# EPOC Overrated?



## CowPimp (Feb 13, 2007)

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.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 13, 2007)

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.


----------



## WantItBad (Feb 13, 2007)

Is it true that after one session of intervals ur fitness level can greatly increase?


----------



## WantItBad (Feb 13, 2007)

http://www.firstbeattechnologies.com/files/EPOC_and_Training_Effect_Essentials.pdf


----------



## shiznit2169 (Feb 13, 2007)

what does EPOC stand for?


----------



## P-funk (Feb 13, 2007)

Excess
Post-Exercise
Oxygen
Consumption


----------



## slip (Feb 13, 2007)

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.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 14, 2007)

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.



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.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 14, 2007)

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.



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.


----------



## slip (Feb 14, 2007)

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.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 14, 2007)

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.
> 
> ...





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.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 14, 2007)

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.



That's true.  Very good point.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 14, 2007)

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.



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.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 14, 2007)

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.



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.


----------



## Bakerboy (Feb 14, 2007)

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


----------



## P-funk (Feb 14, 2007)

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.


----------



## Bakerboy (Feb 14, 2007)

Except that biking is about making circles and uses different muscles (for the most part) than skipping- skipping taxes the calves.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 14, 2007)

Bakerboy said:


> Except that biking is about making circles and uses different muscles (for the most part) than skipping- skipping taxes the calves.



muscluar system aside......energy is still energy.  if you expend it...you don't have it.


----------



## Bakerboy (Feb 14, 2007)

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?


----------



## slip (Feb 14, 2007)

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.


----------



## Yanick (Feb 14, 2007)

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.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 15, 2007)

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?



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.


----------



## Bakerboy (Feb 15, 2007)

Thanks for the help guys.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 15, 2007)

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.


----------



## WantItBad (Feb 15, 2007)

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?


----------



## P-funk (Feb 15, 2007)

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?



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).


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 15, 2007)

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).



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.


----------



## LarryIsCorrect (Apr 27, 2008)

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.*


----------



## P-funk (Apr 27, 2008)

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.
> 
> ...



agree 100%


----------



## Built (Apr 27, 2008)

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!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2008)

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.
> 
> ...



I agree that EPOC is overrated, but disagree that calorie deficit is the main factor for fat loss...Sort of.  I think hormonal state is probably the most important thing, which affects caloric deficit.  Something other than strict caloric deficit would have to be the main factor, otherwise, LSD cardio would beat HIIT for fat loss, and it doesn't.  Also, hormonally, obese people are fucked up when compared to people with normal body fat.  I think EPOC is overrated, but the aftereffects of HIIT have a major impact, and the only thing I can attribute that to is hormonal adaptations to more intense exercise.  However, most people won't work out intensely enough or progress themselves far enough to see this change, so I tell them energy balance since they can grasp that concept easier.


----------



## LarryIsCorrect (Apr 28, 2008)

HIIT is great for the cardiovascular system (now and then) but for fat loss the media has MISREPRESENTED The Dr. Tremblay Study 1994 in the journal Metabolism

"
It absolutely did NOT find "9 times better fat loss"


Tom Venuto and Finn actually read the study in full text and very , very carefully.


Here they explain:


Burn The Fat Blog: "Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????"


I LIKE sprints now and then. (I personally don't care for steady state running at all ) but DO like  WALKING briskly A LOT  (which is steady state) up to 2 hours  sometimes for a HUGE  calorie burn and no muscle loss. Add lifting in with that and you ahve one major calorie burning for the day to start fat loss.

Take a 220 pound man have him walk at a brisk pace for one hour and he will have burned  580 calories, walk 90 minues 871 calories , walk 2 hours (small rest in between) and he will have burned 1,161 calories. That is HUGE 



"OVERALL CALORIE BURN ,  NOT exercise intensity,  is the DETERMINING FACTOR for fat loss". - Anthony Colpo


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2008)

LarryIsCorrect said:


> "OVERALL CALORIE BURN ,  NOT exercise intensity,  is the DETERMINING FACTOR for fat loss". - Anthony Colpo



Direct quote from study, and quoted by the author.

â?????For a given level of energy expenditure, a high intensity training program induces a greater loss of subcutaneous fat compared with a training program of moderate intensity.â???

Also, Venuto mentions that IT leads to a lower appetite.  I would imagine that is hormonally controlled?  Intensity determines primary energy substrate used, time determines total substrate utilization.

Interval training induces similar, if not better results for fat loss, with less total calorie expenditure, Venuto even states that in his blog.  Regardless of the study being correct/incorrect with how much more effective HIIT was, you accomplish more with less energy expenditure.  Even if the loss was the same, you couldn't say total cals is the most important thing since there was half as many calories burned in HIIT, the difference would have to come from somewhere else.  IMO, it's hormonal and related to intensity.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2008)

Actually, let me rephrase my statement..

For weight loss, energy balance is most important, for fat loss, it is the interplay between intensity and energy balance.  That is probably more accurately my stance.


----------



## Witchblade (Apr 28, 2008)

I know that study. It's crap. Neither group lost a significant amount of weight, so there's no comparison to be made.

In theory caloric deficit shouldn't be the only/main factor involved in weight loss, but in practice it is. Kind of a depressing thought that it doesn't matter what you eat as far as weight loss is concerned.

Edit: see dale's comment above. I think energy balance is still the main factor involved in fat loss though.


----------

