• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥

EPOC Overrated?

CowPimp

CowPimp

Fueled by Testosterone
Elite Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
15,721
Reaction score
82
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Silver Spring, MD
IML Gear Cream!
I'm starting to wonder where everyone got the idea that EPOC is so important? Virtually every class I take poo-poo's the aftereffects of high intensity anaerobic exercise in its various forms. The texts these classes are teaching from are all current. Usually 2006 is the publication date.

A review of the literature regarding the EPOC impact seems to be, at best, inconclusive, and at worst, indicating that EPOC has a very minor impact on overall caloric expenditure. The recommendations I've been seeing basically say work as hard as you can for a given duration.

I would like to know why people think that higher intensity cardio is beneficial relative to longer duration aerobic exercise? Is it just that you read an article, or forum peeps espousing its benefits (Myself included in that party)? Did you actually read some research indicating that it might be highly beneficial?


Also, I'm not suggesting it's not a good idea. I think interval training and various other forms of anaerobic training allow you to get a crapload of work done in a short period of time, and anaerobic exercise is still extremely important for athletes in most sports, but it's the value of EPOC I'm questioning here.

Anyway, post up any information you have. I'd like to get a good discussion going on this, as it seems to be kind of a hot topic in the industry.
 
The research is all over the place with it. Some say 200-400 calories. Some say 30-40 extra calories. Some say 40-60min. Others say 24-32 hours....it is all over the place.

i think the main thing that we need to focus on is the fact that the groups that worked harder (more intense) saw the best results in terms of fat loss. This is probably do to the fact that they worked really hard for a certain amount of time (10-120sec), rested or did some sort of recovery interval (where they were buring calories jsut by recovering. This has never been measured, but I think this short duration of EPOC is where some big time calories are burned).

I am not going to completly throw out SS cardio. I think you can use a good mix of everything. I do prefer interval work. I think it is a more efficient use of time.
 
Is it true that after one session of intervals ur fitness level can greatly increase?
 
Excess
Post-Exercise
Oxygen
Consumption
 
I have had great results with it for my clients, but I believe for a different reason.

When left to their own devices on a constant speed, they will take it too easy. After being taught how to interval train on a bike/rower (they are fat and running is not on the menu) they know its a sprint then rest, and they do sprint. So for my clients they go well when doing interval training, but I beleive it is because they don't properly exert themselves during steady state exercise.
 
P-funk said:
The research is all over the place with it. Some say 200-400 calories. Some say 30-40 extra calories. Some say 40-60min. Others say 24-32 hours....it is all over the place.

i think the main thing that we need to focus on is the fact that the groups that worked harder (more intense) saw the best results in terms of fat loss. This is probably do to the fact that they worked really hard for a certain amount of time (10-120sec), rested or did some sort of recovery interval (where they were buring calories jsut by recovering. This has never been measured, but I think this short duration of EPOC is where some big time calories are burned).

I am not going to completly throw out SS cardio. I think you can use a good mix of everything. I do prefer interval work. I think it is a more efficient use of time.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's sort of my thought. Interval work is great because you can get more work done in the same period of time, unless you are really good at pacing yourself to the limit (Which most people aren't). I also like it because you certainly don't need to do it quite as long as lower intensity solid state cardio to get the same calorie usage.

Still, when I see a program of just sprinting a couple times per week for a total of 10 minutes being recommended, I think that's trying to extrapolate data that just isn't there yet. I feel like someone saw one study in a crowded field of studies with extremely variable results, and tried to make some magical fat loss program out of it.

Now, I'm not saying everyone needs to stay in the fat burning zone. That is still a load of horseshit. However, if you can operate at 80-85% of your max heart rate for a reasonably long exercise session, then that's pretty good, and I think you'll see a lot of benefits like that as well.

Also, for the record, this isn't going to stop me from doing the more intense work. One, because I like to have good anaerobic endurance. I feel more athletic that way. It translates positively into more sports. Two, anaerobic work improves aerobic endurance pretty significantly, but not so much the other way around. Three, I don't have the patience or attention span to do solid state cardio very much, heh.
 
slip said:
I have had great results with it for my clients, but I believe for a different reason.

When left to their own devices on a constant speed, they will take it too easy. After being taught how to interval train on a bike/rower (they are fat and running is not on the menu) they know its a sprint then rest, and they do sprint. So for my clients they go well when doing interval training, but I beleive it is because they don't properly exert themselves during steady state exercise.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point slip. I see some clients come into the studio and take their jolly old time on some piece of cardio equipment, and it is fucking ridiculous. It's like they're not even trying, heh.
 
Specificity and relevance also play a big part.

Average People don't run 5km. They dont go for 10km bike rides. They run up stairs and think "god im unfit" or they run to catch a bus, walk up a hill, play some soccer in the park. Its usually a shorter, more intense anerobic burst that occurs in day to day life where people will feel fit and healthy or not.

And that is when my clients come back to me and say "oh I went up some stairs the other day and I'm so much fitter, it was easy!" It took them what, 20 seconds to do? But that is a type of fitness, and a very important one to average Joe.
 
IML Gear Cream!
CowPimp said:
Okay, that's sort of my thought. Interval work is great because you can get more work done in the same period of time, unless you are really good at pacing yourself to the limit (Which most people aren't). I also like it because you certainly don't need to do it quite as long as lower intensity solid state cardio to get the same calorie usage.

Still, when I see a program of just sprinting a couple times per week for a total of 10 minutes being recommended, I think that's trying to extrapolate data that just isn't there yet. I feel like someone saw one study in a crowded field of studies with extremely variable results, and tried to make some magical fat loss program out of it.

Now, I'm not saying everyone needs to stay in the fat burning zone. That is still a load of horseshit. However, if you can operate at 80-85% of your max heart rate for a reasonably long exercise session, then that's pretty good, and I think you'll see a lot of benefits like that as well.

Also, for the record, this isn't going to stop me from doing the more intense work. One, because I like to have good anaerobic endurance. I feel more athletic that way. It translates positively into more sports. Two, anaerobic work improves aerobic endurance pretty significantly, but not so much the other way around. Three, I don't have the patience or attention span to do solid state cardio very much, heh.
Click to expand...



I couldn't see only doing intervals for 10min. and then calling it a day. If I do intervals it is sometimes after weight training.

If I do it on non-training days I do a bunch of intervals and then some regular cardio at a moderatly high intensity.
 
slip said:
Specificity and relevance also play a big part.

Average People don't run 5km. They dont go for 10km bike rides. They run up stairs and think "god im unfit" or they run to catch a bus, walk up a hill, play some soccer in the park. Its usually a shorter, more intense anerobic burst that occurs in day to day life where people will feel fit and healthy or not.

And that is when my clients come back to me and say "oh I went up some stairs the other day and I'm so much fitter, it was easy!" It took them what, 20 seconds to do? But that is a type of fitness, and a very important one to average Joe.
Click to expand...

That's true. Very good point.
 
P-funk said:
I couldn't see only doing intervals for 10min. and then calling it a day. If I do intervals it is sometimes after weight training.

If I do it on non-training days I do a bunch of intervals and then some regular cardio at a moderatly high intensity.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to something like Guerilla cardio. I don't think doing that a couple times a week is really enough for your average Joe to lose weight like they want to. They just don't pay enough attention to their diet for that to be really effective in and of itself.

I just feel like people have been bastardizing solid state cardio a lot, but I feel like it still has it's place. I'm kind of guilty of this too. It's easy to get caught up in a buzz.
 
CowPimp said:
I'm referring to something like Guerilla cardio. I don't think doing that a couple times a week is really enough for your average Joe to lose weight like they want to. They just don't pay enough attention to their diet for that to be really effective in and of itself.

I just feel like people have been bastardizing solid state cardio a lot, but I feel like it still has it's place. I'm kind of guilty of this too. It's easy to get caught up in a buzz.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have never swayed all the way over on that. I still advocate a mix. I do like to see them done in the same day....ie, intervals for 15min., moderately high intensity for 15min. Sometimes I put people on the bike and use the hill interval program on that and have them try and keep a certain RPM number. This is an easy way to make sure that they are working hard enough during their cardio sessions without having them to get flustered with paying attention to 60sec intervals, changing the resistance etc...

Also, I like to use a mix of short intense intervals and longer more tempo like intervals.....might be 1-2min. of hard work (RPE=7-8) followed by 1-2min. of moderate work (RPE= 3-4).

Lots of options.
 
What about the other way around. I mean doing cardio first and then sprints.
I did this combo last week and loved it.

30 minutes SS on rollers (on my track bike)
Then- 3 minute rounds of jump rope 3-4 times
 
If you do that, you fatigue yourself and your ability to optimally display power (and a higher work rate) will be impaired when it comes time to do sprints. The full benefit will not be achieved IMO.
 
Except that biking is about making circles and uses different muscles (for the most part) than skipping- skipping taxes the calves.
 
Bakerboy said:
Except that biking is about making circles and uses different muscles (for the most part) than skipping- skipping taxes the calves.
Click to expand...

muscluar system aside......energy is still energy. if you expend it...you don't have it.
 
Wouldn't that mean that whatever exercise you do second you will have less energy for? What if I wanted to focus on biking- wouldn't it make sense to do it first? Why not sprint before you do weights then? Why always at the end? Isn't that about prioritizing too?
 
Bakerboy - if you are going hard out on the bike, then do that first.

or devils advocate - make yourself work for it, wear yourself out a bit with the skipping and then hit the bike hard.

I always put the most intense thing first, so if thats bike, then bike first.
 
IML Gear Cream!
Bakerboy you have to understand we are talking about intensity here as well as what one is hoping to achieve through such cardio. If you do the SS cardio first then move on the sprints you will not be able to work as hard as if you did the sprints after your warm up. Perceived effort might be the same but absolute work will most definitely be less, whether its a missed step here or there or an extra couple of seconds to 'catch your breath' its a scientific fact you won't be working as hard at the higher intensity if you already expended your energy doing the other cardio.

Now if all you really care about is burning kcal, i'm sure the difference is probably small enough for one not to notice. It'll still probably be there because you won't be able to keep up the same pace since you are already a bit fatigued.

If you are trying to develop your sprinting/power abilities then it is absolutely a no-no. You will never hear of a powerlifter doing 5 sets of 12 on a bench then doing his strength work. Why? Because he/she wants the strength work first (after warm up of course) so the intensity can be high.

Now if you participate in some sort of sport or competition which has you doing steady state cardio-esque stuff then has you sprinting around, by all means you are doing the right thing because that will, in the end, condition your body to optimally operate under such circumstances.
 
Bakerboy said:
Wouldn't that mean that whatever exercise you do second you will have less energy for? What if I wanted to focus on biking- wouldn't it make sense to do it first? Why not sprint before you do weights then? Why always at the end? Isn't that about prioritizing too?
Click to expand...

it is prioritizing. you have to prioritize what your goal of the session is.

For example, a number of strength coaches have their athletes condition before weight training. The athletes adapt to this and they might lose a little in the way of strength when it comes to the lifting. But, the coach feels that the conditioning aspect is the most important part of the training.

If aerobic capacity is your goal of the session, then I could see doing that aerobic work and if you wanted to finish with a few anaerobic intervals then that would be fine too.

However, those that are looking at EPOC are primarly only concered with fat loss. They are looking at the most efficient way to get lean. If that is what we are talking about, then the intensity of the work is the priority.
 
Although jumprope is a little different, as I don't find the injury potential to be very high, another reason to do the more intense work first is to reduce injury potential. If you are going to be doing sprints, for example, I wouldn't really want to do those in a more fatigued state than I have to because form and good mechanics are really important to maintain good motor patterns and help prevent injury. This is also why agility and technical lifts like cleans are usually done earlier in a workout. You don't want to be doing sloppy cuts and Olympic lifts.
 
Speaking of technique sloppiness....where i played my college ball we always conditioned before practice...was this so we could work on our technique in a tired state or is there another reason?
 
WantItBad said:
Speaking of technique sloppiness....where i played my college ball we always conditioned before practice...was this so we could work on our technique in a tired state or is there another reason?
Click to expand...

depends on the goals and where you are in the season and what is the priority at that time.

I know a few coaches that do the conditioning first and then lift. Even if it only takes a few pounds (maybe 10 or 15) off their lifts. Also, your body adapts to it.

It is really up to the coach. Boyle's guys condition before lifting. So do Verstegans. I think Greg Werner said he has his guys do it too (I can't remember). Robert Dos Remedios said he likes to do his running before his lifting too (strength coach for College of the Canyons and just voted NSCA Collegiate Strength Coach of the year for 2006).
 
P-funk said:
depends on the goals and where you are in the season and what is the priority at that time.

I know a few coaches that do the conditioning first and then lift. Even if it only takes a few pounds (maybe 10 or 15) off their lifts. Also, your body adapts to it.

It is really up to the coach. Boyle's guys condition before lifting. So do Verstegans. I think Greg Werner said he has his guys do it too (I can't remember). Robert Dos Remedios said he likes to do his running before his lifting too (strength coach for College of the Canyons and just voted NSCA Collegiate Strength Coach of the year for 2006).
Click to expand...

I would think it depends on what you are doing for conditioning work. I have a feeling these guys are having their athletes do sprinting at various levels, even if it's just form sprints, and possibly agility work and/or plyometric exercises for conditioning purposes. In such a case, I think doing this first would be safer for the athlete. Are you more likely to hurt yourself quickly cutting or doing a bench press? I would say the former, by a long shot.
 
EPOC is absolutely OVERRATED and NOT a significant factor at all for fat loss.

EPOC will ONLY burn 100 calories over the next 24 hours TOPS.

Calorie deficit is the MAIN FACTOR for fat loss. The MAIN benefit from exercise for fat loss happens DURING, DURING the actual exercise workout itself.


Laforgia J , et al . Effect of exercise intensity and duration on the excess post exercise oxygen consumption. Journal of Sports Science. 2006 Dec: 24; (12) 1247 - 1264.
 
LarryIsCorrect said:
EPOC is absolutely OVERRATED and NOT a significant factor at all for fat loss.

EPOC will ONLY burn 100 calories over the next 24 hours TOPS.

Calorie deficit is the MAIN FACTOR for fat loss. The MAIN benefit from exercise for fat loss happens DURING, DURING the actual exercise workout itself.


Laforgia J , et al . Effect of exercise intensity and duration on the excess post exercise oxygen consumption. Journal of Sports Science. 2006 Dec: 24; (12) 1247 - 1264.
Click to expand...

agree 100%
 
My reasons for HIIT aren't fat loss, not entirely at any rate. See, I don't actually consider that ANY exercise modality I do governs my weight. For that, I look to my diet.

Why? Because that way I don't tell myself I can eat like crap and just go out for a little jog later to "get rid of it". It just doesn't work that way. For one, I only burn off what, 300 or so calories in an hour of steady-state cardio (which I HATE). For another, that hour of jogging makes me WAY hungrier than the 300 calories of deficit it earned me. I was a VERY plump jogger through my thirties!

I do a little HIIT followed by a litte SS cardio after a few of my lifting sessions. Sprinting I like to do after a leg workout. It's excellent conditioning - sprinting REALLY hits up your abs - and it is a type of cardio that doesn't jeopardize LBM and fast twitch muscle fibres in the same way that extended bouts of steady-state would do. Combine this with the microtrauma and depletion these sprints induce, and you have the makings of one hell of an anabolic response when you go home and start eating!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top