I believe you have often heard of HIIT, how the following methods of cardio exercises are so superior in burning fat, adding metabolism, and as-good. However, when I "visit" back and read along carefully an old study of the highly (or more-more) famous and famous in the subject of HIIT, I get some gaffe. Here is my "surgery" (just share – you can agree or not).
Surgery for the famous study of HIIT by Tremblay et al (1994) – "Impact of Exercise Intensity on Body Fatness and Skeletal Muscle Metabolism".
As I said, this is the most frequent and well-known study cited by HIIT supporters. In this study, researchers compared the influence of 2 methods of exercise to fat percentage and metabolism of muscle tissues. Young men and women carry out between "endurance training" for 20 weeks (group ET) or 15 weeks of "HIIT training" (HIIT Group). The average power expenditure for the ET group is 120.4 mJ, while in the HIIT group, the following average 57.9 mJ Cuman. However, the decrease in fat percentage (as measured along with the Skinfold method is greater than the HIIT group 9 times compared with the ET group (basic argument of the "fitness guru" out there).
Wow! Sounds Great! So, what's the problem? HIIT 9x is more efficient than conventional methods. The problem is the sheer number of holes and gaffe to the design of the study, so 9x is a number that is far beyond the actual figure.
Firstly, who understands that there is no dietary arrangement in any form of this study, which does cause all the results of this research is doubtful, the diet has a much greater role than the cardio in any method/form to change Body fat percentage. Plus, the 2 groups do not experience weight loss in importance when the research era, indicating the test subjects compensate for an increase in their power expenditure along with more feeding. Plus, the researchers ignored the difference in power spending on the 2 groups.
The other "hole" is the fat measuring method. Although the Skinfold method is commonly used in the gym or personally, this method is not a commonly recognized method for the research level. DEXA or underwater weighing is a more recognised method of research level. Speaking of the Skinfold method, measurements of the HIIT group decreased 13.9 mm (a total of 6 measurement points) while the ET Gup is only 4.5 mm (9.4 mm overall from 6 dots for 15 weeks. Meaning, the difference is less than 0.3 mm for each point inside as long as 1 month (4 weeks). This is a very small difference that is not mandatory diagung-agungkan at all!
But this is his "fatal mistake". In the ET group, the skinfold measurements of the hands and feet increase as the decline in the body showing that there is perhaps a large "error" to the measurement in this regard is not very common. So, along with the presence of perhaps "error" here, it is more probably that the "sighting" that HIIT 9x is better than the conventional method of accidental cuman caused by a less solid research design.
So, next time a fitness guru tells you HIIT 9x is more efficient than regular cardio. Just Share this post!
No comments:
Post a Comment