Originally Posted by
Rowan
I do have some trouble with some of the reports like those in the Examiner. I haven't followed the study to the journal, but I would suggest some care with a report written by someone who declares in passing their enthusiasm for one form of exercise regimen over another.
The analysis by the Examiner is junk. Their conclusion that HIT sprint intervals were better for the heart than steady riding was not supported by the article they cited. The article concludes:
Overall, results of the study indicated that the two exercise programmes had distinct cardioprotective effects on adolescent youth. Participants in the MOD intervention improved several risk factors, including %BF, aerobic fitness, insulin sensitivity, Fg, and PAI-1concentrations, whereas participants in the HIT intervention improved in SBP and aerobic fitness. It is not surprising, perhaps, that traditional endurance exercise appears to have had the greatest effect on CVD risk over the 7-week intervention.
The HIT training was more time efficient but not everyone wants to run around doing tabata intervals all the time.
Sorry, no help on the motivation factors. Just finished up a nice 3 hr ride in the chilly(4C) sunshine. The 2,300 calories I burned made me feel less guilty about the pizza I ate for dinner
