View Single Post
Old 10-01-2011, 05:17 PM   #1
Jay Guindon
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 49
Default McMaster Studies

I'm not sure if maybe I'm missing something here but many people on this site rip on CrossFit, and rightly so, but one thing I noticed is that one particular CrossFit belief they have a hard time with is that sprinting can develop aerobic and endurance capacity almost equally as well as endurance training. Did the McMaster studies by Gibala not show that the HIT group got the same results as the steady state group? I read the study and that is how I understood it. So why does everyone continue to recommend steady state training for aerobic endurance when it seems to me that it has been shown that HIT gives the same results? I'm not an exercise scientist so maybe I'm missing something.
Jay Guindon is offline   Reply With Quote