When and why did steady state cardio start to get a bad rap?

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by luvcritters

Harder is better. Extreme isn't good enough. More extreme is better. "They" must keep changing things to get people into the clubs and gyms. People get bored.

I don't know when or why or who decided steady state wasn't as good. It's the only thing my body can do so I'll do it and enjoy every minute of it.

I agree with you. At 57 I can work out pretty hard but I'm not in my 20s and don't pretend to try. That said, I like both steady state and HiiT.
I love intervals but I find a sense of satisfaction at doing a one hour or two hour workout on my days off from work.

Any workout you want to do is a good workout. I meet so many people younger than me that act like they're in their 80's.

I can push myself pretty hard, so I will try those tougher w/o's. But I will also modify if necessary.

[Pam]

Besides wanting to mix up the types of workouts I do, I also do some Steady State Cardio because I think it help increase my endurance. Endurance is important to me, as I like to do endurance type sports--cross country skiing, snowshoing, long hikes, mountain biking and occasionally trail running. Than there are those days of hours of Snow Max

[Sophie]

Originally Posted by Jane P.

I sure read a lot now about how interval training and Hiit are so much better for fat loss (which many of us want). Why has steady state cardio been so denigrated recently? What has been your personal experience?

Largely due to hype and marketing. The rise of resistance training, "metabolic" workouts and HIIT isn't necessarily a bad thing, and they provide variety and interest, as well as being effective methods of training. But I've seen too many purveyors of those programs compare it to "boring" cardio as if everyone would rather eat a boot full of barbed wire than take a nice long run or cycle outside.

I don't believe it's necessarily better for fat loss, or even better for increasing fitness. Unless you like it better and are likely to do it more consistently. I've definitely had good outcomes with both approaches, or by mixing them.

[wlorrie]

For weightloss, the only thing that's ever worked for me as steady state cardio. I could never get the scale to move when I did just HIIT. I like to mix things up with HIIT every now and then, but for me steady state gives me the results I want.

Lorrie

[smith938]

I always thought it was just hyping up something as being new and different to boost sales..but I've always been an on and off again exciser(hopefully no more off though) but I was just starting to exercise when step got popular - suddenly you had to hunt for a health club that did floor aerobics and even then they had to call it 'fat burner' or something instead of just 'low impact aerobics' - come to think of it I remember when low impact was sneered at and it was high impact all the way...I remember circuit being 'the thing' as well...the Firm when it first came out and how I wish I'd started with it LOL and never stopped but I was in my 30s before I ever attempted a Firm.

as Bubbles said I like to mix it up to keep things interesting and different and as fun as I can make it. so far I'm not worrying if I"m burning an extra 10 calories or whatever per workout - I've got plenty of calories to burn I also find steady state soothing - no worries about having to 'go fast' or 'jog' or something yet at the same time I sometimes enjoy the boost in intensity esp afterwards when my heart rate is up enough to do some toning then go back to steady state then boost again...

[athompson10]

Steady state is the only cardio that allows me to relax my mind while my body works. There's that wonderful equilibrium you achieve, where you're warm, moving fluidly, breathing comfortably and it feels like you could go forever. For that reason steady-state cardio has never felt like drudgery to me.

[Sue B]

The Firm has pooh-poohed steady-state cardio almost since the beginning, haven't they? (It was what they insisted made them better than Jane Fonda or Richard Simmons.) There was also that Dr. Wayne Westcott study from 1991 that got lots of publicity (I think he was interviewed at the beginning of Energy Sprint?), followed by Tabata and other studies. The mainstream press twisted them into "cardio is useless for losing fat."

[Footballnut]

Originally Posted by Sue B

The Firm has pooh-poohed steady-state cardio almost since the beginning, haven't they? (It was what they insisted made them better than Jane Fonda or Richard Simmons.) There was also that Dr. Wayne Westcott study from 1991 that got lots of publicity (I think he was interviewed at the beginning of Energy Sprint?), followed by Tabata and other studies. The mainstream press twisted them into "cardio is useless for losing fat."

That's the whole thing in an nutshell. The mainstream press screws up and twists everything. LOL.

[Jane P.]

It's not just the mainstream press. The NROL crowd says steady state is inferior as well. Hiit etc. certainly takes less time, but is more intense which means you have to be ready for it. Some days it's just not there. I'm older and warming up takes longer. I can do Hiit, but not with the short warm-ups on most dvds.

I find steady state machine cardio boring, but not choreographed workouts. I find them to be lots of fun.

As for the Firm, I think lots of Firm instructors also did running for cardio. I'm not sure Anna Benson took that into consideration.

[muddjeansgal]

I agree that tabata, high-intensity, metabolic, HIIT, etc. has taken over, but find it funny and refreshing that things like my beloved Zumba is still very popular.