Looking for studies in regards to the title. The effectiveness for calorie burning in aerobic activity where higher heart rate in achieved and maintained vs. activity where heart rate doesn’t stay as high, and fatigue grows quicker.
If I’m running at a good pace (between a light jog and a sprint), I can get my heart rate up to 85%+ and maintain it for over an hour.
If I’m doing burpees, I’ll have to do burpees until near full exhaustion to get my heart rate up to 85%+. If I’m doing a burpee. plyometrics, and bodyweight circuit, I’ll pretty much remain in the 70-79% of max heart rate, but this is an activity I would not be able to perform for an hour. The same can be said for boxing, hitting the heavy bag. If I’m going at a pretty good pace, I’ll remain in the 70-79% range. Only ramping up in the 85% range if I’m doing a all out burst of power shots. Again, an activity I could not perform for an hour without having to dial down the pace.
Are their reputable studies in regards to the “bang for your buck” in the calorie burn in aerobic activity where your average heart rate is 85% vs. shorter length anaerobic activity where your heart rate is averaging around 70-75%? While there may be some crossover, this is more of questions regarding long steady state cardio vs. HIIT cardio. More aerobic activity such as running vs. anaerobic activity such as body circuits, plyometrics, boxing, etc…
Thanks for insight.