QuestionHi, I'm reading a lot on the net lately about the benefits of more intense, short cardio as a quick way to fat loss. I've always enjoyed running but I read recently that it may not be the way to go in relation to fat loss. But, disturbingly, there's a lot of stuff out there that claims running - especially for 35-40 minds and longer - actually uses muscle tissue for fuel. This has kind of put me off the sport, since I like to look 'toned'. I am reading also that interval and HIIT training are 9 times better for fat loss than going for long runs. What's your take on this? I am trying to shift a few pounbds but I'm wondering now if my current 40 minute, 4 times a week runs are burning fat at all. My clothes feel the same, not looser, just the same.
AnswerKieran,
I am part of the 'short & fast' movement with running. I used to go by the long & slow, traditional methods of running (the 30-60 minutes/run methods), and ran into the same issues you have: the fat loss just seems to stagnate & stop, and the fitness levels don't seem to improve past a certain point. Once I shifted over to shorter, faster workouts, I became in better shape, especially for my favorite race, the 5K. I used the same principles of short/fast workouts with the cross-country teams I coached for 3 years straight, and marked their race performances down with a VO2 rating. Their VO2 ratings, a marker of fitness levels, improved 10-20% per athlete. Basically, I used interval/HIIT methods for their speed workout days and relied on traditional runs for 4-6 miles on their recovery days. So, I feel a mix of both types of workouts can offer great results over time. Try alternating a HIIT-style workout day, followed by a traditional run of 20-30 minutes on the next day. 2 HIIT runs & 2 regular runs might be beneficial for you on your weekly running schedule.
Email me at
[email protected] if you have any further inquiries.
Rick Karboviak
