Obesity and exercise

Edit by mod: Moved posts from another thread

**************************************

"Richard Cook2", does a gym owner actually know they’re putting beginners and overweight clients through these kinds of methods? What happens if someone gets dizzy and, God forbid, passes out? An EMT rolls up and asks who put this person under such strain? Putting a 360lb individual through interval training isn't exactly a stroke of genius—unless what you're calling "interval training" isn't actually interval training at all. Besides, you clearly missed my point. To perform interval training properly, you need a foundation; the body requires a base to prepare for higher-intensity stress. It seems to me you're obsessed with short-term results, which is fundamentally flawed. The real question is: where will that person be in 5 or 10 years? Will they still be training, or will they be sidelined? I am also a proponent of interval training, but absolutely not for beginners. You build fitness progressively: start with short bouts, move to longer low-intensity aerobic sessions, and only then occasionally integrate interval training while strictly adhering to specific parameters tailored to the individual. Individualized approach is everything. When we talk about interval training, we are talking about a serious method for raising the anaerobic threshold and lactate tolerance, thereby increasing overall physical conditioning. Recovery after a session like that must be a minimum of 48 hours!

slydriver52 said:"Richard Cook2, does a gym owner actually know they’re putting beginners and overweight clients through these kinds of routines? What happens if someone gets dizzy and, heaven forbid, passes out? An ambulance shows up and asks who put this person under such intense strain? Subjecting a 360lb person to interval training isn't exactly wise—unless what you call 'interval training' isn't actually interval training. Besides, I don't think you quite grasped my point. To perform interval training, you need a foundation where the body is prepared for higher-intensity stress. It seems to me you're just looking at short-term results, which is totally misguided. The real question is what happens to that person in 5 to 10 years. Will they stay committed to the program or quit? I'm all for interval training, but certainly not for beginners. You should gradually build fitness, starting with short bursts and moving toward longer, low-intensity aerobic sessions, and then perhaps occasionally incorporating interval training while respecting specific parameters based on the individual. An individualized approach is vital. When we talk about interval training, we are talking about a very serious method for raising the anaerobic threshold—essentially lactate tolerance—and thereby increasing overall physical readiness. Recovery after such a session must be at least 48 hours!"

1. "What happens if someone gets dizzy" --> We use heart rate monitors and constant monitoring; nothing is left to chance.

2. "Does a gym owner know..." --> Of course they do.

3. "I don't think you quite grasped my point." --> Honestly, I think you're missing much of the bigger picture here.

4. "It seems to me you're just looking at short-term results" --> If you had read my entire post and followed my general philosophy, you would know that client health and long-term sustainability are my top priorities.

5. Please, explain to me how you intend to prepare a person for interval training—which utilizes entirely different energy systems—simply by using low-intensity aerobic training?

6. "When we talk about interval training, we are talking about a very serious method for raising the anaerobic threshold..." --> Again, incorrect, or at least partially incorrect! Training is programmed based on the objective, and this method can be used to develop many different goals.
Doing 2 minutes of walking and 20 seconds of jump rope for 15 minutes is also interval training, but is that going to raise your anaerobic threshold? I wouldn't say so. To actually push that threshold, you have to spend significantly more time hovering at the submaximal and maximal zones (those 15-30 second bursts won't cut it). Now, if we were talking about 30 seconds of slow work followed by a 30-second sprint, that's a completely different story.

7. "Recovery... must be at least 48 hours!" --> That depends entirely on the specific workout, its volume and intensity, and the individual's capabilities.

Please, don't "bother" me anymore. I don't have the time or the inclination to sit here explaining things; nobody ever seems to offer any intelligent help, and yet when someone (including myself) posts something concrete, people just look for ways to mock it. Take some time to read up on world-class trainers like Gold's Gym, Joe Weider, Paul Check, or Jack LaLanne. You'll see how they work with both recreational lifters and athletes—they mostly use the same methods, just tailored to the individual.

I won't be responding further, just so you know. I'd rather spend my time helping someone who needs it than arguing with people. Best regards.

You dodge my questions, yet you expect me to provide answers?
Since you’re constantly harping on about stress, you should realize that this specific training method is incredibly taxing, especially for beginners. Of course beginners will see results; they’ll see progress from almost any form of physical activity. As I’ve stated before, interval training is primarily designed to boost physical conditioning, not to melt away body fat. High-intensity intervals are meant for advanced trainees—for the pros. What you’re practicing isn't even true interval training, so stop disparaging classic aerobic training; it’s a staple used by countless elite athletes. I fear you are taking everything you read far too literally. As far as science goes, the exact way the body utilizes energy hasn't been fully mapped out; we don't know precisely when or in what ratio specific energy systems become dominant. You can't just claim that during low-intensity, long-duration aerobic exercise, the body relies solely on one specific system. You are underselling long-distance runners, for whom classic aerobic training is a fundamental component used alongside other methods. For a beginner, the priority is mastering technique—whether that's running mechanics, swimming strokes, or cycling form. Once you master the technique, the risk of injury drops. When you join a local track club or a swim team, what is the first thing you learn? That's right, you likely jump straight into intervals. :-) We could sit here debating this until tomorrow, but it’s a waste of time. On a different note, you probably have clients whose only goal is aesthetics or dropping pounds because they want fast results, and you aren't to blame for their mindset. I simply wonder what happens to those people once they hit their target and their motivation inevitably evaporates.

slydriver52 said:You expect me to provide answers when you refuse to address my questions?
Since you seem so preoccupied with the topic of stress, you ought to realize that this specific training method is inherently stressful—especially for someone just starting out. Of course beginners will see results; they’ll see progress from almost any form of physical activity. As I mentioned before, interval training is primarily designed to boost cardiovascular conditioning rather than being a primary tool for fat loss. High-intensity intervals are really intended for advanced trainees or even pro athletes, and frankly, what you're practicing isn't true interval training. Please don't dismiss classic aerobic training; it remains a staple for countless professional athletes. I fear you might be taking what you've read far too literally. From what I understand, the way the body utilizes energy hasn't been fully mapped out yet; we don't know the exact moment or ratio at which specific energy systems become dominant. You can't simply claim that during low-intensity, long-duration aerobic exercise, the body relies solely on one specific system. You are underestimating long-distance runners who rely on traditional aerobic work as a foundational component alongside other methods. For beginners, the priority should be mastering technique—whether that's running form, swimming strokes, or cycling mechanics. Once you nail the technique, the risk of injury drops significantly. When you join a local track club or a swim team, what is the first thing you learn? Most likely, you start with drills and technique, not jumping straight into grueling intervals. :-) We could sit here debating this until tomorrow, but there's no point. On a separate note, I imagine you have clients whose sole motivation is aesthetics or shedding pounds quickly, and while that's not your fault, I can't help but wonder: what happens to those people once they hit their goal and lose that initial drive?

I will remain polite and simply say thank you for the response. That's all I have to say to you; I won't engage in further debate😉 because I have no intention of insulting you or your expertise. Instead, I'll just suggest you head over to Google Scholar and search for "interval training for obese" to broaden your understanding. Furthermore, look into the works of Gold's Gym, Joe Weider, Paul Check, and Jack LaLanne... virtually every one of them recommends interval training in their literature, often suggesting cardio sessions of no more than 20 minutes. I spend a great deal of my time studying these authors, as they are widely considered top-tier coaches with incredibly diverse expertise. I don't make these claims arbitrarily or based solely on my own experience, which, I admit, is quite limited. I am offering this advice purely out of goodwill: try to expand your perspective.😉

Bravo. It’s incredibly "brilliant" to subject a 360lb individual to high-intensity interval training and expect their heart rate to skyrocket like that. Are you aware that someone at that weight likely struggles with hypertension? Did this person even undergo a medical screening before you started, and more importantly, did you actually bother to review their results? It’s also pure negligence to throw beginners into this kind of method when they lack basic cardiovascular conditioning. You can't just shock a heart that isn't used to physical exertion without a proper conditioning phase first. An obese client needs to focus on weight loss through low-intensity movement, whereas a healthy beginner of average weight simply needs a standard adaptation period. I sincerely hope you’ve completed a legitimate certification program and actually hold a license; if you keep operating this way, you're going to find yourself facing lawsuits from clients and scrutiny from regulatory boards. 😉

I. Training vs Continuous Moderate Exercise as a Treatment for The Metabolic syndrome methods and Results — Thirty-two

Methods and Results— Thirty-two metabolic syndrome patients (average age, 52.3±3.7 years; maximal oxygen uptake [V̇O2max], 34 mL • kg−1 • min−1) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: performing an equal volume of moderate continuous exercise (CME; 70% of peak heart rate) three times a week for 16 weeks, performing aerobic interval training (AIT; 90% of peak heart rate) three times a week for 16 weeks, or acting as a control group. Interestingly, V̇O2max saw a much higher increase following the AIT protocol compared to CME (35% versus 16%; P<0.01). This was also tied to a better reduction in the various risk factors making up metabolic syndrome (for the AIT group, the count dropped from 5.9 to 4.0; P<0.01; while the CME group went from 5.7 to 5.0; group difference, P<0.05). Furthermore, AIT outperformed CME in improving endothelial function (9% versus 5%; P<0.001), insulin signaling within both fat and skeletal muscle, muscle biogenesis, and excitation-contraction coupling, as well as in lowering blood glucose and fat production in adipose tissue. Both exercise programs were similarly effective at bringing down mean arterial blood pressure and reducing body weight (-2.3 kg for AIT and -3.6 kg for CME) and overall body fat.
Conclusions — Exercise intensity was an important Factor for improving aerobic capacity and reversing The risk factors of The metabolic syndrome
Source: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/4/346.short

II. Effect of 2 Weeks of sprint Interval training on health-related outcomes in sedentary overweight

"The goal of this research was to see how extremely high-intensity sprint interval training (SIT) impacts metabolic and vascular risk factors in sedentary men who are overweight or obese."
Participants: Ten men (average age, 32.1 ± 8.7 years; BMI of 31.0 ± 3.7 kg
What they did: They performed 30-second Wingate anaerobic sprints on a cycle ergometer with electromagnetic braking, allowing for 4.5 minutes of recovery between each bout.
What improved: Maximal oxygen uptake, the insulin sensitivity index, and the resting fat oxidation rate (measured in a fasted state) all showed improvement. Additionally, resting carbohydrate oxidation in a fasted state was notably lower 24 hours after the intervention compared to the start, along with significant reductions in waist and hip measurements.
Conclusion: Just 2 weeks of SIT led to substantial improvements in several metabolic and vascular risk factors among sedentary, overweight or obese men.
Source: http://www.metabolismjournal.com/art...017-X/abstract
III. Aerobic interval training reduces cardiovascular risk factors more than a multitreatment approach in overweight adolescents

Objective: This study aimed to compare a multi-faceted approach (MTG) against aerobic interval training (AIT) regarding their impact on cardiovascular risk factors in overweight teenagers.
Results:
- Maximal oxygen uptake increased more significantly with AIT than with MTG.
- AIT provided better enhancement of endothelial function compared to MTG.
- AIT was more effective than MTG at reducing BMI and body fat percentage.
- AIT resulted in more favorable blood glucose and insulin regulation than the MTG approach.
Conclusion: The results of this pilot Study suggest that three months of high-intensity exercise sessions, conducted twice weekly, reduced several established cardiovascular risk factors in obese adolescents more effectively than a multi-treatment strategy.
Source: http://www.clinsci.org/cs/116/cs1160317.htm

IV. A Comparison of the Effects of Interval Training vs. Continuous Training on Weight Loss and Body Composition in Obese Pre-Menopausal Women

1. Maximal Oxygen Consumption

One notable takeaway from this study was that the high-intensity interval training group saw a significant boost in VO2max, whereas the group doing low-intensity steady-state exercise saw no change at all. In the HIIT group, a significant increase in VO2max was confirmed based on meeting two of three specific markers: a plateau in VO2, an RER above 1.1, or reaching the age-predicted maximum heart rate. The steady-state group simply didn't show those kinds of changes.

2. Weight/Body Composition

In the high-intensity interval training group, body fat percentage dropped from 45.5 ± 7.8% down to 43.5 ± 6.9% (p=0.07). While we can't technically call this statistically significant yet, there is definitely a visible trend toward significance. It’s quite possible that if we had a larger sample size, a longer timeframe for the study, or simply bumped up the training volume, we would see those numbers hit the threshold. On the flip side, the low-intensity steady state group didn't see any meaningful change at all (moving from 42.4 ± 5.2% to 42.9 ± 4.6%; NS).

Looking at the delta, the high-intensity interval training group saw a -4.4% shift in body fat, while the low-intensity steady state group actually drifted slightly upward by +1.2%.

3. Resting Metabolic Rate

For those in the high-intensity interval training group, the RMR climbed by 4.4%, moving from 1688 ± 373 kcal/day during pretesting to 1762 ± 376 when measured the morning following their sessions (p = 0.05). We also observed significant shifts when measuring resting VO2 per kilogram of body weight. These specific markers remained unchanged in the steady state group. However, much like the current study suggests, the data from Poehlman et al. indicates that if you want exercise to have an acute impact on RMR, you likely need to push the intensity above the 50% mark.

RECOMMENDATION
When evaluating Exercise as a method for weight management, it seems pretty clear that high intensity
interval training can trigger changes in fat mass and overall body composition that just don't happen with low-intensity work—especially if the training period is extended. Now, let's be realistic: most people, particularly those just starting out, aren't going to be able to maintain high intensity for very long stretches. That’s why I recommend interval training; it gives the participant those necessary windows to catch their breath between intense bursts. To keep that RMR elevated, this type of routine should probably be performed at least every other day. It also seems evident that adding some caloric restriction is vital if you want to see a drop in total body weight alongside fat loss. Adding resistance training might also assist in shedding fat while building out lean mass, though that is an area where we still need more robust research.

SOURCE (this should be the fifth article in order, please check the title): http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sta...=en&as_sdt=0,5

V. The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women
Objective: To evaluate how a 15-week high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) program impacts subcutaneous fat, trunk fat, and insulin resistance in young women.
Procedure: Participants were randomly split into three groups: HIIE (n=15), steady-state exercise (SSE; n=15), or a control group (CONT; n=15). Both the HIIE and SSE groups completed a 15-week exercise intervention.
Subjects: Forty-five women with an average BMI of 23.2±2.0 kg m−2 and an average age of 20.2±2.0 years.

Results:

Both exercise cohorts showed significant improvements (P
Conclusion:

Performing HIIE three times a week for 15 weeks, as opposed to the same frequency of SSE, was linked to significant reductions in total body fat, subcutaneous fat in the legs and trunk, and insulin resistance among young women.
SOURCE: http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v3.../0803781a.html

.....

Gold's Gym

http://www.poliquingroup.com/Blog/ta...-Training.aspx

http://www.poliquingroup.com/Article..._Getting_.aspx

http://www.poliquingroup.com/Blog/ta...-Training.aspx

http://www.lifestylebypoliquin.com/L...al_Health.aspx

http://www.lifestylebypoliquin.com/L...al_Health.aspx

A pilot Study

Conclusions — Exercise intensity was an important Factor for improving aerobic capacity and reversing The risk factors of The metabolic syndrome Conclusions — Exercise intensity was an important Factor for improving aerobic capacity and reversing The risk factors of The metabolic syndrome. Thes findings May have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and futur Studies I'm ready. Send me the content you need rewritten. Thes findings May have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and futur Studies Thes findings May have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and futur Studies.

Look, you don't have the right to run experiments on people under risky conditions. Clients pay you to guide them safely toward their goals, not to turn them into lab rats. You aren't a scientist, and you certainly aren't a medical doctor. These studies actually prove that more research is needed in this field. Believe me, no licensed trainer who actually values their reputation—and more importantly, their clients' safety—is going to take these kinds of risks. I’m not saying an overweight individual is definitely going to drop dead if they perform high-intensity training, but the risk profile increases. If something goes sideways, the liability falls squarely on you because you ignored the fundamental laws of physical conditioning. You can't just skim a few isolated scientific papers and start treating your clients like test subjects based on those results. To conduct actual testing, you need the proper credentials and facilities, which means partnering with a major university kinesiology department that has the specialized equipment and expertise. Even elite organizations like the LA Galaxy rely on those institutions. Even their coaches, who have massive amounts of experience, wouldn't dream of winging it like this.
Look, there are always a few greedy individuals in the mix who’ll do just about anything to get ahead. Eventually, they end up getting dragged through the mud in the headlines, but that’s a whole different conversation.
My advice? Stick to proven, reliable training methods first. Once you've built that foundation and the conditions are right, there’s absolutely no reason not to throw some intervals into the mix.

slydriver52 said:You aren't actually interested in answering my questions, yet you expect me to provide answers to yours, right?
Since you seem so preoccupied with discussing stress, shouldn't you realize that this specific training method is inherently stressful, particularly for someone just starting out? Of course beginners are going to see results; they’ll see progress with almost any form of physical activity, really, but as I mentioned before, interval training is primarily designed to boost overall physical conditioning rather than acting as a primary tool for fat loss. High-intensity intervals are generally intended for advanced lifters or professional athletes, and frankly, what you're practicing here isn't true interval training, so there's no need to dismiss classic aerobic training—it's a staple used by countless elite athletes. I fear you might be taking what you've read quite too literally. As far as I am aware, the way the body utilizes energy hasn't been sufficiently mapped out to say with absolute certainty which energy systems are dominant at any given moment. You can't simply claim that during low-intensity, long-duration aerobic exercise, the body relies solely on one specific system. It feels like you're underestimating those long-distance runners who rely heavily on traditional aerobic training as a foundation alongside other methods. For a beginner, the priority should always be mastering technique—whether that's running form, swimming strokes, or even cycling mechanics. Once you nail the technique, the risk of injury drops significantly. When you join a local track club or a swim team, what is the first thing they teach you? Most likely, they'll jump straight into intervals, won't they? We could sit here debating this until tomorrow, but it feels somewhat futile. Another point to consider is that you probably have clients whose only objective is aesthetic improvement or shedding pounds, seeking rapid results, and you aren't to blame for their expectations. I find myself wondering, though, what happens to those people once they reach their goal and that initial motivation evaporates?

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your perspective.👍

slydriver52 As I was saying:
A pilot Study

Conclusions — Exercise intensity was an important Factor for improving aerobic capacity and reversing The risk factors of The metabolic syndrome Improving aerobic capacity and reversing the risk factors of the metabolic syndrome. Thes findings May have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and futur Studies. may Thes findings May have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and futur Studies Thes findings May have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and futur Studies.

Look, I’m going to be blunt here: you don't have the right to run experiments on people under risky conditions. Clients pay you to guide them safely toward their goals, not to turn them into lab rats. You aren't a research scientist, and you certainly aren't a medical doctor. If anything, these studies prove that we need much more extensive research in this field before we can draw definitive conclusions. Believe me, any licensed trainer who actually values their reputation and prioritizes client safety isn't going to take unnecessary gambles like this. It's not that an overweight individual is definitely going to suffer a catastrophe if they engage in high-intensity training, but the risk profile increases significantly. If something goes wrong, the liability falls squarely on you for failing to follow the fundamental principles of physical conditioning. You can't just skim a few isolated scientific papers and decide to start testing those results on your clients. To conduct actual testing, you need the proper credentials and institutional backing—specifically, a partnership with a major university kinesiology department that has access to specialized equipment and professional expertise. Even elite organizations like the LA Galaxy rely on those kinds of professional services. Their coaches have massive amounts of experience, yet even they wouldn't dream of improvising risky protocols on their own.
There are certainly individuals among them who let greed get the better of them, going to extreme lengths just to get ahead. Eventually, they end up being called out in the headlines, but that’s really a whole different conversation altogether.
My advice would be to stick to a proven, reliable approach when applying your training methods; once the right conditions present themselves, there really isn't any reason not to incorporate some interval work into the mix.

You really managed to cherry-pick that one single little detail out of that massive mountain of text and research I laid out for you! xD What about everything else? What about all those other points supporting interval training? And what about that specific study I mentioned involving participants with a BMI over 30? Look, I get where you’re coming from, and I won't say I disagree with you entirely, but the way you approached me really rubbed me the wrong way. It felt like you were implying that what I’m doing is actually dangerous or going to kill someone (LOL). In reality, I am simply following what I’ve gathered through my own learning—scientific studies, books by reputable experts and top-tier coaches, a bit of hands-on experience, and the guidance I received from my university professors and some truly high-quality trainers.

So, you're telling me that I'm the kind of person who takes five scientific abstracts—each accompanied by a link so I can dive into the full study—plus another five or six links from a highly respected coach, all backed by a mountain of literature used to extract those insights, only for you to swoop in with a single sentence and **bold** it? Well, that's your prerogative, I suppose. It seems to be your struggle, really; you just can't seem to grasp the broader picture. 🤷

To be fair, I have come across several studies that don't necessarily favor interval training across all the specific domains I mentioned earlier. However, I haven't found a single piece of research suggesting that interval training is actually inferior to steady-state cardio. Some studies indicate the results are roughly equal, but if you factor in the fact that interval sessions are significantly shorter, there is a clear advantage when it comes to time efficiency.

To say that interval training isn't for beginners is really no different than me claiming that deadlifts or squats aren't meant for beginners! You can't just make such broad generalizations like that. Much like how squats and deadlifts have countless variations and specific adaptations tailored to the individual, every single interval training session offers even more room for customization.

Give me the names of the professors at KIF who told you that beginners should be doing interval training. Do you actually have any idea what beginners do when they walk into a local weightlifting club? Do you honestly think they’re jumping straight into heavy cleans and snatches? Don't play games with me...
This is serious business, and you ought to start treating it that way. I wish you luck, truly, because with an approach like yours, you aren't going to get very far.
I'm done wasting my breath...

slydriver52 said:Could you please list the names of the professors from KIF who told you that beginners should be doing interval training? Do you actually have any idea what beginners do when they walk into a local weightlifting club? Do you honestly believe they start out performing heavy cleans and snatches right away? Please, don't joke with me...
You are dealing with a serious profession, and it would be wise if you treated it with that level of respect. I truly wish you the best of luck in your career, because with this kind of mindset, you won't get very far.
I'm done here...

Of course you're "done" when you lack actual arguments and refuse to acknowledge the positive aspects of the research papers I've shared. xD

Thanks for the well wishes. 😉

In my view, we can't just group all overweight individuals into one bucket; you really need to tailor the approach to the specific person involved.

For instance, there is a massive difference between someone weighing 185 lbs hitting the gym and someone weighing 300 lbs doing the same thing.
The first person might actually be able to go out for a run, whereas the second one absolutely should not.

I might be completely missing the point of what you two are arguing about here, but I honestly think the first step should always be assessing an individual's actual capabilities—maybe some sort of endurance test or whatever—and, obviously, checking their medical results (ha! as if anyone actually does that).

To give you a real-world example, I was at this local gym recently and I saw a woman weighing about 265 lbs attempting an advanced step aerobics class.

To me, that makes zero sense whatsoever.

Carol Ortiz9 said:For instance, I’m of the opinion that even people dealing with obesity vary significantly, so we really ought to adopt some form of individualized approach here.

To illustrate, it isn't quite the same situation when someone weighing 185 lbs heads to the gym versus someone weighing 300 lbs.
The former might still be able to go for a run, but the latter absolutely shouldn't try that.

Perhaps I have completely missed the point of what you two were debating, but I believe one should first assess an individual's capabilities—perhaps through some sort of endurance test, if you will—and, of course, review their medical records (ha, as if anyone actually does that!).

Take this, for example: at the local fitness center I visit, I saw a woman weighing about 265 lbs attempting an advanced step aerobics class.

To me, that just makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course everything is individual; there is simply no arguing that point.🙂 One must always tailor workouts to the specific abilities and characteristics of the person. Naturally, we wouldn't "force" an obese individual to run, but there are a million other ways for them to perform interval training—one just needs to understand the principles and exercise a bit of imagination.😉

Mind you, even two women weighing 265 lbs aren't necessarily the same. For example, consider someone who has carried that weight since puberty versus someone who was 175 lbs and suddenly gained 125 lbs in a single year. Neither scenario is particularly healthy, but the person who has lived with that weight since her teens has somewhat acclimated her musculoskeletal system (muscles, tendons, ligaments, bones) to that "load." Consequently, it is possible she won't face significant joint issues while doing aerobics (I won't delve into other potential health complications here), depending on her age and height.🙂

It always comes down to the individual approach. That is precisely why I enjoy working with my clients—being able to talk with them, test their limits, and only then begin crafting a structured plan and program.🙂

Hi everyone... felt the urge to jump into this discussion—here’s my take...

First off, I want to emphasize that in the world of fitness—especially when working with recreational clients—there isn't just one path to a specific goal. You can lose weight and drop body fat through steady-state cardio, HIIT, circuit training, long-distance runs, fartleks, metabolic conditioning, step aerobics, swimming, cycling... you name it. I constantly hear from confused people asking things like, "Coach X said lifting weights is the key, Coach Y told me I have to run fasted, and Coach Z insisted intervals are the only way."

I mention this because I think this confusion really hurts the profession and the trainers trying to make a living here. When every trainer pushes their own specific dogma, people end up feeling foolish—and eventually, they just lose trust in the industry altogether. They're left spinning in circles, not knowing who to believe...

A quick word of advice to both of you—whether you're certified kinesiologists or not (I assume we're all in similar boats here, so it's in our collective interest):
We should probably agree that for the general public, there are dozens of ways to hit a target. It would be much better if we explained it to people that way. Some coaches swear by low-intensity steady state; others love circuits, intervals, CrossFit-style WODs, or Tabata. Some prefer bodyweight movements while others lean toward heavy external loads—which makes sense, given that we don't all come from the same athletic backgrounds. We all have our preferences.

To be honest, I find this debate interesting because it's clear you both have real experience, but also a bit childish—it’s just "intervals are better" vs. "no, aerobic is better," over and over again...
Come on, folks, let's be adults. Training science has evolved significantly and will keep evolving. Every day there are new methods, new modalities, and new tools being developed.
Why is it so hard for certain trainers—and those giving advice on forums or in local gyms—to grasp that every single method has its own set of pros and cons? That's how we should be presenting this to the general public, who aren't nearly as deep into the weeds as we are...

Look, speaking as a biologist here, I can tell you that almost anything involving human physiology—especially when you're talking about an ultra-active body that’s pushing way beyond basic metabolic functions and simple movement—is rarely considered an exact science.
If you throw obesity into the mix, which is such a massive, relatively recent headache for modern American society, you basically end up with one giant, uncontrolled experiment. Honestly, trying to be black-and-white about this stuff is laughable at best, and dangerous at worst.

Scientific studies are really just theories that have been empirically tested on a tiny handful of subjects and currently haven't been debunked yet. They aren't some kind of holy scripture just because they use "big" fancy terminology designed to impress people who don't know any better.

Way to go, amberheron62 ;o)

You can find just about anything in here.

Look, I’m overweight. And yeah, I’m against gyms. It’s pretty obvious from the attached 🤣, but my hatred for gyms isn't because of my weight. It's based on experience—both my brother's and my own. Most trainers are just total frauds who don't have a clue. I say most, not all, but they usually fall into this category. My neighbor weighs nearly 400 pounds, and some trainer told him he should start running. Look, I'm no expert, but you don't start running at that weight. He'll blow out his knees, and who knows what else. He’s older, too. His health could be anything.

I've been handed stupid advice like that myself. Then there's my brother. He’s "fit," if you want to call it that. He wasn't overweight and was active, but he wasn't exactly an athlete. He ended up in the ER, had to wear a Holter monitor, and it turned out he had heart issues. Nobody asked him about his medical history, and he didn't think to mention it because he felt fine. Who's to blame? Both sides, I think. But I really don't get these trainers who make people sign waivers saying they're healthy just so they can work out. What, do they just take your word for it? I went once and never went back. Same thing happened with my neighbor.

I tried yoga for a while until I felt sick because the instructor had me doing poses that were completely wrong for my spinal diagnosis. Did I warn her? Of course I did. So who's at fault? SHE is. In my opinion, she should know what I can and cannot do based on my condition instead of just selling the same generic poses to everyone.

The bottom line? Paying idiots to coach you? No thanks.

Stick to a good diet, walking, cycling, swimming—whatever. Just keep moving until you reach a level where running or team sports actually make sense. Leave the fancy machines and specialized gear to the professionals and the competitive athletes.

Richard Cook2 said:Of course, everyone’s situation is unique, and there is simply no arguing with that reality. 🙂 Training regimens should always be tailored to the individual, respecting their unique physical capabilities and inherent traits. One shouldn't attempt to force an overweight individual to run, for instance; there are countless other ways to approach interval training if one simply understands the underlying principles and maintains a sense of creativity. 😉

It is important to recognize that no two individuals weighing 120 kilograms are truly identical. Consider, for instance, the physiological difference between someone who has carried that weight since their teenage years and someone who was a steady 175 pounds but gained 90 pounds in a single year. While neither scenario represents an ideal state of health, the former individual has allowed their musculoskeletal system—their muscles, tendons, ligaments, and bone density—to adapt to that specific load over a lifetime. Consequently, depending on their height and age, they may actually experience fewer joint issues during aerobic exercise because their body has already built the structural foundation to manage that weight. 🙂

I have always believed in a deeply personalized approach; that is why I prioritize sitting down with my clients to truly listen and conduct thorough assessments before I ever begin drafting a single page of a custom plan or program. 🙂

Without pointing fingers at anyone in particular, I would like to ask for an honest assessment: how many of you—whether you call yourselves personal trainers, fitness coaches, or whatever the industry standard is today—actually take the time to evaluate if a client is medically fit to begin a training program in the first place?

Do coaches ever instruct their players to see a doctor first? If I had to guess, I’d say not a single one would ever hand over medical results to a coach just to prove they have a doctor's recommendation stating everything is fine.

It is my observation that at least 90% of the population suffers from various postural issues. Most Americans working in office environments who have surpassed the age of 30 exhibit what could be described as pathological immobility, characterized by extreme stiffness, physical asymmetry, pelvic tilts, and nearly every other conceivable postural dysfunction.

I find myself speculating once again, though I am certain that none of them bother with corrective exercises before diving straight into bench presses and bicep curls. Heaven forbid they attempt a deadlift or a back squat; fortunately, those aren't nearly as trendy as the others at most local gyms.

It follows that individuals struggling with weight can certainly incorporate interval training into their routines. This conclusion remains logically consistent with the principles outlined above; when there is no oversight, true accountability ceases to exist, leaving no one responsible for any outcome.

That is simply how things operate here in America.

Please don't be angry with me, but I truly believe that if someone refuses to take a firm stand on a subject, it’s usually because they either lack deep knowledge or they're simply afraid of being proven wrong. Sometimes, playing it safe is the better route, but I’m just not built that way. I prefer to hold onto the conviction that I am doing the absolute best possible for my clients; even a 5% difference matters immensely to me. Consequently, I can't bring myself to walk up to a client and say, "Well, there are many ways to approach this; we'll try one thing, it might work, it might not, who knows?" Beyond looking insecure and incompetent, I certainly wouldn't be providing any motivation.

First off, I’m not sure if you’ve been following this discussion since the beginning (it was actually migrated from another thread), so it’s hard to judge your perspective. I never claimed that the methods I advocate for are the *only* correct ones or the sole path to success. I was simply comparing HIIT versus steady-state cardio without adding any extra context! It’s exactly like two car enthusiasts arguing over whether a Ferrari or a Volkswagen Golf is superior. If you strip away all the variables, of course everyone is going to say the Ferrari is better—the aesthetics, the power, the build quality, you name it (though I don't know much about cars, haha). The issue here arose because people started adding context like, "That's not for beginners," or "That's not for overweight clients," and so on. That is the equivalent of me saying a Ferrari is better, and having someone respond, "Actually, it isn't, because I don't have paved roads where I live, so a Golf is better!"

Everyone is entitled to their own philosophy, and I'm sure those paths will lead them somewhere, but the real question is which philosophy proves to be more economical and efficient. My personal opinion is that interval training is superior to steady-state cardio in almost every regard—BUT I am not suggesting that cardio should be stripped from a program entirely. If a client trains four times a week, I obviously won't prescribe intervals for every single session; instead, I’ll structure it as cardio, intervals, cardio, intervals, or perhaps cardio, intervals, Tabata, followed by a cardio/interval mix. However, I certainly won't push steady-state cardio beyond 20 minutes.

Now, regarding the argument that research studies aren't law and textbooks aren't gospel... I agree, they aren't absolute laws. But they are currently the best evidence we have regarding what happens to the human body during exercise. Honestly, I personally find more value in a book written by a top-tier trainer with over 20 years of experience and thousands of clients. If they have successfully applied certain principles to thousands of people, then those principles clearly work.

Dear Victor, I agree with you that there are unfortunately some very poor trainers out there. However, there are also terrible dentists, police officers, or bakers. When you happen to encounter a bad professional, you don't stop using those services altogether; you simply seek out someone of higher quality. It's the same with trainers. I'm sorry to see you generalizing and immediately judging the entire profession. These things we are bickering about are mere details and matters of philosophy. No matter how much we foam at the mouth here, I suspect we all get a little satisfaction from writing these posts, because at the very least, it keeps our brains working and thinking.

Regarding your situation with the instructor, I don't necessarily agree that she *must* know everything, but I do agree she should have stated that she couldn't adapt to your specific problem and that you were proceeding at your own risk. I often have people come to me with ten different doctor's reports, expecting me to tell them exactly what they can and cannot do. That is where I draw the line. Quite frankly, I admit when I don't know something, because I refuse to gamble with someone's health. Many times I have said, "I don't know, I'm not sure, please seek a second opinion," or offered to help them find one. So, I can guarantee you that not all trainers are the same. 🙂

I have worked with three overweight clients, and all of them had to provide written medical clearance before we started. I specifically requested EKGs, blood work, and other diagnostics (like blood pressure readings) because I have no desire to injure anyone and ruin my reputation.

urbanwalker72 said:Without pointing fingers at anyone in particular, let me ask this: honestly, how many of you—whether you’re personal trainers, gym coaches, or whatever you call yourselves in practice—actually take the time to assess whether a client is even physically healthy enough to be training in the first place?

Do coaches even send anyone to a doctor first? If I had to guess, they’d say not a single soul has ever handed a trainer a set of medical results just to prove they have a doctor's clearance stating everything is fine.

Furthermore, I’d venture to say that at least 90% of the population is struggling with postural issues. It seems to me that most adults working desk jobs in places like Chicago or New York—anyone over the age of 30—deal with almost pathological immobility. You see it everywhere: stiffness, lack of flexibility, pelvic tilts, and just about every other postural misalignment imaginable.

I find myself speculating once again: absolutely none of them bother with corrective exercises before they start jumping straight into heavy bench presses and bicep curls. Heaven forbid someone like that attempts a deadlift or a back squat; thankfully, those aren't nearly as trendy as the other movements found in most local fitness centers.

And that actually aligns perfectly with the idea that people carrying extra weight can still benefit from interval training. It’s logically consistent with everything else we've discussed above. If there is no oversight or regulation involved, then nothing is being managed at all—nobody is being held accountable for anything.

That’s just how things work around here.

Unfortunately, you're right; very few coaches actually follow all of these principles, but I certainly don't claim to be one of them. Of course, I don't know everything—I’m not ashamed to admit that—but when it comes to things like scoliosis, lordosis, kyphosis, pelvic tilts, or even X-patterns, I feel quite confident in my ability to approach and correct those issues. If I encounter something I don't understand, or if a structural deformity is so severe that I wouldn't dare touch it, I will refuse to train that client, no matter how much they insist.

Regarding interval training, I honestly think you might be working with some misconceptions here. Let me pose a specific question to clear things up: why on earth wouldn't someone perform interval training if they were previously overweight but have since received medical clearance? If the individual has stabilized their blood pressure within a normal range, shows no underlying cardiac issues, and—even though their resting heart rate is elevated—is under constant, professional heart monitoring during the session, what exactly is the objection?

Look, I know she’s been dealing with some health issues lately, but honestly, every single metric tells me she’s more than ready for the physical workload. I’ve been closely monitoring her heart rate during training sessions, keeping a sharp eye out for any subtle signs of fatigue, and we’re talking constantly about this. My main goal is helping her learn how to actually listen to what her body is telling her before she pushes too far.
Of course, this isn't that high-intensity interval training where you’re pushing 80-100% of your max heart rate. I'm talking about something more like a light circuit—maybe two or three minutes of a gentle stroll, followed by 30 seconds of an exercise to bump the pulse up to the 65-75% range, then back to walking until the heart rate settles, repeating that for maybe 15 to 20 minutes. What could possibly go wrong there? I won't pretend to be perfect; I don't follow the protocol to the letter every single time. For instance, she showed up to our session once having just finished a cup of coffee (seriously!?) and her resting heart rate was already sitting about 20 beats higher than it should have been. Naturally, I didn't push her through any of the actual drills I had planned; we just kept things incredibly mellow and spent most of the time just chatting away.