158 – Dr. Martin Gibala – HIT vs HIIT

Dr Martin Gibala
Dr Martin Gibala (photo courtesy of McMaster University)

Martin Gibala, Ph.D. is a professor and chair of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. His research on the health benefits of interval training has attracted immense scientific attention and worldwide media coverage. He is the author of a bestselling book, The One-Minute Workout: Science Shows a Way to Get Fit That’s Smarter, Faster, Shorter.

Martin has published more than a hundred peer-reviewed articles, is frequently invited to speak at international scientific meetings, and has received multiple awards for teaching excellence.

Access exclusive podcasts with exercise scientists inside HIT Business Membership


  • HIT vs HIIT – do you need both?
  • The potential downsides of HIIT
  • How HIIT can help you perform in endurance based events
  • …. and much, much more

Let me know what you think about the HIT vs HIIT debate in the comments below!

Corporate Warrior - Listen on Apple PodcastsListen to the Corporate Warrior Podcast on Stitcher

This episode is brought to you by ARXFit.com, ARX are the most innovative, efficient and effective all-in-one exercise machines I have ever seen. I was really impressed with my ARX workout. The intensity and adaptive resistance were unlike anything I’ve ever experienced. I love how the machine enables you to increase the negative load to fatigue target muscles more quickly and I love how the workouts are effortlessly quantified. The software tracks maximum force output, rate of work, total amount of work done and more in front of you on-screen, allowing you to compete with your pervious performance, to give you and your clients real-time motivation.

As well as being utilised by many HIT trainers to deliver highly effective and efficient workouts to their clients, ARX comes highly recommended by world-class trainers and brands including Bulletproof, Tony Robbins, and Ben Greenfield Fitness. To find out more about ARX and get $500 OFF install, please go to ARXfit.com and mention Corporate Warrior in the how did you hear about us field – ORDER HERE

Selected Links from the Episode

People Mentioned

Comments 81

  • Good info Lawrence although I think again that the exercise concept wasn’t explained well. You pointing to the fact that the modality used for Vo2max testing has a skill factor was what popped up in my mind also. I think Martin waved that a bit to the side. CV improvements are more general and the muscular improvements are specific. The skill factor comes to that also. Remember the cycle test with one leg? No improvement in the non trained leg despite some general improvements.
    What I think you went wrong with was calling some category of HIT/exercise as dogmatic and by this a limiting factor for reaching more people to start exercise(the real thing). Following facts is not dogmatic.True, some variation exist and many use these for cornering their busines. But making exercise less strict for reaching more clients ( and that is what it is. Not altruistic helping others!!) is a step in a wrong direction IMO. We must educate them better and explain that they have to change their view on who is responsible for their health!!. Many have a Disneyland mindset. Think everything must be fun, hard work is…..well hard. I don’t say that they act like this in every life issue(many do though) but come health….they do.
    What i also think to hear was that that it comes very often down to maximum performance in relation to Vo2Max. I personal do not care about this. How much of this is really needed to live a good life, being active up to old age? In this aspect I think muscle mass/strength is more important and if this is build and sustained by a safe and efficient method (YES, exercise as it is explained “dogmatic”) much of the energy enzymes and bloodvessel health will be taken care of. Much more important then becomes how one eats and other lifestyle factors. Keep low grade inflamation low, reduce ROS etc.
    I see in fact no reason to do weekly both types of activity for health, but if one wants to…..longterm high forces however….??
    Maybe, ou think now I’m opposite to Martins ideas and conclusions. In general, no. He makes very good clear that for becoming and staying healthy one doesn’t have to invest much of time.The rest is probably a matter of preference….. regarding modality and activity level goals.
    And , I have his book. A must read since in almost any book one finds connection dots. I applaud you for delivering dots Lawrenceand in this case Martin.
    Now we have to move on and make the world a better place……

    • Thanks Ad. As Always. I agree, but I wonder if HIT & some form of HIIT is perhaps more optimal for overall health, assuming one has the motivation to do both.

      • Clarence Bass and Richard Winnett are big proponents of that very idea.

      • For more optimal health? Health above health? Guess you mean more fitness, but then…….fitness for what in life? To be better at a stationair bike and the like? There are many activities besides exercise for sure from dancing to hiking and (lets not forget this one) regular work. If one likes to row the hell out of concept 2 rower that’s fine with me. Respect. But he or she doesn’t have to be healthier or live longer in good health as anybody else with a human correct lifestyle adjusted for in our modern situation.

      • I think that HIIT will be very traumatic on the musculoskeletal-system due to the impact trauma it will produce . To my mind it wouldn’t make sense to do it especially when the same benefits can be produced in a much safer manner as HIT training does .

  • I feel vindicated! Best interview of all time here!

    The foremost authority on HIIT destroyed HIT’s anti-aerobic stance in his 1st word … No! … that he said … as Lawrence got his biased HIT backside handed to him in this very first word.

    This also means that John Little and Dr. Doug McGuff misinterpreted Dr. Gibala’s work in their co-authorship of THE BBS BOOK. The BBS book is somewhat loosely based (although erroneous) on some of Gibala’s work. We now know that Gibala does not agree AT ALL with the BBS approach to fitness. Did Little and McGuff deliberately mislead in their book about Gibala … they should clear up their obvious mislabeling of Gibala’s work.

    Lawrence …. too bad you were not up-to-date on aerobic training, which may have better prepared you for many more salient questions of this foremost authority on HIIT. Question on mitochondria would have been very nice to hear about.

    Dr. Gibala’s book is 1st rate …. and contains no apparent deceit as BBS does.

    Muscular endurance rules!

    Now … interview Dr. Michael Mosley

    • Is this the same marcrph that got his backside handed to him on the old BBS blog by Doug McGuff while continually promoting exercise resistance bands and criticising all things BBS, then stating he was running out of gas shovelling snow? Doug’s reply was absolute gold!
      Are you also the same marcrph that that uses several different often changing pseudonyms when posting on other HIT forums including Dr Dardens, whilst trying to promote your own wacko exercise philosophy and hand picking any data that may justify your opinions? ATP4vitality?
      You generally always turn up on these sites then disappear often with your tail between your legs when your theories often get found wanting.

      Always good to have good open honest discussion with differing opinions Lawrence, but in the end it’s us, the end user who knows what works best for us.
      I for one have in the past used a HIIT training protocol as promoted by Phil Campbell, Sprint 8, so I can’t ever be accused of being some close minded exercise nutter.
      Unfortunately I now have a significant health issue to deal with so I have tailored my exercise program around what works for me and am more than happy with the results. Intense, brief and infrequent ticks all the boxes for me.

    • Blatant misrepresentations! Willful Deceit!! OUTRIGHT LIES!!!

      I guess Doug and John have been revealed as members of a libertarian cabal, one that is conspiring to undercut the globalist and institutionalized promotion of….. AEROBICS! After all, Ken Cooper had ties to the GOVERNMENT. Better put in a call to Alex Jones…..

      Or maybe they just disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, possibly influenced by their personal biases (just like everyone else).

      What’s the word I’m looking for? Sad….

    • Marc,

      Your online manners need some work. There is nothing wrong with criticism and feedback. I welcome it. But frankly, you need to work on your online communication skills.

      Perhaps you misinterpreted it but I was challenging my own pre-conceived notions and opening my mind to Martin’s suggestions…..

      Furthermore, Dr Gibala did acknowledge strength training as an important part of one’s health and fitness dose so I wouldn’t say he does not agree with any of BBS.

      Appreciate the feedback regarding my aerobic knowledge. Noted.

      • @ Lawrence,

        Good manners …. please – thank you – I am sorry – excuse me … are a desirable quality under normal circumstances. Exposing others is not a place where manners work well, especially when replying to HITers on a forum. For example, in your case, you accuse me of poor manners, yet, make absolutely no mention of others’ equally or worse manners. You did this to spotlight my response, all the while ignoring others poor manners ….

        An example of yours:

        “Thanks Malcolm.” ….

        which is in stark contrast to your response to me.

        So pardon (good manners here) me if I dismiss your biased advice here.

        I did catch …. “Perhaps you misinterpreted it but I was challenging my own pre-conceived notions and opening my mind to Martin’s suggestions” ….. and my remarks regarding you would have been even sharper if you had not chosen this wiser course of questioning of Gibala. It was good to see you admit your biased viewpoint. I too once had this very same biased viewpoint as you currently do until I educated myself about cardiovascular conditioning. I realized to my dismay that even Arthur Jones was wrong about cardiovascular conditioning. Overall health is tied to cardiovascular conditioning much more so than resistance training. FYI, REHIT can be done in about 5 minutes ….. read about it in Gibala’s new book …. I did.

        In no way did Dr. Gibala ever agree with any exercise routine consisting of resistance-only. I agree with Dr. Gibala that strength training is important to overall health. I have never stated otherwise. Clarence Bass has long held the view of the value of cardiovascular exercise and resistance training also. Ditto Dr. Winnett. This is not a new paradigm about exercise, nor is it any “wacko exercise philosophy.” Also, I never stated Gibala did not agree with any of BBS ….. those are your words …. please own them.

        The facts are that in the first part of the book BBS the works of Martin Gibala were referenced as proof of the efficacy of a BBS-type resistance training only program. Dr. Gibala’s works involved another type of bodily stimulus .. ie. interval training. Any honest analysis of Gibala’s works would have realized he was not doing resistance training only in his studies. The authors of BBS mislead their readers into believing Gibala’s work was relevant in the form of a SuperSlow resistance training workout. This SuperSlow workout was neither new or noteworthy at the time of publishing. Was this done on purpose …. or just lack of insight? The authors should clear up their mislabeling of Gibala’s work ….. as they wrote the book !


        • Fair point Marc, and I’m sorry for that. However, you did kind of start all of this. It was quite civil on the blog in general before you arrived. And let’s be honest, it’s not the first time on the blog you’ve communicated in an abrasive manner.

          You’re not the first person I’ve warned. I’ve asked other listeners to calm down and behave in the past.

          As I said, I am happy for you to continue to comment and express your views, since I do think you have something valuable to say and it’s healthy to debate this in an attempt to get closer to the truth.

          Anyway, enough of this specific thread. Let’s move on.

          Fact remains though – I still would love to see your debate with Dr Doug McGuff 😉

          • I’ll not be abrasive any more due to the fact that I want you to succeed HERE. I don’t promise I’ll continue to post however. It depends on the level of interesting topics presented. Your last two interview were fantastic. I’m involved in testing isometrics done with long hold times and with Kaatsu bands. Furthermore, I really like REHIT! Please get Dr. Gibala to discuss REHIT! Finally, please discuss how the genetic muscular potential comes much sooner than most realize.

            ” Fact remains though – I still would love to see your debate with Dr. Doug McGuff ;-)”

            I easily won that debate. Dr. McGuff showed his lack (none to speak of….perhaps BMX bike riding) of experience as regards cardiovascular conditioning. Further, he would lose any future debate on cardiovascular conditioning with me. I’m sure by now his views on cardiovascular conditioning may have slightly changed. I sure hope so! His global metabolic conditioning is based on a faulty paradigm. No one uses resistance training for serious endurance work. Dr. McGuff and John Little need a remedial course in biochemistry and especially the Kreb’s cyle. It all started when I corrected Dr. McGuff on his presentation on the speed of fast twitch muscle fiber speed in the BBS book during the early days of his blog. The information was just wrong. It went downhill after that.

            • I think for you to claim you won your debate with Doug McGuff is a little presumptuous to say the least considering none of us has actually seen the dialogue between you two . According to Malcolm the outcome was very different then what you’re claiming .

              • Would the dialogue actually matter to you or Malcolm?

                Any debate between McGuff and myself would be difficult for him. He has SuperSlow, Renex, and lack of cardiovascular conditioning to defend.

      • He does come across kind of abrasive . I have challenged people on this site but i’ve always done so respectfully .

        • “Marc with all due respect you really need to get off your high horse”

          Respectfully? …… Pot – Kettle – Black!

          • It’s not my problem that you want to incessantly come to this site and argue with everyone about aerobics/cardio which actually doesn’t even exist !

            • Incessantly? I replied to this topic. I do NOT reply to many topics here. Look before you reply nonsense.
              Many have said aerobics/cardio do not exist….. which is a foolish, uneducated, biased statement.

              • It’s a completely true statement you simply don’t understand it .

                • Myself and the vast majority of exercise scientists and lay people who exercise for health purposes “simply don’t understand.” Heck, even the thoroughbred race horses like to run …. cardio doesn’t exist … even the horses know better!

                  • Horses like to run birds like to fly fish like to swim , so what . Great forces are imposed upon the body when you run/jog and cumulative damage will be incurred sooner or later depending on the individual . I’m not telling anyone what they should or shouldn’t do but you’ve got to consider wear & tear/cumulative damage on your body & then decide if it’s ultimately worth it . Especially when there are much safer alternatives that provide the same benefits to your heart/vascular system which is what cardio actually means .

          • Oh my goodness Marc ! You’ve caught me red handed !

    • Marc with all due respect you really need to get off your high horse . Science whether you realize it or not isn’t the bastion of truth . Mr Gibala is simply stating his opinion that’s all as none of this is definitive . Mr Gibala himself stated that the same type of changes that traditional steady state exercise produces is also produced by short bouts of intense exercise . The truth is that science simply doesn’t know nor understand a lot about the human body .

      • I recognize your personal attack here. I’m sure others will not! Your seemingly disrespect of science is noted …. and hopefully you will not ever need “science.” Why don’t you educate yourself on cardiovascular conditioning as you seem clearly misled by others on the importance of CV conditioning? Until then, it seems a waste of time from my perspective to even discuss this issue with anyone so lacking in basic knowledge of the subject.

  • That was a good interview, with a knowledgeable guest who seems pretty balanced in his views.

    Just a couple of observations, comments, and questions:

    I’ve never before seen a formal distinction drawn between high intensity intervals (at 80%) and sprint intervals (at 100%). That means the traditional Tabata protocol, which was first used to highlight the value of HIIT was actually a sprint interval. I’ve found that what he terms sprint intervals are pretty brutal, and therefore difficult to sustain over the long haul. I’m happy to learn that there is value in interval work where the intense portion of the program is done with submaximal effort.

    When people talk about the time efficiency of HIIT, they tend to focus on the brief time spent doing intense work, and discount the rest periods. But the rest periods still count as time in the gym, and away from life. So if you do 10 intervals of 1 minute each, but are resting 2 or 3 minutes in between, you have still committted 20 to 30 minutes to the workout. And if you are doing these HIIT sessions 3 to 4 times a week, you are committing up to 2 hours a week to that kind of training. It isn’t like training for a marathon, but that is a lot more than a once per week 20 minute session on an ARX machine, for example.

    Also, despite having read his book (now awhile ago), I still don’t really understand what the trade-offs are with respect to the duration of the intervals, the intensity of the intervals, the number of intervals done, and the ratio of work to rest. In particular, if you are interested in the minimum effective dose, but also know that you are not likely to stick to Sprint Intervals, what is the most time efficient approach, leading to the lowest overall time commitment? I’m sure that much of that hasn’t been studied yet. I wonder if they are working on studies that would answer those more specific questions?

    Some cardiologists who are fans of HIIT (recommend a significant dose of weekly HIIT) still recommend at least one weekly session of sustained (30+ minutes) steady cardio for what it does to the adaptation of the heart (i.e., promotes eccentric hypertrophy and flexible arteries). I wonder about his thoughts on that.

    It was interesting that he pointed to the activation of different signaling pathways to draw something of a distinction between traditional cardio vs strength training. I saw another study recently where they looked at gene activation in response to strength training, cardio training, and combined strength plus cardio. Cardio by itself activated a much greater number of genes than strength training alone. Cardio was particularly good at affecting things related to the muscle mitochondria. Of course, we have known for awhile that traditional cardio can impose greater demands on the heart and CV than strength training, even if heart rate elevation is similar (because it happens for different reasons).

    • Thank you Greg for this insightful comment. I’ll reach out to Dr Gibala to see if he has time to comment and perhaps shed light on your questions. I can’t promise though!

    • I could be wrong but i honestly don’t see how an intense set or perhaps two of leg presses wouldn’t cause the same adaptations in the muscle that biking or walking/jogging would produce . As a matter of fact i would think that the leg presses would given the very intense nature of it would have perhaps even more profound effects upon the muscles .

      • Same here. I can’t figure it out myself either. When I think walking, biking…the only thing that comes to mind is very low order of any effect.

      • With regard to the leg muscles, walking/running work relies mostly on an aerobic energy pathway whereas heavy leg press stresses the anaerobic energy pathway. So these are likely to produce somewhat different adaptations within the muscles that do the work. If I recall correctly, with extended endurance efforts you get greater increases in the local concentration of mitochondria, and the muscles develop extra capillaries to facilitate oxygen transport. These specific adaptations are valuable to an endurance athlete’s performance.

        In terms of central adaptations, traditional cardio imposes the highest demand for oxygenated blood (the highest possible total oxygen demand). The high heart rate results from trying to supply this large volume of blood. The rhythmic rapid contractions of the exercising muscles further enhances blood flow return. All this tends to stretch out the heart muscle and increase the volume of the heart (eccentric hypertrophy).

        With strength training, there is also an increase in oxygen demand, which results in a higher heart rate. However, in strength training, you also have elevation of heart rate because the muscles are undergoing longer duration contractions, with elevation of blood pressure. The heart beats faster to overcome the extra resistance to blood flow. This later effect tends to favor concentric hypertrophy of the heart (the wall of the heart muscle gets thicker from having to pump blood against higher back pressure).

        In practice, any kind of intense exercise will produce both effects, with the balance between the two adaptations being determined by the specific requirements of the exercises that you train with. Rowers, for example, who need both endurance and strength, tend to have hearts which have large stroke volumes and thicker walls.

        • I see what your saying but lets not forget that there is no difference really between endurance & strength as endurance is simply a byproduct of strength . As far as energy pathways the more intense the muscular activity the more it will tap both pathways .

        • As far as I understood Dr Doug Mc. Guff on this topic (and basic fysiology) does a good/correct executed exercise program not raise bloodpressure that crazy high. In fact it IS the best programm for cardio rehab. Amd according to Starlings law is there a much better bloodflow return to the heart and less need for a higher heartbeat compared to the traditional endurance activities.
          Exercise, correctly understood, is a manipulation to get at the adaptation mechanism(s) of the human body and via that route a stimulus to improve the general functionality of the body. And general here is a important concept.
          Walking/running, is something we can do for a reasonable long time since the movement is very efficient. That is, the evolutionaire adaptations to do this WAS to not use much energy, use a mechanical hyper efficient positioning/muscle length, use a spring like effect of tissues etc.
          With these thoughts in mind, and we could expand further on it, , why would we even consider to use these activities to propel us in space at such a idiotic high level for a certain long amount of time and frequencey just to improve the CV(?) system. If anything, during evolution we used a high effort to fight or flight, that”s it. Short and infrequent to survive. THAT is the beauty of a correct exercise programm without the real life dangers from the past.
          Now, if your hobby or even profession is running/biking/rowing etc. go ahead. Now things are put in another context but the evolutionaire facts remain.

          • Awesome reply Ad, thanks for putting it here! “… Exercise, correctly understood is a Manipulation, to get at the adaptation mechanism s … ” Best way to put it, I’ve heard in a long time.

          • Ad,

            What I outlined was the explanation that I’d found in physiology text books that I’ve found online, reinforced by explanations in the popular literature relating to the physiology of exercise. I have observed before that Doug’s explanation of what happens to return blood flow during resistance exercise is different, in some ways, from what I’ve seen elsewhere. I’ve never been able to resolve the apparent contradictions to my own satisfaction. In the end, I’m just an amateur sleuth on these matters, reading what I can find on the subject, trying to understand as much as I can on the subject. I certainly am not in a position to authoritative affirm or refute anybody’s explanations.

            I did recently come across a review article which suggests that regulation of blood flow and blood pressure during intense exercise is exceedingly complex, when considered in detail:


            So perhaps all simplistic explanations suitable for non-experts simply fail for their simplicity?

            I would note the following: Doug advocates a resistance training protocol that keeps the working muscles under tension for the duration of the set (45 seconds to 180+ seconds). I believe that part of the theory behind the SS protocol is that you occlude blood flow to the muscle, causing oxygen deprivation which forces slow twitch fibers to drop out, thereby forcing the recruitment of anaerobic fast twitch fibers. Assuming that is correct, I find that explanation hard to reconcile with the idea that return blood flow from muscles held under prolonged contraction is somehow enhanced over what you would have with the more frequent, short duration contractions that occur during traditional cardio.

  • Ellington Darden and some others as well have really called out & questioned this VO2 MAX testing & measuring and the conclusions drawn from this . If i remember correctly Darden actually directly called out a gentleman by the name of Pollock and concluded that in fact nothing was actually being measured with this VO2 MAX .

  • Sadly, notorious HIT members have denigrated VO2max testing. Ken Hutchins, along with Drew Baye have attempted to discredit this test. Look at these men’s qualifications closely. They are NOT scientists in this area of expertise. Yet many here believe the aforementioned men as the gospel on cardiovascular conditioning. Furthermore, no lab tests are perfect. Neither is VO2max testing.

    A prominent cardiovascular conditioning expert is Martin Gibala Ph.D., not Ken Hutchins or Drew Baye. Here are the REAL words of Dr. Gibala:

    “Fitness means different things to different people. To exercise scientists, it means cardiorespiratory fitness, a parameter that can be measured in the laboratory by way of a test called maximum oxygen uptake or “VO2max” (the V stands for “volume”). It is also called aerobic fitness, and it refers to the capacity of your body to transport and utilize oxygen. Scientists have found that it’s one of the best predictors of overall health. The more aerobically fit you are, the better your heart can pump blood, the longer it takes you to get out of breath, and the farther and faster you’re able to bike or run or swim. One more thing: It also happens to be the form of fitness that helps you live longer an live better by reducing your chances of developing ailments like cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Aerobic fitness is the thing most of us want when we start working out.”

    ————- These are Dr. Gibala’s words. His book is excellent.

    So …. it is reasonable that if someone were doing a Big 2 or 3 as written in BBS, that person might not have enough cardiovascular conditioning to shovel out of “Snowmaggedon.”

    • Who informed you about the HIT SYNDICATE ?!

    • All I say is Timothy Noakes. Ask him how he stayed healthy with a superb VO2Max!!
      I personally don’t want to swim or bike as far/fast as possible. I take the boat or the car/cab/bus/train/plain. Try to arrive sooner. Yet I’m convinced that I will live a long(for humans) and healthy life. No orhopedic issues. And my heart, never pushed it toward it’s real limit because some scientist wanted to test something that actually “belongs”to my muscles!! Despite the fact that life can be long it’s to short to waste it!

      • ad,

        I hope resistance only training works for your longevity. My experience shows otherwise.

        • Thanks, but I do have a life between the workouts. So I’m not inactive. besides that, active and less active people reached old ages with good health knowing nothing about exercise as discussed here. My grandma and her sister reached both age 102. Only the last couple of years in less health. So, that’s from my mothers side. I got the mitochondria from that side……..I’m safe in one aspect I guess.And so we could argument on and on………what would we do if nobody had come up with a VO2 Max test?

    • I was a bit surprised at Gibala’s fairly unconditional endorsement of the value of VO2 max testing. (I will have to give the podcast a second listen, just to be sure I didn’t miss some nuance.) I’ve read several pieces which suggest that VO2 max is only modestly trainable, and that having a high VO2 max is largely a matter of good genetics. It could correlate well with longevity and endurance fitness, and still not be very trainable, and mostly genetic.

      It is not just HIT advocates who have questioned the value of VO2 max. Some running coaches have done the same. Consider this piece by Steve Magness, a guy who has coached world class/Olympic level runners:


      His piece ends with the following:

      “The bottom line question that needs to be asked is why is so much of training focused on a variable that does not change in well trained athletes, barely changes in moderately trained, levels off after a short period of time, and does not even correlate well with performance? Does this sound like a variable that we should be basing all of our training off of?”

    • I appreciate this contribution Marc.

      • That last sentence of mine is the gist of the conversation between Dr. McGuff and myself about shoveling snow during Snowmaggedon as occurred a few years ago in Atlanta Ga. I was doing a minimalistic routine (I think a BBS Big 3) at the time albeit without ANY cardiovascular exercise. I noticed after several hours of snow shoveling my extreme lack of cardiovascular fitness. After commenting on this incident, Dr. McGuff advised me that I should be doing a BBS Big 5 done SuperSlow. I thought his advise was foolish at the time. I still do! Would 2 more exercises all done at a SuperSlow pace increase my CV fitness? I knew what the answer was …. dedicated cardiovascular work. After a while, (it took a while to improve my CV fitness after years of HIT neglect) my fitness improved. So did my weightlifting. I felt noticeably better with the additional CV work. At the time I was also doing leg presses with resistance bands….well over 500 pounds with the RB’s for reps on a Nautilus leverage leg press …. which did not translate to good CV fitness. So I should thank Dr. McGuff for driving me to oppose his advice at the time. This was not the only incident that made me think long hours about conditioning.

        • Marc,
          I can’t argue you feel better with so called CV work(? whatever you mean with it, can you ever shut CV down/). But hours shoveling snow?? C’mon, think specificity of this. You probably wasted energy. However you managed to, I think, to protect your joints!!.
          Now, you have to wait for the same situation and shovel again.

          • Ad,
            “can you ever shut CV down”

            Your lungs may be the number 1 predictor of health.


            By the age of 50 you have lost 40 % of your lungpower.


            Might be a good idea to work the muscles and lungs. HIT does a mild job of this … not enough though!

            • Being 54 now, what should I have done with the 40% more lungpower I had till age 50?? I have NOT experienced a regress, so what about the extra capacity I had?? Not relevant for me.
              Tell you something I Think about a long time.
              The more we seem to know of the very complex stuff that happens under the skin the less we seem to SEE it as relevant to live life. Each little piece has a specific function, and a specific function that is damaged seems to influence the whole. So, I think we should not try to act on that level without knowing how to act on a larger scale.
              We know a lot about specific things as a reaction to exercise but much more of value is it to know what to do outside the skin, and then let nature do it”s thing. same with nutrition, the more specialised we try to influence some aspect of it to more problems we create. We should take human digestion system Always as measure and deliver what fits. Maybe we in generall would be much better off if medicine more or less delivered services for emergency situations and that all the energy, manpower, money and actions etc that went into it”s small complex sub, sub segments was used for expanding and securing the food that will fit human digestion.?? Same with exercise, there is a black box that we know will show results of a certain kind if we apply a stimulus of a certain kind. We also obvious know that certain adaptations keep us alive and fitter over a timespan, as long as considerd normal for humans.
              And so we could go on. How the hell have our ancestors survive without the specialties. What would they have said if some magic person claimed they could not live on as functional or that their lung capacity would reduce IF they reached age 50 (and they did). They would have said…..fuck off, do you even have eyes, look at the existing persons.
              Just a fast rambling of my thoughts. Maybe not fully and clear enough stated, but I hope you get the idea.
              I know that understanding certain aspects of the human body helps to better know how to act, but I go on with focussing more on how to act better.

              • It’s a waste of time trying to reason with Marc . It might be better to simply ignore him .

              • Ad,

                If one lived several lifetimes, I do not believe the answer to all the questions you raised would be answered. Remember that weight lifting is a recent endeavor, and HIT is even more recent in a historic perspective.

                Maybe we should go fishing?

                • Marc,
                  I don”t like fishing, maybe hunting? My lung capacity allows for that. Yours only for fishing?? (just teasing man).
                  Anyway, I just posted some thoughts on a sunday evening. Maybe I have to much time on my side at the moment.My thoughts however are honest and I will act more on these ideas. Simplify major complex stuff so it becomes usefull and has life/survival relevance.
                  I had recently experiences from meeting(s) regarding nutrition/exercise/health that brought me to these ideas. Mostly folks are talking in circles caught in the real minutia . And NEVER say the hard truth, afraid to lose clients or to not get clients.
                  I decided to NOT seduce clients, to express what I offer and let THEM decicide, take it or leave it more or less. Maybe not the best strategy……but my life is never long enough to spent it with keeping away the doubt from the chronic doubters.
                  Time is precious, with that…….the stage is yours…….find competition.

            • HIT does a mild job of working the heart & lungs ?! Really ?! The more intense the muscular activity the more profound the effect will be on the viscera of the body .

  • Wow at these comments.

    I wish I’d had a VO2 max test two years ago when I was fat and totally untrained. Something happened over that period, by consistently doing mixed modality training…the main thing is though that I’m fit now!

  • All – Dr Martin Gibala and I are looking to record a Part 2 in Q4 2018, and we will answer the questions posted here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.