Most functional fitness athletes don’t even consider steady state cardio for weight loss. In fact, many athletes fall into the no pain no gain camp, when it comes to selecting the difficulty of their workouts. I’m not here to say that you shouldn’t kick your ass in the gym. I’m here to point out that there are certain benefits to steady state cardio for weight loss, that I’m sure you’re overlooking. This article is going to highlight new research comparing the efficacy of interval style training and steady state cardio for fat loss. I think you’ll be surprised at the results.
I want you to remember the specific question we are considering, so that we aren’t talking at cross purposes. We are going to ask if steady state cardio is better for weight loss than interval training. Further on in this article we’re going to talk about some practical considerations, and the types of cardio that benefit different athletes. Here’s the bottom line up front.
Bottom Line Up Front on Steady State Cardio for Weight Loss
- Researchers found no difference between steady state cardio and interval training for weight loss
- Neither type of cardio causes appreciable weight loss when done in isolation
- Neither type of cardio causes more people to drop off the program than the other
- Researchers found no evidence that certain people responded better to a particular type of cardio
- Steady State cardio can be mentally less taxing, leaving more energy for hard workouts
- Interval training is best for athletes looking for performance results over weight loss
- Interval training causes less muscle loss than extended bouts of steady state cardio
As with any research, some of these findings are probably a little controversial, and they need to be put into perspective. As a coach, I want you to understand that both steady state cardio, and interval training both have their place. However, there are some definite does and don’ts when considering which type of cardio to do. Let’s go over the research so we can see how the researchers came to their conclusions.
Research Review on Steady State Cardio for Weight Loss
For those that aren’t super well versed in reading research, there are several types of studies that you will routinely see. Some studies will simply follow around groups of people, and analyze what they’re doing, to try and draw some conclusions. These are called case studies, and are often interesting, but not particularly scientific.
Next up the reliability ladder are scientific experiments. These have two groups of people where on group gets a different treatment, routine, or variable applied to them and a control which does not. If these are done with correct statistical methods they can reliably show a result. These studies are good, but they aren’t the best.
The best, most reliable type of study is a meta analysis. This is a research review where researchers comb through the existing literature for all relevant studies on a topic. These are the best studies to examine because they show you trends in the literature, and you can get a very good answer to your questions. Wouldn’t you know it, that’s exactly the kind of research that we are going to talk about today.
The Meta-Analysis: Moderate Intensity Continuous Training vs Interval Training
This research paper was just published this week, and is entitled, “Slow and Steady, or Hard and Fast? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing Body Composition Changes between Interval Training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training.” If you’re research nerd like me, then you should recognize the name, Dr. Brad Schoenfeld. He is one of the leading researchers on building muscle, and hypertrophy.
He, along with his graduate students, examined 54 studies that compared steady state cardio vs interval training, to determine if one was better for fat loss. To be clear, these studies were not weight loss studies where the participants were trying to lose weight, in a caloric deficit. In all but 3 studies, no diet modification was done, and only one study had resistance training and cardio paired together.
Most of the component studies in this meta analysis used untrained, slightly overweight people. These participants exercised 2-4 times per week. They compared moderate intensity continuous training (MICT), otherwise known as steady state training, to all interval style (IT) training (both sprint intervals, and easier style intervals). Let’s talk about the results.
Research Results on Steady State Cardio for Weight Loss
Ladies and gentlemen, the moment you’ve all been weight for. The answer to our question. Does steady state cardio beat interval training for weight loss? The answer is a resounding NO! In fact, the researchers found that neither type of cardio alone caused any appreciable weight loss. Here’s an excerpt from the study.
Analysis of standardized between-group treatment effects showed similar changes for IT and MICT with both absolute fat mass as our primary outcome (Hedges’ g = (−0.02 (95%CI = −0.07 to 0.04)), and percentage body fat (Hedges’ g = −0.04 (95%CI = −0.08 to 0.01)). Raw absolute fat mass changes revealed a trivial point estimate of −0.17 kg favoring MICT, although the interval estimate ranged from −0.66 kg in favor of MICT to 0.31 kg in favor of IT. Comparison of raw relative (%) fat mass changes in fat mass revealed a small point estimate of −0.30% favoring MICT, but again, the interval estimate was imprecise, ranging from −0.63% in favor of MICT to 0.04% in favor of IT. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that changes in fat loss are not meaningfully influenced by patterns of intensity of effort and duration (i.e., IT vs MICT) during exercise.
Slow and Steady, or Hard and Fast? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing Body Composition Changes between Interval Training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training
For the few Marines that might be reading this article, I’ll explain what this says in plain language. There were small differences in absolute fat loss and relative fat loss, but these differences were less than one pound of fat. After examining hundreds of participants worth of data, the researchers found that interval training was not superior to steady state cardio for weight loss.
If you want more awesome articles, join our email list. Sign up here and we’ll email them directly to you. As a bonus, I’ll send you our strength training, and fat loss guides!
This is somewhat surprising to me, as coach. Normally higher power output activities tend to drive more fat loss. While this meta-analysis seems to contradict that, we need to be careful about what it’s actually saying. It isn’t saying that both types of cardio are the exact same. These results only answer the fat loss question. They aren’t implying utility in other areas of fitness. Let’s talk about some practical considerations.
Practical Considerations: Interval Training vs Steady State Cardio
If you’re a bodybuilder, or doing bodybuilder style training, and you’re trying to drop fat, then this research paper is very applicable. For that population, I would whole heartedly recommend steady state cardio. It’s easier to do, and will provide just as much fat loss as high intensity interval training.
If you’re doing bodybuilding style training, then you don’t really care about absolute functional fitness performance, and moderate intensity cardio is great. It won’t make you sore, and it will leave you with more energy to focus on your demanding lifting sessions. However, if you do care about performance, then you absolutely cannot avoid interval training.
If you want to build muscle mass, and functional fitness performance, check out this ebook!
Interval Style Training For Sport Performance
Interval style training is almost always superior to steady state cardio for sports performance. This holds true for functional fitness WODs, and more traditional activities like running. It also works for trained athletes. In fact, research has shown that as little as six sessions of sprint interval training are enough to improve performance in already hard training athletes.
Hard interval training also has a side benefit of lessening the impact of cardio on your ability to build muscle mass. This study highlights that concurrent resistance training with hard interval training, had the least impact on an athletes ability to build muscle. Check out this article where I cover the best ways to combine cardio and weight training so you can continue to build muscle and strength. Here’s a quick infographic on the topic.
Some of you smart ones, or those with calculators, might be thinking that interval training is more time efficient than steady state cardio. Surprisingly it isn’t, if you consider the rest intervals between efforts. You certainly can design a more time efficient sprint interval protocol, like the famous Tabata Protocol, but that’s one very specific type of interval training. Most interval workouts take about the same amount of time overall.
If you want a great functional fitness program to improve your WOD performance, then check this out!
Final Thoughts on Steady State Cardio for Weight Loss
When you’re deciding on what type of program or exercise you need to do, you first need to decide what your primary goal is. If you’re looking for maximal performance then you will need hard anaerobic interval training. If you only care about dropping some pounds, then you can certainly use steady state cardio for weight loss.
I find it’s best to bias your program towards your specific needs, without completely neglecting whole areas of training. Even if you’re planning on going to the CrossFit Games, you still need to do some easy cardio. It builds aerobic capacity, and can help you recover from more strenuous training.
If you’re the biggest meat head bodybuilder, and you’re looking to get totally shredded, interval style training can be a welcome break from endless hours on an elliptical or treadmill. All you need to do is prioritize the type of session you need. It really is that simple. If you have any questions or comments put them below, and I’ll get you an answer. Now get out there and get training!
The opinions and information expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are not affiliated with any corporation, group, public or private entity. This web site is not endorsed by, directly affiliated with, maintained, authorized, or sponsored by Crossfit Inc. All product and company names are the registered trademarks of their original owners. The use of any trade name or trademark is for identification and reference purposes only and does not imply any association with the trademark holder of their product brand.
