Couple of interesting, though seemingly contradictory stories out there in the inter-ether which bear some consideration. First, this one over at TMuscle, provocatively called "Interval Training Doesn't Work," in which author Mark Young contends that interval training, as currently conceived, is a questionable way of burning fat, whereas steady-state cardio has been used by bodybuilders to great effect since the dawn of the speedo; and then this one, in which Eric Cressey once again contends that steady-state cardio just ain't all that great an idea, and that instead, you should do--well, intervals.

I'm pretty much convinced at this point that steady-state cardio, especially on machines, isn't much good as a strength-and-conditioning tool: it's too specialized and repetitive a movement and therefore doesn't challenge the nervous system to learn anything new, while also--potentially--threatening joint health and posing an injury risk. I'm all for a lot of variety in a general fitness program--different speeds, different types of movements, different environments, and for including and cultivating learning in exercise as well.

Still, it's hard to ignore an article called "Interval Training Doesn't Work," especially as nearly every smart fitness person I know has migrated over to recommending short-duration, high-intensity exercise (aka interval training) to stimulate and protect the cardiovascular system in the last ten years or so. I mean, where does he get off?

Young's article is well-researched, I'll give him that, and he does land the point that maybe we've gone too far towards selling interval training as the be-all-end-all exercise modality for those pursuing fat loss. For example, there is very little research supporting the idea that interval training burns enormous amounts of fat, as we've sometimes read. He also does a great job clarifying what the actual Tabata protocol was, as originally designed, as opposed to the way it's often done in practice.

The bottom line of Young's piece is that, so far, research on the fat-loss benefits of interval training ONLY supports a pretty insane protocol: an eight-seconds on, twelve-seconds off work-to-rest ratio, kept up for 20 minutes. That's a lot of intervals, Brewster McCloud, and faced with that particular vomitatious workout or a light twenty minute jog, I just might choose the latter.

Still, I'm not willing to hop back on the steady-state bandwagon just yet. There are a lot of reasons to to intervals that have nothing to do with fat loss: cardiovascular health, for one, and performance enhancement, for another, which Young concedes interval training accomplishes quite well. Add to that that intervals are more fun, offer more variety, and, I'm convinced, are less likely to lead to injury than steady state work, despite their higher intensity, and you've got a very compelling argument to keep intervals in the fitness arsenal.

They're also less time-consuming, and, let me say again, more fun, which can't be undervalued as a reason for keeping them around. After all, the reasons people give for not exercising are because it's a) boring and b) too time consuming.

Is EXERCISE too boring and time-consuming or is STEADY-STATE CARDIO too boring and time consuming? Discuss.

It must be pointed out that Young, writing for TMuscle, is addressing a group of male bodybuilding enthusiasts; Cressey is addressing the strength-and-conditioning performance, and general fitness community (in the article he says "It's not rocket science because we're not building rockets; we just need to move more."). So Young is primarily concerned with seeking out exercise modalities which make a young guy big and ripped, fun, time-commitment, performance, and cardio health be damned. Fat loss is priority #1. Cressey has a bigger picture in mind, which looks more like my picture.

Interestingly, the lesson that may have emerged most strongly from reading Young's piece is, again, that exercise is NOT the best way to lose fat--diet is. Exercise helps, and will promote general health, and, in my experience, tend to foster better eating habits in people who exercise regularly and intensely. But you can undo the fat-burning benefits of even the best workouts with a few deft but ill-chosen swipes of a fork.