In the mind of school age, access to fat, stored and floating in the bloodstream, requires an “aerobic” training, such as resistance. Aerobic means “with oxygen,” and the physiological pathway initiated in the presence of oxygen uses fat for fuel, making it the best choice. However, recent research opens the door to a new theory: that high intensity training is more effective. This study compared the effect of a 20-week endurance training program with that of a 15-week high intensity program in terms of body fat loss and muscle metabolism.
The researchers found a greater reduction in subcutaneous fat in the intensive group, noting that the total energy cost between the two groups showed an increase in caloric expenditure for the resistance group. In addition, “when corrected for the cost of energy … The reduction induced by the high-intensity program was nine times greater than the resistance program” (Smith, 2002).
Another study, published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, measured skeletal muscle fuel content, fatty acid transport proteins and hormonal responses and other women after SBT 2 weeks. The results indicated that “seven sessions of SBT over 2 weeks induced a remarkable ability to increase whole body and skeletal muscle for fatty acid oxidation during exercise in moderately active women” (Talanian 2006).
Traditional aerobic training is also praised for improving the body’s efficiency by burning fat stored after cessation of activity, a phenomenon known as excess oxygen consumption after exercise, or COPD. But more and more studies show that COPD created by a high intensity workout induces a response that makes it even more effective for the body to burn fuel. For example, a study conducted in 1996 in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise subjects comparing trained for endurance and interval showed that “the interval group burned more fat during exercise … [Y] showed an increase in fat Effects that persisted for 24 hours after stopping exercise burns “(Treuth, Hunter & Williams, 1996).
In a 2001 study, the researchers compared two groups, one exercising aerobically and the other using a training interval. Both groups burned 300 calories exactly, but despite the longer period, “the aerobic group lost less body fat” (King et al., 2001).
[Editor ‘s note:. See column breaking news this month to learn more about fat metabolism after exercise]
Training in the “target area” (65% -85% of maximal heart rate) for an extended period (at least 20 minutes) at least 3-5 times per week is an old practice formula. However, this formula was called into question in 1995, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) met to re-evaluate physical activity recommendations for the general , Public. The panel found that “all US adults should accumulate 30 minutes or more of moderate-intensity physical activity” on most days (Pate et al., 1995). This opened the door for beginners to add small increments of activity on their day and improve their fitness levels. According to this model of physical activity, data accumulated with respect to short burst formation to permanently eliminate intermittent motions of activity shorter.
Then there is a 2005 study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology. Subjects, who were not athletes, had an SBT program two weeks later and then re-analyzed. The result? Their level of resistance, a direct measure of cardiorespiratory capacity, actually doubled (burgomaestre et al., 2005).
In today’s world, time is money. So if you can do something faster, what will not you do? Traditional training is long, slow and long. SBT is not only effective, but significantly in a much shorter period of time. Numerous studies show that in terms of body fat, weight loss and gains in exercise, subjects with SBT for minimal periods reached more than subjects trained for endurance, although overall training time is much lower.