agreed with that, I don't like things like pushups or squats because form goes to pot or there is not the same level of constant stimulus.
:good That's why I'm doing it Fed up doing 5 mile a day and not shifting any weight, can't hurt changing and trying something new!
If you want to lose weight, do steady state fasted light cardio, i.e 45 minute walk on an empty stomach first thing in the morning. If you want to lose slightly less fat but increase your fitness, don't have the time or inclination, or training specifically for a sport which involves lungs, then intervals are great.
Pretty much both work but in different ways. Best is steady state fasted this has been proven many times. For performance athletes HIIT works better for a multitude of reason (i.e muscle loss isn't large anyway with HIIT but in small quantities it doesn't matter if the end performance improves, which is the goal, and it probably would with HIIT instead of steady state) but for strictly aesthetic purposes steady state fasted works optimally. But it's boring and takes time, and discipline, to wake up an hour earlier than you do. 10 minutes of blasting sometime later in the day is far more appealing. Bottom line, end of the day, cards on the table, blue sky, if you do SOMETHING it is better than nothing, for definite. Most people won't really notice a huge difference musculature wise between the two, and most people will notice some fat loss with either method, if done consistently. it's not a weekly thing. the fatter you've let yourself be for as long as you have, the longer it will take to get into good shape. If you want to be athletic, fit and reasonably lean, do HIIT. If you want to be as lean as you could be with preserving muscle, for aesthetic or health reasons, with some fitness benefits on a low level, do fasted steady state.
Truer words are seldom spoken. People get so caught up in the bull**** they seem to forget that as long as you're busting your arse every session, and doing it consistently, you're going to see results.