what was the difference in body fat in the end?
This is Duck: Pretty similar in the beginning, but as the diet progressed and lower BF% were attained, the HIT cardio session seemed to maintain BF%loss at a better rate with less muscle and strength loss, compared to the two others (low intensity cardio was a disaster for strenght, energy and muscle). The biggest difference were seen when the diet process had been ongoing for a long time and a very low BF% was attained, the HIT cardio seemed to play a pretty big role here. For some reason, the overall well being on the diet while doing HIT cardio was also quite a bit better than not doing it.
I need to revisit the old data to make more accurate percentage estimates, but the fat loss must have been at least 25-35+% (depending on the phase in the diet) better with less loss in strength and muscle mass. Again, especially at the end of a long diet, it really worked. For one of the HIT cardio diet periods, strength actually increased in conjunction with a more powerlifting based program, although this diet was not taken into the very low BF%.
All these numbers are based on caliper measurements, weight logs and daily dieting with a gram weight for months at the time. The data must still be taken with a grain of salt, as more accurate methods of measurement should have been used to get very valid + reliable data, plus what works for THE DUCK might not work well for other people. I have always been very explosive, always ran the fastest, jumped the highest in class ect without any direct training on it.
Compared to HIT cardio, the low intensity cardio diets were an absolute failure with less fat loss, and a lot more loss of muscle/power, and overall energy was in the toilet after the sessions, which made my obsession with the queen of sciences (my pussy) very hard to maintain. HIT cardio actually "gave" me power it felt like.
One note: The HIT cardio sessions were H.A.R.D. Puking was iminent many times, and after a session I had to lie down, and the entire body was aching severely. (but after this initial period of exaustion, the energy level really went up and other types of work could be done.)
I was given a study by a professional in the field that found that HIT cardio that showed that it did not work well without the body being pushed to its limit, and that you had to be in really good shape to be able to push your body into these territories in the first place.
One point: In the non HIT cardio rounds (especially the "only weights") the calories had to be reduced quite a lot to maintain the targeted weightloss, but in the HIT cardio rounds the weight loss were more consistent while not reducing calories much. Hit cardio was done 4 times per week then, and not in "Tabata style" (but a 12 minute program from hell on the running track).
THE DUCK can revisit the old data later and give more accurate numbers.
