4-5 months I've been very busy with work and school so in meantime I ended up gaining a few pounds...about 10-15 to be exact. I usually maintain my weight at around 180lbs, but as of last measurement yesterday I was at 192lbs. I would like to get down to around 175-180 where I feel more comfortable.
I know my diet slacked off a little during that time (well, a little more obviously) and I'm working on cleaning it up, but this thread is about the workout routine.

My current routine consists of doing 5x5 workouts twice a week (2-3 days apart), 2 days of circuit training (mostly stuff from Ross Enamait's Infinite Intensity), one day of MMA training, and one day when I do some slow cardio, bag work, take a walk, or just use it as an extra rest day.

So for example this is from my last week's log:
Tuesday - 5x5
Wednesday - rest
Thursday - Circuit training
Friday - rest
Saturday - MMA + 5x5 later on
Sunday - Circuit training

The following workout is an example of what I did on Monday for 5x5:
-Snatch (Barbell, x5/arm)
-Deadlift
-Bench-press (Dumbbell)
-Dips (done at body weight and weighted)
-Bent-over rows (Dumbbell)
-Chinups (body weight only this time)
-Hanging knee hold + side plank

When I do 5x5's I start off with medium weight and then add more each set to the point where I can only do 5 reps of that exercise with that weight.

This is an example of circuit training done on Thursday:
-Jump rope x100 turns
-Burpees x10
-BW Squats x10
-Pushups x10

Goal is to do 10 of these circuits, however, I only completed 6. No rest between exercises, 30-60 sec. rest between circuits.

Also to mention, during the MMA session we don't don conditioning just technique, drills, and sometimes sparring.

So this is basically what I've done for the past 4-5 months and I felt as if it was more of a "maintanence" routine rather than a progression.

I'm thinking about switching 5x5's and putting them where they are only 2 days appart (48 hrs), one day rest, and then two days in a row of circuit training.
Like I said above, I'd like to get down to 175-180 again. What do you guys suggest I should change (other than diet...I'm working on that and may discuss it in a different thread)?
Critiques? Comments? Suggestions? All welcome.

Thanks in advance.

[icefield]

You know of course diet is key to weight loss, yarda yarda yarda...right now that’s out of the way my thoughts

You might want to drop the circuits and replace them with 40 minutes to an hour steady state cardio work, 4 or 5 times a week.
I suggest this for a few reasons:
1) it’s hard to get enough volume and time in with the circuits to actually have any effect on weight loss or calorie burn.....I know I know they burn more calories after training than steady state.....one study showed a whopping 36 extra calories burned in 24hrs after a workout doing intervals yeah!
2) The volume needed to aid weight loss simply can’t be reached with high intensity work or circuits, most bodybuilders when leaning out do 4to 6 cardio sessions a week, you can’t do this with HIT or circuits, especially if you are in a calorie deficit (which you should be if you are looking to lose eight)

SO I’d suggest sticking with the 2 days of 5 x 5 and adding in 5 days of cardio, starting at 30 minutes and working up to an hour or so

[Kuma]

I'd honestly look at maybe splitting your 5x5 workout up a bit, as it seems quite long right now. You have 35 sets total (5 sets per exercise, 7 exercises total) so your rest periods alone would be around 70 minutes. With roughly a minute per set, that's 105 minutes and if you add in warm-up, cool down, and setting up in between each exercise, you're looking at over 2 hours in the gym each time.

[JaxMMA]

You know of course diet is key to weight loss, yarda yarda yarda...right now that’s out of the way my thoughts

You might want to drop the circuits and replace them with 40 minutes to an hour steady state cardio work, 4 or 5 times a week.
I suggest this for a few reasons:
1) it’s hard to get enough volume and time in with the circuits to actually have any effect on weight loss or calorie burn.....I know I know they burn more calories after training than steady state.....one study showed a whopping 36 extra calories burned in 24hrs after a workout doing intervals yeah!
2) The volume needed to aid weight loss simply can’t be reached with high intensity work or circuits, most bodybuilders when leaning out do 4to 6 cardio sessions a week, you can’t do this with HIT or circuits, especially if you are in a calorie deficit (which you should be if you are looking to lose eight)

SO I’d suggest sticking with the 2 days of 5 x 5 and adding in 5 days of cardio, starting at 30 minutes and working up to an hour or so

Interesting you suggest slower paced cardio over HIIT. Isn't the main issue with aerobic training the loss of muscle mass as well?
I know since I've joined here everyone has always suggested HIIT/Circuits/Tabata so I'm not trying to call you out or anything just curious. :cool:


I'd honestly look at maybe splitting your 5x5 workout up a bit, as it seems quite long right now. You have 35 sets total (5 sets per exercise, 7 exercises total) so your rest periods alone would be around 70 minutes. With roughly a minute per set, that's 105 minutes and if you add in warm-up, cool down, and setting up in between each exercise, you're looking at over 2 hours in the gym each time.

It's that noticable, huh? :) Yes, I do spend about hour and a half to two hours (even when supersetting).
What do you suggest - maybe split workouts into push and pull days? Example - Day 1: Bench, squats, military press.
Day 2: Deadlifts, pull-ups, bent-over row?

Thanks.

[Kuma]

Try bench, row, squat one day and press, pull-up, deadlift the next. This way you can work your bench and press harder, the rows counterbalance the bench and the pull-ups the press, and you get your hard exercises done last so you can crush yourself on them. This will save you some time and allow you to focus on each more intensely.

In the wise words of Brooks Kubik: You can work out HARD, or you can work out LONG. Which you choose is up to you.

[JaxMMA]

Try bench, row, squat one day and press, pull-up, deadlift the next. This way you can work your bench and press harder, the rows counterbalance the bench and the pull-ups the press, and you get your hard exercises done last so you can crush yourself on them. This will save you some time and allow you to focus on each more intensely.

In the wise words of Brooks Kubik: You can work out HARD, or you can work out LONG. Which you choose is up to you.

Makes sense.
Now, since I'm splitting this, am I still staying at twice a week or increasing to 3 sessions for 5x5 workout? Also, I guess same rule still applies: 48 hour rest between sessions?

Thanks once again.

[Kuma]

I would stick with twice, that's what most MAists should use and it's enough to give you results without becoming a major part of your workout routine.

[JaxMMA]

I would stick with twice, that's what most MAists should use and it's enough to give you results without becoming a major part of your workout routine.

Cool.
I'll give that a try.
What do you suggest as far as circuit training goes? Continue with it or try something else?

[Kuma]

I don't see too much wrong with keeping it in, but it's going to make your recovery take a bit longer. If you do the 5x5 on Monday and the circuit training on Tue, you'd probably want to make sure you have a day of total rest in between.

Going with your current log, it seems pretty manageable which is good. My personal opinion is to keep it the way you have it, add in the cardio like icefield said (probably after your workouts would be best), and you should be pretty good.

[JaxMMA]

I don't see too much wrong with keeping it in, but it's going to make your recovery take a bit longer. If you do the 5x5 on Monday and the circuit training on Tue, you'd probably want to make sure you have a day of total rest in between.

Going with your current log, it seems pretty manageable which is good. My personal opinion is to keep it the way you have it, add in the cardio like icefield said (probably after your workouts would be best), and you should be pretty good.

I'm thinking now if I split my 5x5's as you suggested, it should give me time for cardio.

[righty]

Well, since this is a martial arts forum...

You have three rest days in your week. I would actually say use one of those rest days to get in another MA class.

Your weight is much more about what you eat, so whatever routine you choose, your diet is most important for your weight goals. But others have said that.

Regarding the routine, follow what others have said about reducing the amount of resistance training. But make sure you add the squat in there which isn't in your original list.

[icefield]

[QUOTE=JaxMMA;1074378965]Interesting you suggest slower paced cardio over HIIT. Isn't the main issue with aerobic training the loss of muscle mass as well?
I know since I've joined here everyone has always suggested HIIT/Circuits/Tabata so I'm not trying to call you out or anything just curious. :cool:

QUOTE]

Feel free to call me out on anything, I don’t take it personal people should be able to back up what they say when called on it, :D

Firstly I’ll point to history, nearly every single bodybuilder and combat athlete uses steady state cardio to help them make weight, there’s a reason they still do this it works.

it’s simple maths you can do an hour of cardio a day 7 days a week if you want without burning up, you can’t do HIIT, tabatas (dont get me started on them lol) etc for more than a few days a week without burning out, you also can’t get the same volume, try doing HIIT for an hour a day.

People say HIIT tabatas etc burn more calories after workout than cardio, ill post an article from Lyle McDonald with research after this post showing how wrong that argument is

As for losing muscles when doing aerobic stuff, as I said the standard for a body builder is to do at least 40 minutes of cardio when preparing for a comp 4 or 5 days a week, do they lose muscle mass, nope people using this argument usually say you want to look like a sprinter not a marathon runner, but forget that a) marathon runners don’t lift weights and have to be lean, and b) 200 and 400m runners don’t do HIIT, tabatats or anything like that, they do tempo work (aerobic training for up to 30 minutes)) and short sprints with long (10 minutes at least) recovery between sets. They also forget about all the heavyweight boxers who do hours and hours of road work
etc

[icefield]

as promised lyles article

Stead State vs. Intervals: A Conclusion
Over the past month of articles, I’ve been talking about the current fascination with interval training (for either fat loss or performance) with the main focus being on what I see as a myopic ‘intervals are always superior’ mentality (usually based on poor arguments).
A secondary focus has been on what I’m seeing people do in practice as they have been convinced (wrongly) that intervals are the only way to train.
At the same time, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not anti-interval. They are a useful tool and have their pros (and cons). It’s the uncritical belief that they are either the only or the best way to train (and the arguments used to support such) that I have a big problem with. Or the idea that they are the only type of training that can or should be done.
As a quick introduction, Steady State and Interval Training: Part 1 would be a good place to start for an analysis of what the pros and cons of steady state and interval training are.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I am a wordy person, which is why I’ve been going on about this for a month. I also had a lot to get off my chest because the terrible advice and spurious arguments being made by the pro-interval camp hiss me off.
But since some of you may be tuning in for the first time and/or you simply didn’t or don’t want to read the endless verbiage in the blog, I thought I’d do a quick summary to each of the articles I wrote along with a link to an article that sums up my recommendations to people.
After a brief introduction to the topic, the first thing I looked at was a research review on Endurance Training and Obesity: Effect on Substrate Metabolism and Insulin Sensitivity which looked at improvements in fat oxidation and insulin sensitivity for steady state versus interval training. Short summary: the steady state cardio showed a beneficial adaptation in both fat oxidation and insulin sensitivity that the interval training program did not.
Pole Vaulting for a Hot Body had to do with the commonly stated argument that you can run a marathon and still be fat but 400m runners are always lean, ergo interval training is superior for fat loss. There are several problems with this argument not the least of which that 400m runners do most of their work at low intensities and the high intensity sprint work they do is nothing like the type of interval training that is being advocated for fat loss in the first place.
In a continuation of that idea, I pointed out that the people making this argument are essentially comparing recreational runners to high-performance sprinters, which makes no sense. In Sprinters vs. Marathoners, I pointed out that ELITE marathon runners are always lean. It’s just a ridiculous argument all around and comparing recreational joggers to elite athletes is intellectually dishonest in the first place.
Another argument that the superiority of interval training rests on is that it generates an exceptionally large post-workout calorie burn. In the research review Effects of Exercise Intensity and Duration on the Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption, I put this idea to rest. While the relative burn following high-intensity training may be larger, the total absolute contribution is still miniscule (partly because the total calorie burn of the average interval sessions is pretty small, even a larger PERCENTAGE burn doesn’t amount to much). In one study, following intervals, a whopping 35 some odd extra calories were burned. Yippee.

Heres the full article

Effects of Exercise Intensity and Duration on the Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption
Title and Abstract
LaForgia J et. al. Effects of exercise intensity and duration on the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. J Sports Sci. 2006 Dec;24(12):1247-64.
Recovery from a bout of exercise is associated with an elevation in metabolism referred to as the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). A number of investigators in the first half of the last century reported prolonged EPOC durations and that the EPOC was a major component of the thermic effect of activity. It was therefore thought that the EPOC was a major contributor to total daily energy expenditure and hence the maintenance of body mass. Investigations conducted over the last two or three decades have improved the experimental protocols used in the pioneering studies and therefore have more accurately characterized the EPOC. Evidence has accumulated to suggest an exponential relationship between exercise intensity and the magnitude of the EPOC for specific exercise durations. Furthermore, work at exercise intensities >or=50-60% VO2max stimulate a linear increase in EPOC as exercise duration increases. The existence of these relationships with resistance exercise at this stage remains unclear because of the limited number of studies and problems with quantification of work intensity for this type of exercise. Although the more recent studies do not support the extended EPOC durations reported by some of the pioneering investigators, it is now apparent that a prolonged EPOC (3-24 h) may result from an appropriate exercise stimulus (submaximal: >or=50 min at >or=70% VO2max; supramaximal: >or=6 min at >or=105% VO2max). However, even those studies incorporating exercise stimuli resulting in prolonged EPOC durations have identified that the EPOC comprises only 6-15% of the net total oxygen cost of the exercise. But this figure may need to be increased when studies utilizing intermittent work bouts are designed to allow the determination of rest interval EPOCs, which should logically contribute to the EPOC determined following the cessation of the last work bout. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the earlier research optimism regarding an important role for the EPOC in weight loss is generally unfounded. This is further reinforced by acknowledging that the exercise stimuli required to promote a prolonged EPOC are unlikely to be tolerated by non-athletic individuals. The role of exercise in the maintenance of body mass is therefore predominantly mediated via the cumulative effect of the energy expenditure during the actual exercise.
My Comments
In the last year or three, exercise programs for fat loss have been geared around the concept of using certain types of training (either interval style cardio or highish rep/short rest weight training) to cause fat loss through an ‘afterburn‘ effect where calories are burned after workouts to a greater degree than following standard training styles (esp. low intensity cardio). Clearly from a real-world perspective, this type of training ‘works’.
Of course so do a lot of other kinds of training including the standard bodybuilder model of doing heavy weights to maintain muscle and using diet/low intensity cardio to lose fat but that’s neither here nor there right now. But a question is whether the high intensity interval types of programs are actually working via the mechanism of EPOC (as is usually claimed).
Put differently, there’s no doubt that there is an EPOC following training. The important question is what the actual magnitude of that calorie burn is and whether or not it’s reasonable to except amazing results based on EPOC per se. This paper looks at the topic in enormous detail.
The first topic discussed is what EPOC actually represents. An outdated concept is that the post-exercise calorie burn represented an ‘oxygen debt’ representing the difference between what the body needed and what was available, this turns out to be simplistic and wrong. Lactate metabolism, phosphate resynthesis and fatty acid cycling, along with increases in catecholamine levels are likely the cause of the post-exercise calorie burn. Ultimately, the mechanisms are less important than the fact that EPOC is the result of a metabolic perturbation that has to be ‘repayed’ afterwards.
I’m not going to detail the next section of the paper as it dealt with a bunch of boring methodological issues. Sufficed to say that accurate measurement of EPOC requires that certain methodologies be adhered to. One huge confound, which is likely the cause of the ‘exercise raises metabolism for 24 hours’ thing is due to a massive methodological flaw in early studies: they didn’t take into account the thermic effect of eating. It’s easy to mistake the thermic effect of eating with an effect of exercise. Good studies take this into account. Other issues such as taking into account baseline metabolic rate and subject characteristics are also important.
The next section of the paper deals with continuous exercise and the impact of both duration and intensity on EPOC. Without going into every paper detailed in the review, the picture that has developed from the research is that EPOC goes up linearly with increasing exercise duration but exponentially with increasing intensity. That is, higher intensity exercise generates the higher EPOC. This is true if the duration is the same or if the same number of calories are burned.
That is, if two people both burned 300 calories during exercise but one exercised at a high intensity and one at low intensity, the high intensity guy would get about double the EPOC. The problem is that, even under these conditions, the EPOC is still pretty minimal in an absolute sense (e.g. total number of calories burned).
In one study, subjects who exercised for 80 minutes at 70% VO2 max (about 80% of maximum heart rate) had an EPOC lasting 7 hours. But it only amounted to about 80 calories extra burned. Not to mention that only the most well trained individuals could sustain such a workload in the first place. As well, this still represented a rather small proportion of the total calorie burn from the exercise bout itself. That is, most of the calories burned were from the 80 minutes of exercise, the small EPOC only added a bit to that. Yeah, every little bit helps but which is going to contribute more to fat loss: the 700-800 calories burned during the exercise bout itself or the 80 calories burned afterwards?
Additionally, it appears that there is an intensity threshold to generate any EPOC at all, compared to exercise at 30-50% VO2 max (50% VO2 is about 65% of max HR or the typical ‘fat burning’ zone), exercise at 75% generates a larger EPOC. However, the total calorie burn is still relatively small overall, averaging perhaps 7% of the total energy burned.
So if you burn 600 calories with high intensity continuous exercise, you might burn an additional 45 afterwards. While this certainly adds up over long periods of time, it’s still relatively insignificant compared to the total energy expenditure of the exercise bout. Again, which is more important for fat loss:the 45 extra calories you burned via EPOC or the 600 calories you burned with the exercise bout itself?
The next section of the paper dealt with supramaximal work, intervals basically. Interestingly, the data available here finds that relatively short amounts of intervals can generate EPOCs comparable to much longer bouts of continuous exercise. Several studies measured EPOCs from relatively short interval workouts on par with studies using much longer (>50 minutes) of moderate intensity work.
Still, the total magnitude (total calories burned) of the EPOC was relatively small, equal to roughly 13% of the total energy used during the exercise bout (yes, about double the 7% of steady state but still small in absolute terms). So while the relative amount of calories burned after interval training is larger, the total amount is still small.
Let’s put this into real-world perspective. In one study, subjects ran 20X1 minute intervals above VO2 max with a 2′ rest between. While the EPOC was about double that found in subjects who performed 30′ at 70% Vo2 max, the total EPOC was only about 32 calories (135 kJ). Less than half an apple burned from EPOC. You’ll be ripped in about 15 years at that rate.
The next section of the paper dealt a little more with the issue of exercise duration as studies have identified an increase in EPOC with increasing durations. However, the effect is only significant for exercise performed at intensities greater than 50-60% VO2 max (60-72% max heart rate). However, unless folks are willing to do 60-90 minutes+ of training, this still doesn’t amount to very much in absolute terms. This is especially true of lower intensity exercise where prolonged durations of 90′ or more are necessary to generate a prolonged EPOC; even there the absolute magnitude of calories burned is still small.
Finally the paper examines the impact of resistance training on EPOC. A number of studies have been performed and found fairly prolonged durations of EPOC (15-38 hours) and an increase in metabolic rate of 9-11% over that time period (so someone with a basal metabolic rate of 1600 calories per day might burn 160 calories extra). However, many of the studies used horribly unrealistic numbers of sets (60 sets of 8-12 in one study, 30 sets in another) and that certainly doesn’t represent the types of ‘metabolic’ workouts I’ve seen recommended. Interestingly, a study of women found a much shorter duration of EPOC (60-90 minutes); the reasons for this are unknown. The paper points out that the average trainee is unlikely to be able to sustain either the volumes (30-60 sets) or intensities used in these studies.
Finally, perhaps the most interesting study was the one using a relatively low volume of training (4 exercises for 4 sets of 10 each) in experienced lifters; in that study metabolic rate was significantly elevated for nearly 48 hours after lifting burning something like 700 calories extra over that time period (this was thought to represent the energy cost of protein synthesis and repairing muscle damage).
This study has never been replicated and the other studies examining the topic have not found nearly the same effect. Perhaps only experienced lifters can train hard enough to make EPOC significant. Perhaps the study was simply a fluke and the measured increase in metabolic rate didn’t actually occur. Without replication, nobody can really say.
The paper concludes that, despite the variability in studies, the intensity of exercise appears to be of the utmost importance in terms of generating an EPOC. No argument there. However, most studies indicate that the total magnitude of the EPOC is unlikely to be very large no matter what is done.
With interval type training, EPOC may approach 14% of the total energy expended but, generally speaking, interval training doesn’t burn as many calories during the bout so while the relative amount may be larger, the total EPOC is still small as noted above. For submaximal work, an EPOC of 7% is roughly the average. Even though the EPOC as a %age is smaller, the absolute magnitude of calories burned will still be larger. As well, odds are that the longer, less intensive steady state sessions burned more total calories during exercise. Steady state may still come out ahead here, I’ll come back to this in tomorrow’s follow-up blog post to put some concrete numbers to things.
As well, outside of trained individuals, most folks couldn’t sustain the durations (90′+) or intensities (80% maximum heart rate for steady state work or supra-maximal intervals) required to generate much of an EPOC in the first place. I would note that even beginners can work up to that level with a properly set up progressive program. One beef I tend to have with many exercise and fat loss studies is that the intensity or duration of the exercise is never increased as the folks become fitter. But that’s a separate topic for another day.
The paper suggests that focusing on maximizing the calorie burn of the exercise bout itself and issues of compliance should be the primary goal (e.g. beginners + high-intensity training tend to equal burnout, injuries and quitting exercise). Because even if you burn a few extra calories after the exercise bout, if you increase how many calories you burn with exercise by a couple of hundred, that couple of hundred will have a much larger impact than the 15 extra you burn because of it. Regardless of what you do.
Summing Up
There is absolutely no doubt that higher intensity activity generates a larger EPOC, as measured by the percentage contribution. But like the fact that low intensity cardio burns a greater percentage of fat than higher intensity, this is misleading. 14% of a smaller calorie burn may still be smaller than 7% of a much larger burn. At the end of the day, outside of extremely unrealistic levels of exercise, the basic fact is that the absolute magnitude of the EPOC simply doesn’t amount to very much in the first place. One interval study, which found a 14% increase in metabolic rate via EPOC measured an irrelevant 32 calorie afterburn. Yayyy.
And while some weight training studies are suggestive of higher EPOC’s, the volumes used are typically absurd; the one study which showed a big afterburn from a low volume of training has never been replicated and there are more questions than answers here.
The simple fact is that the calories burned during activity are going to contribute the most to calorie burn, not EPOC and focusing on increasing that value is going to have a much larger impact on calorie balance (all other things equal) than worrying about EPOC

[JaxMMA]

Well, since this is a martial arts forum...

You have three rest days in your week. I would actually say use one of those rest days to get in another MA class.

Your weight is much more about what you eat, so whatever routine you choose, your diet is most important for your weight goals. But others have said that.

Regarding the routine, follow what others have said about reducing the amount of resistance training. But make sure you add the squat in there which isn't in your original list.

Yeah, I understand the diet is the biggest factor and I'm already working on figuring out that aspect.
As for using one of the rest days for additional MA class, that won't work because of the work schedule.
That workout I posted was just a log of what I did on Monday. Of course I do squats and other important exercises beyond what was listed there, but I don't do squats and deadlifts on the same day.




Feel free to call me out on anything, I don’t take it personal people should be able to back up what they say when called on it, :D

Firstly I’ll point to history, nearly every single bodybuilder and combat athlete uses steady state cardio to help them make weight, there’s a reason they still do this it works.

it’s simple maths you can do an hour of cardio a day 7 days a week if you want without burning up, you can’t do HIIT, tabatas (dont get me started on them lol) etc for more than a few days a week without burning out, you also can’t get the same volume, try doing HIIT for an hour a day.

People say HIIT tabatas etc burn more calories after workout than cardio, ill post an article from Lyle McDonald with research after this post showing how wrong that argument is


That is true about doing HIIT/Tabata/Circuits 2-3 times a week...you burn out pretty quick.
As I responded to Kuma, I might throw in 30-40 minutes of cardio after 5x5's and leave only one day for HIIT/Circuits, and maybe add a day of bagwork.
I'll have to read through the article a little bit later. Thanks.

[JaxMMA]

Ok, finally read the whole article and I think I understand what you were trying to say in the first post.

2) The volume needed to aid weight loss simply can’t be reached with high intensity work or circuits, most bodybuilders when leaning out do 4to 6 cardio sessions a week, you can’t do this with HIT or circuits, especially if you are in a calorie deficit (which you should be if you are looking to lose weight)



From my understanding the issue, according to that article, with HIIT and similar trechniques is that most people cannot sustain it it for long enough with same intensity to burn significant amount of total calories during and after the workout - which is basically what you meant with "volume needed to aid weight loss".

So basically, if you burned 200 calories during the HIIT training with an additional of 50 calories as a result of post-workout calorie burn that would give you a total of 250 calories which would still be less than what you would burn during lets say 40 minutes of cardio at 70% pace? (Numbers are not from the article, I just made up for the example)

[icefield]

Ok, finally read the whole article and I think I understand what you were trying to say in the first post.




From my understanding the issue, according to that article, with HIIT and similar trechniques is that most people cannot sustain it it for long enough with same intensity to burn significant amount of total calories during and after the workout - which is basically what you meant with "volume needed to aid weight loss".

So basically, if you burned 200 calories during the HIIT training with an additional of 50 calories as a result of post-workout calorie burn that would give you a total of 250 calories which would still be less than what you would burn during lets say 40 minutes of cardio at 70% pace? (Numbers are not from the article, I just made up for the example)

yep, add to this you can do the cardio back to back 7 days a week (if you can be bothered to do that) and there is no way you can do 7 days of HIT or burpee circuts etc, especially when you are limiting carbs and calories and thus reducing the energy you have

Its not that you cant do the circuts or intervals as well but that if you limit them and do more steady state stuff it might be better for weight loss, and steady state doesnt just mean running or cardio machines, you can mix it up, shadow boxing, medicine ball stuff, bodyweight exercises etc can all be used, just keep the HR in the right zone and keep moving

[JaxMMA]

Once again thanks for the info and advice.
I guess I should get a heart rate monitor zones.