>> |
Anonymous
>>128164 >Are you saying that 10 minutes of HIIT (let's say 1.5 miles ~150 calories) will burn more overall calories than 30 min (let's say 3.5 miles , ~350 calories)???? No, I fucking JUST SAID that long-distance cardio burns more calories during ACTIVE EXERCISE than HIIT. Yes, running for 45 minutes burns more calories than doing HIIT for 15 minutes. This should not be a surprise. But HIIT *still* burns more fat. Why? It increases BMR, which is tied to anaerobic capacity (NOT aerobic), while long-distance cardio provides no significant BMR increases.
The articles that YOU quoted agree with me, you dumbshit. Way to fail.
>In conclusion, this study showed that moderate-intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power DOES NOT change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training MAY IMPROVE BOTH ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC energy supplying systems SIGNIFICANTLY, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems. From your first article. So, traditional cardio does not raise anaerobic capacity. HIIT does (as well as increasing aerobic capacity). BMR is linked to anaerobic capacity, NOT aerobic capacity. This is a basic fact of exercise physiology. THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU JUST QUOTED BASICALLY FUCKING *SAYS* THAT TRADITIONAL CARDIO DOES NOT INCREASE BMR OR ANAEROBIC CAPACITY, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Learn to fucking read and comprehend data. In conclusion, yet again, I readily admit that traditional cardio burns more energy WHILE YOU ARE ACTIVELY EXERCISING. But HIIT leads to far greater fat loss, since it trains anaerobic capacity, which traditional cardio DOES NOT, and raises BMR FAR MORE EFFECTIVELY long-term than traditional cardio.
If this is just way to hard to comprehend, go fuck right off.
Oh, I also forgot to mention. I'm a third-year medical student. Let me guess, you're just some dude on the Internet who thinks he knows how to get buff?
|