High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) 5x Less Effective than Steady State

Cardio????
Date: Friday, December 11, 2009
From: Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS

High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT for short, has been promoted as one of
the most effective training methods ever to come down the pike, both for fat loss
and for cardiovascular fitness. One of the most popular claims for high intensity
interval training is that it burns 9 times more fat than conventional (steady state)
cardio. This figure was extracted from a study performed by Angelo Tremblay at
Laval University in 1994. But what if I told you that high intensity interval training
has never been proven to be 9 times more effective than regular cardio What if
I told you that the same study actually shows that high intensity interval training is
5 times less effective than steady state cardio??? Read on and see the proof for
yourself.
There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.
- Mark Twain
In 1994, a study was published in the scientific journal Metabolism by Angelo
Tremblay and his team from the Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory at Laval
University in Quebec, Canada. Based on the results of this study, you hear
personal trainers across the globe claiming that HIIT burns 9 times more fat than
steady state cardio.
This claim has often been interpreted by the not so scientifically literate public as
meaning something like this: If you burned 3 pounds of fat in 15 weeks on steady
state cardio, you would now burn 27 pounds of fat in 15 weeks (3 lbs X 9 times
better = 27 lbs).
Although its usually not stated as such, frankly, I think this is what some trainers
want you to believe, because the programs that some trainers promote are
based on convincing you of the vast superiority of high intensity interval training
and the uselessness of low intensity exercise.
Indeed, higher intensity exercise is more effective and time efficient than lower
intensity exercise. The question is, how much more effective? Theres no
evidence that the 9 times more fat loss claim is true outside the specific context
in which it was mentioned in this study.
In order to get to the bottom of this, you have to read the full text of the research
paper and you have to look very closely at the results.
13 men and 14 women age 18 to 32 started the study. They were broken into two
groups, a high intensity interval training program (HIIT) and a steady state
training program which they referred to as endurance training (ET).

The ET group completed a 20 week steady state aerobic training program on a

cycle ergometer 4 times a week for 30 minutes, later progressing to 5 times per
week for 45 minutes. The initial intensity was 60% of maximal heart rate reserve,
later increasing to 85%.
The high intensity interval training group performed 25-30 minutes of continuous
exercise at 70% of maximal heart rate reserve and they also progressively added
35 long and short interval training sessions over a period of 15 weeks. Short
work intervals started at 10 then 15 bouts of 15 seconds, increasing to 30
seconds. Long intervals started at 5 bouts of 60 seconds, increasing to 90
seconds. Intensity and duration were progressively increased over the 15 week
period.
The results: 3 times greater fat loss in the high intensity interval training
group
Even though the energy cost of the exercise performed in the ET group was
twice as high as the HIIT group, the sum of the skinfolds (which reflects
subcutaneous body fat) in the HIIT group was three times lower than the ET
group.
So where did the 9 times greater fat loss claim come from?
Well, there was a difference in energy cost between groups, so in order to show
a comparison of fat loss relative to energy cost, Tremblay wrote,
It appeared reasonable to correct changes in subcutaneous fat for the total cost
of training. This was performed by expressing changes in subcutaneous skinfolds
per megajoule of energy expended in each program.
Translation: The subjects did not lose 9 times more body fat, in absolute terms.
But hey, 3 times more fat loss? Youll gladly take that, right?
Well hold on, because theres more. Did you know that in this oft-quoted study,
neither group lost much weight? In fact, if you look at the charts, you can see that
the HIIT group lost 0.1 kg (63.9 kg before, 63.8 kg after). Yes, the HIIT group lost
a whopping 100 grams of weight in 15 weeks!
The ET group lost 0.5 kilograms (60.6 kg before, 60.1 kg after).
Naturally, lack of weight loss while skinfolds decrease could simply mean that
body composition improved (lean mass increased), but I think its important to
highlight the fact that the research study from which the 9 times more fat claim
was derived did not result in ANY significant weight loss after 15 weeks.
Based on these results, if I wanted to manipulate statistics to promote steady
state cardio, I could go around telling people, Research study says steady state
cardio (endurance training) results in 5 times more weight loss than high intensity
interval training! Or the reverse, Clinical trial proves that high intensity interval
training is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio!

Mind you, THIS IS THE SAME STUDY THAT IS MOST OFTEN QUOTED TO
SUPPORT HIIT!
If I said 5 X greater weight loss with steady state, I would be telling the truth,
wouldnt I? (100 grams of weight loss vs 500 grams?) Of course, that would be
misleading because the weight loss was hardly significant in either group and
because interval training IS highly effective. Im simply being a little facetious in
order to make a point: Be careful with statistics. I have seen statistical
manipulation used many times in other contexts to deceive unsuspecting
consumers.
For example, advertisements for a popular fat burner claim that use of their
supplement resulted in twice as much fat loss, based on scientific research. The
claim was true. Of course, in the ad, they forget to tell you that after six months,
the control group lost no weight, while the supplement group lost only 1.0 kilo.
Whoop de doo! ONE KILO of weight loss after going through a six month supply
of this miracle fat burner!
But I digress
Back to the HIIT story theres even more to it.
In the ET group, there were some funky skinfold and circumference
measurements. ALL of the skinfold measurements in the ET group either stayed
the same or went down except the calf measurement, which went up.
The girths and skinfold measurements in the limbs went down in the HIIT group,
but there wasnt much difference between HIIT and ET in the trunk skinfolds.
These facts are all very easy to miss. I didnt even notice it myself until exercise
physiologist Christian Finn pointed it out to me. Christian said,
When you look at the changes in the three skinfold measurements taken from
the trunk, there wasnt that much difference between the steady state group (6.3mm) and the HIIT group (-8.7 mm). So, much of the difference in
subcutaneous fat loss between the groups wasnt because the HIIT group lost
more fat, but because the steady state group actually gained fat around the calf
muscles. We shouldnt discount simple measurement error as an explanation for
these rather odd results.
Christian also pointed out that the two test groups were not evenly matched for
body composition at the beginning of the study. At the beginning of the study, the
starting body fat based on skinfolds in the HIIT group was nearly 20% higher
than the ET group. He concluded:
So while this study is interesting, weaknesses in the methods used to track
changes in body composition mean that we should treat the results and
conclusions with some caution.

One beneficial aspect of HIIT that most trainers forget to mention is that HIIT may
actually suppress your appetite, while steady state cardio might increase
appetite. In a study such as this, however, that can skew the results. If energy
intake were not controlled, then some of the greater fat loss in the HIIT group
could be due to lowered caloric intake.
Last but not least, Id like to highlight the words of the researchers themselves in
the conclusion of the paper, which confirms the effectiveness of HIIT, but also
helps put it in perspective a bit:
For a given level of energy expenditure, a high intensity training program
induces a greater loss of subcutaneous fat compared with a training program of
moderate intensity.
It is obvious that high intensity exercise cannot be prescribed for individuals at
risk for health problems or for obese people who are not used to exercise. In
these cases, the most prudent course remains a low intensity exercise program
with a progressive increase in duration and frequency of sessions.
In conclusion, my intention in writing this article wasnt to be controversial, to be a
smart-alec or to criticize high intensity interval training. To the contrary, additional
research has continued to support the efficacy of HIIT for fat loss and fitness, not
to mention that it is one of the most time efficient ways to do cardiovascular
training.
I have recommended high intensity interval training for years in my Burn The
Fat, Feed The Muscle program, using a 1:1 long interval approach, which, while
only one of many ways to do HIIT, is probably my personal favorite method.
However, I also recommend steady state cardio and even low intensity cardio
like walking, when it is appropriate.
My intentions for writing this article were four-fold:
1. To encourage you to question where claims come from, especially if they
sound too good to be true.
2. To alert you to how advertisers might use research such as this to exaggerate
with statistics.
3. To encourage the fitness community to swing the pendulum back to center a
bit, by not over-selling the benefits of HIIT beyond what can be supported by the
scientific research.
4. To encourage the fitness community, that even as they praise HIIT, not to
condemn lower and moderate intensity forms of cardio.
As the original author of the 1994 HIIT study himself pointed out, HIIT is not for
everyone, and cardio should be prescribed with progression. Also, mountains of
other research has proven that walking (GASP! - low intensity cardio!) has
always been one of the most successful exercise methods for overweight men
and women.

There is ample evidence which says that obesity may be the result of a very
slight daily energy imbalance, which adds up over time. Therefore, even a small
amount of casual exercise or activity, if done consistently, and not compensated
for with increased food intake, could reverse the obesity trend. High intensity
interval training gets the job done fast, but that doesnt mean low intensity cardio
is useless or that you should abandon your walking program, if you have the time
and if that is what you enjoy and if that is whats working for you in your personal
situation.
The mechanisms and reasons why high intensity interval training works so well
are numerous. It goes way beyond more calories burned during the workout.
Sincerely,
Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Burn The Fat

About Bodybuilding & Fat Loss Coach, Tom Venuto

Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, natural (steroid-free)
bodybuilder, nutrition researcher and author. His #1
best-selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The
Muscle, teaches you how to get lean without drugs or
supplements using secrets of the world's best
bodybuilders and fitness models. Tom has written
hundreds of articles and been featured in IRONMAN,
Natural Bodybuilding, Muscular Development, Men's
Exercise, Men's Fitness, First for Women, The Wall
Street Journal and Oprah Magazine. To get more information about Tom's e-book about
natural fat loss, visit the home page at: Burn The Fat