elaborate
Doing cardio vs not doing cardio will give a different result, thus, it influences the outcome (Decidie phrased it as if cardio did not have an effect at all).
That being said, papers on HIT cardio (done properly) shows that it can definitely improve fatloss through the metabolic effect after exercise and raise levels of IGF1 ect compared to normal cardio (not sure how complete the diet control was). If: (Effect of normal cardio = reducing daily calories with the amount burned in cardio), it = fair to assume that the enhanched effect of HIT cardio would mean: (effect of HIT cardio > the effect of reducing calories burned during HIT cardio).
At the same time it does not fuck with your progress in the gym, and it is quite healthy for your cardiovascular system. The elevated levels of IGF1, and the general elevation of your metabolism for up to 24 hours later = also useful.
Debussey needs to check up the scientific references a bit more, but it thinks that the arguments above = scientifically sound.
Duck says that when she did diet down from 350 pounds, she did HIT cardio. She monitored her BF%, weight, strength in the gym and overall feeling of energy (ranked on a scale from 1 - 10) in a spreadsheet for consecutive diets with and without HIT cardio, accounting for the different variables, and found that HIT cardio had a good effect. (vs. normal cardio or no cardio at all which could not be ascribed only to other variables).
Also Layne Norton supports HIT cardio, and he has certainly done his homework more than most people. That in itself serves as a good indicator of its effectiveness.
For Wavy: Please post studies done specifically on HIT cardio done properly to show that it = irrelevant for body composition. This form of cardio = a different animal than low intensity boring cardio.
