“If people have to pick one exercise, I would recommend high-intensity interval training, but I think it would be beneficial if they could do…interval training and…strength training… Based on everything we know, there’s no substitute for these exercise programs when it comes to delaying the aging process.” Sreekumaran Nair, MD, senior author of the new Mayo Clinic study (Medical News Today, March 8, 2017) http://cbass.com/hiit_rejuvenate_aging_muscles.htm
I agree with that. I've always been lazy with the HIIT training. It's like I KNOW that I would be leaner if I would just get my ass up and do some sprints for a few minutes on an empty stomach in the morning, but I'm usually such a zombie when I first wake up so sprinting isn't really high on my to-do list at that time.
How does HIT fit into your previously mentioned no intense cardio between workouts. Would you do them both on the same day?
It really doesn't fit. That's the problem. If the goal is gaining muscle mass, then doing HIIT training can't be in the program. If you're trying to get shredded, then yeah, add the HIIT into the program with the understanding the most you can hope to achieve is losing body fat while maintaining whatever mass you currently have. The writing's on the wall for me though. I have some very stubborn fat right around my belly button area and at this point, I know the only way this fat is going bye-bye is by adding some HIIT in the morning.
I'm not sure I understand why the two need necessarily be mutually exclusive unless they are both taken to the extreme. Assuming that increasing muscle mass is the principle objective, I would imagine that the task then becomes one of determining how much HIIT should be performed and how often, to avoid the two regimens from operating at cross purposes.
Because you can't stay in a calorie deficit for fat burning and a calorie surplus for muscle building at the same time. It's either one or the other.
So are you saying that anyone who wants to build muscle should not engage in cardio? I'm not being argumentative; I just want to be sure we're on the same page.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Although I would probably alter that statement by saying that anyone who wants to build muscle in the most efficient manner should not engage in cardio. No bodybuilder in his right mind would be doing a bunch of cardio in the off season. The whole purpose of the off season is to eat big and gain muscle. Contest season is for cardio and weight training together, and the weight training is not for building muscle, but for purely hanging on to the muscle you earned in the off season. It's like building a brick wall, and each brick represents a chunk of muscle. Every time you do resistance training, you add a brick to the wall, and every time you do aerobic exercise you take a brick away. How fast the wall goes up depends on how much cardio you don't do. Don't get me wrong. If you're one of the rare individuals that is lean and muscular, and you are happy with how you look, then by all means have an equal balance of weight training and cardio to keep you right where you're at.
But that's the thing, I'm not talking about an equal balance of each. Rather, I'm talking about a suitable proportion of each for someone who doesn't enter competitions but wants to look as good as he can and be as healthy as he can be. I understand what you're saying: why take a step backwards. But maybe I'm muddling towards an argument of 2 steps forward and one step back towards an optimal ideal, whatever that may be. Since I don't compete, there is no off or on season. As for me, the only "rare" thing about me is that I put in the effort at the gym and I watch what I eat. So, maybe not so rare, but perhaps not entirely common.