![]() ![]() Continuous aerobic training is defined as exercise (e.g., running, cycling, swimming, etc.) lasting greater than 20 minutes and held at steady intensity during the entire bout. ![]() Therefore, the purpose of this article is to discuss and compare the cardiovascular, skeletal muscle, and metabolic adaptations to HIIT versus continuous endurance exercise. The breadth of current research has revealed that HIIT improves numerous physiological parameters, often in less time when measured against high volume continuous exercise (Daussin et al., 2008). To improve cardiovascular fitness the belief has always been to increase the volume of exercise, whether it's longer runs, bike rides, or extended time on an aerobic machine (e.g., stairstepper, elliptical, cycle, treadmill). As the knowledge of HIIT increased, exercise scientists demonstrated that this type of exercise not only provides performance benefits for athletes and improves the health of recreational exercisers, but it may also be a suitable alternative to endurance training, or continuous aerobic exercise. Billat (2001) points out that as early as 1912 Hannes Kolehmainen, famous Finish Olympic long-distance runner, was employing interval training in his workouts. This method of training involves repeated bouts of high intensity efforts that range from 5 seconds to 8 minutes followed by recovery periods of varying lengths of time. The fitness industry is currently experiencing a surge of interest and growth in high intensity interval training (HIIT). HIIT vs Continuous Endurance Training: Battle of the Aerobic Titans ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |