Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Endurance

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
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
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.