Why Steady State Cardio Sucks

[Leah]

The problem is that aerobics or long duration steady state cardio turns your body into an efficient fat burning machine. On the surface this looks good. The only tissue that burns fat is muscle and while aerobic training does demand work from the muscles, it's nowhere near the demands of other tissues. Becoming more efficient means you use LESS. Think of a car. If your car was more efficient at burning gas, you'd be using less of it right? Not good.

The biggest problem with aerobic training is that you get better at it - again, the efficiency factor. With resistance training, as you get better you can add weight, more reps, etc. With endurance cardio as you become more and more efficient (better conditioned) the effort and energy and fuel cost to run for say 5 miles gets less and less. So if you're to improve you either have to run farther (do more cardio) or do it faster. So by this logic you're going to have to do more and more and more cardio over time to achieve the same effect that you used to get from less cardio. This assumes that as your conditioning improves you don't automatically work harder, which you should be anyway. That kinda sucks. This is why some people just do a ton. They have to. But you can only do so much. So then you have to do it faster - but there is an end point with aerobic training, that is, with sufficient intensity, it becomes anaerobic. So if you opted for running harder instead of longer (to achieve the same effect) you're going to hit a point where it's no longer aerobic in nature anyway.

Why not just do anaerobic work to begin with?

As with resistance training, with intense interval work - alternating periods of intense activity with short rest intervals - the above problems don't come into play. One, you're never doing it for a long time as it's not an aerobic task. Length of activity is not a goal. Two, fitness isn't an issue either because your goal is to always perform at or close to your maximum potential. So even as your conditioning and fitness improves, the adaptations aren't an issue because they enable you to perform at a higher level. If you got in better shape, and didn't pick up the pace and work harder, then sure, no more benefits after a certain point. But if you're working harder as your ability to work harder increases, you're following the overload principle. It's like weight training. If you can bench 100lbs and you always bench 100lbs, are you going to continually progress? Of course not.

So, where is the logic to doing an hour of steady state cardio twice per day? Over time you become efficient, which means this activity burns less and less energy over time. You'll have to do more to get the same caloric cost.

Simply not a wise use of time.

Score two points for interval training.

All that said, there is nothing wrong with steady state cardio. It too is a good tool to use when dieting. Too much HIIT while in a caloric deficit and coupled with a couple intense lower body sessions per week will most likely have a negative impact on one, leg recovery and two, possibly lower body muscle loss. Extreme use of either HIIT OR steady state cardio is an unwise approach. Likely the most sane approach is a combination of both - say perhaps a couple intense interval sessions and a couple longer duration steady state sessions. Adjust accordingly from there.
Reply With Quote

[Martaleigh]

Thanks for that...it was awesome!

[Kathryn]

Awesome! Leah, just reafirming my routine.....is 2 lower body sessions, with 2-3 HIIT and 1-2 SS alright...I'm pretty sure it is..just double checking though...oh yea
I heart you for starting a new board!! :D

[B]

What should be done if someone has gotten into the slump of ss cardio and are no longer losing fat? Should they switch it up to intervals? And if so, will this cause the body to lower its resistance of fat burning?

[Leah]

Originally posted by Kathryn@May 2 2006, 01:41 AM
Awesome! Leah, just reafirming my routine.....is 2 lower body sessions, with 2-3 HIIT and 1-2 SS alright...I'm pretty sure it is..just double checking though...oh yea
I heart you for starting a new board!! :D

I think I'd do only 2 HIIT

[Leah]

Originally posted by bdd814@May 2 2006, 01:39 PM
What should be done if someone has gotten into the slump of ss cardio and are no longer losing fat? Should they switch it up to intervals? And if so, will this cause the body to lower its resistance of fat burning?

Definitely add intervals...just as T says above...to continue progress on SS you have to do more and more....w/ intervals...you don't get that same adaptation unless you stop pushing yourself. As your fitness level improves w/ HIIT, you will be able to increase your intensity and continue making progress but w/ SS, as your fitness level improves you need to go longer in order to get the same progress, cause as T says...you are more efficient.

[mybell]

I've been doing 2 HIITs + 1or 2 SS a week for the past 4 months. Along with 3 full body workouts a week. (Going on my 6th week of full body workouts, before that I was doing 4 days, 1 body part a week) I'm hitting a plateau with the weight loss. My goal right now is to lean down. ( I can post diet if that will help) What would yours(anyones) suggestion be on what I can do to get out of the plateau.

When I started the HIIT, I noticed changes right away. Then when I started the full body that helped again. Now the changes are slowing down again.

I'm waiting for my plan Thunder, so maybe just keep up with this till then, though I wouldn't mind trying something new till then.

Thanks.

[Thunder]

How long have you been in a caloric deficit? When was the last time you brought calories back up to maintenance for 2 weeks?

[mybell]

I honestly don't know the last time I took in maintenace calories. So, probably too long.

[Thunder]

Originally posted by mybell@May 3 2006, 10:05 AM
I honestly don't know the last time I took in maintenace calories. So, probably too long.

I suggest you get to it right now. It will make my job much, much easier and your progress once we start, that much better.