If you are a beginner and you can walk at 3.3mph for 20 minutes, then your intervals
will start at a walk at 3.6mph for 30 seconds to a minute. That is interval training.
It doesn't have to be high-intensity, sprint-to-the-death activity.
Instead, just increase the intensity slightly more than you can normally handle,
and do so for a short time, and intersperse that with periods of easier exercise
for twice the duration.
So if you did 1 minute at 3.6mph, drop down to 3.0mph for 2 minutes. Do that up
to 6 times, and you've had yourself an interval session.
Now for those of you that have been doing only slow, traditional cardio, switching
over to interval training 2-3 times per week is going to be the fat loss equivalent
of throwing a lit, gasoline soaked rag on a pile of dry kindling.
Here's why...research has given us a lot of evidence that intervals are superior
to traditional cardio. First, a study from Laval University in 1994 compared interval
training to aerobic training - straight up - over a 12 week training period. Subjects
that used interval training had better results. They lost more fat. You can't argue
with that.
And second, interval training causes metabolic turbulence – also known as
boost in your metabolism. Due to the high-intensity nature of intervals, there is
more "turbulence" applied to the muscle. That means more muscle breakdown
and more adaptations in the muscle.
Now I know that sounds very technical, but all you need to understand is that when
all this extra activity goes on at the muscle level, it requires a lot more energy
to return your muscle back to normal (i.e. to get out of turbulence and back to
a normal resting state).
And when your body uses more energy, it means, in laymen's terms, that you are burning
more calories.
So it's important for men and women not too get hung up on the calorie counters
in the gym. First, because the calorie count of the workout is not the only factor
in determining fat loss (intervals burn far more calories after the workout - more
on that later).
And second, a report on CBS showed that the calorie counters on some machines are
often significantly inaccurate.
Doesn't that boil your blood when you think back to all those times you did slow,
boring cardio and patiently watched the calorie counter creep up to your goal of
250, 300, or even 400 calories? And who knows if that was even accurate?