When I think of top level pro bodybuilding greats and conditioning, I think of long walks on a treadmill. Ronnie Coleman walking on a treadmill comes to mind.
Can we agree that for a natural lifter this is not the ideal way to burn fat and save muscle or add muscle while trying to lose fat?
Yet, we have real world evidence that this approach works great at conditioning for an assisted pro bodybuilder.
If we agree that countless assisted bodybuilding greats used this conditioning approach, but would not be recommended for a natural bodybuilder to follow this approach. Why would we think it would be a good idea to follow the assisted pro bodybuilders approach to muscle building and diet?
I don’t know if this thread will get much discussion cuz it is hitting on a topic that has been discussed over and over, but just didn’t know which thread to put this thought into.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
What is a better way to burn fat and save muscle?[/quote]
Sprinting or other similar conditioning work? Honest question, I really have no idea. I have only ever do low impact cardio (or no cardio/conditioning for fat loss).
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
What is a better way to burn fat and save muscle?[/quote]
Sprinting or other similar conditioning work? Honest question, I really have no idea. I have only ever do low impact cardio (or no cardio/conditioning for fat loss).[/quote]
Sprinting and hill runs are very quite tiring on the body and require you to eat a helluva lot of carbs to actually allow you to do them properly and recover from them.
Walking, on the other hand, does not. Once you get used to it, walking 3-5 miles quickly is not all that hard at all, both physically and mentally. It still burns fat though, but places very little stress on the body and doesn’t require carbs to do the work.
So, ya, walking>sprinting/hill runs/most intense conditioning work if you’re looking for fat loss and/or maximizing muscle gain while minimizing fat gain.
And it really shouldn’t be underestimated just how much stress doing conditioning work places on your body.
I’ve lifted 6x a week (Think SS made to be 6x instead of 3x, with deadlift remaining at 2x a week) along with walking 3-4 miles everyday while eating a diet with no intentional carb source added in besides two cups of milk every lifting day and an all you can eat carb day once a week. Never felt tired or exhausted. Strength went up well; would have gone up even better/more consistently if I knew things that I know now.
Until I started adding actual conditioning work. That more or less put a stop to things.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Are you asking about bodybuilders VS non-bodybuilders who lift for size and strength
OR
Bodybuilders VS drug free bodybuilders, both of who get on stage?[/quote]
bodybuilders vs drug free bodybuilders who are trying to get big and ripped, or add muscle and lose fat[/quote]
Drugs help recovery so those bodybuilders can put more stress on their body. Would a natural bodybuilder want to do something more stressful on the body than their drug assisted counterpart who is only willing to do the lowest intensity / least stressful cardio?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Are you asking about bodybuilders VS non-bodybuilders who lift for size and strength
OR
Bodybuilders VS drug free bodybuilders, both of who get on stage?[/quote]
bodybuilders vs drug free bodybuilders who are trying to get big and ripped, or add muscle and lose fat[/quote]
Drugs help recovery so those bodybuilders can put more stress on their body. Would a natural bodybuilder want to do something more stressful on the body than their drug assisted counterpart who is only willing to do the lowest intensity / least stressful cardio?[/quote]
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
What is a better way to burn fat and save muscle?[/quote]
100 yard Sprints and walk the curves. I understand adding walking to a lifestyle can have a positive effect on fat loss but it is not the best way to burn body fat.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
What is a better way to burn fat and save muscle?[/quote]
Sprinting or other similar conditioning work? Honest question, I really have no idea. I have only ever do low impact cardio (or no cardio/conditioning for fat loss).[/quote]
Sprinting and hill runs are very quite tiring on the body and require you to eat a helluva lot of carbs to actually allow you to do them properly and recover from them.
Walking, on the other hand, does not. Once you get used to it, walking 3-5 miles quickly is not all that hard at all, both physically and mentally. It still burns fat though, but places very little stress on the body and doesn’t require carbs to do the work.
So, ya, walking>sprinting/hill runs/most intense conditioning work if you’re looking for fat loss and/or maximizing muscle gain while minimizing fat gain.
And it really shouldn’t be underestimated just how much stress doing conditioning work places on your body.
I’ve lifted 6x a week (Think SS made to be 6x instead of 3x, with deadlift remaining at 2x a week) along with walking 3-4 miles everyday while eating a diet with no intentional carb source added in besides two cups of milk every lifting day and an all you can eat carb day once a week. Never felt tired or exhausted. Strength went up well; would have gone up even better/more consistently if I knew things that I know now.
Until I started adding actual conditioning work. That more or less put a stop to things.[/quote]
My understanding of the matter is that sprinting and hill sprints target ATP-CP system.
My understanding for the majority of IFBB pros choosing to employ steady state work instead of intervals (despite all the published studies on the efficacy of HIIT) was simply the extreme size they carry presenting a hazard to their joints should they jump all over the place on a regular, carb depleted basis.
Personally, even though I prefer doing shorter sprint sessions for my own cardio, I still recognize that long sessions of steady state work will also burn calories while being performed.
I’ve done some intense sprinting on eliptical machines where they’ve almost toppled over, and I’m nowhere the size of even some of the 212 competitors.
[quote]magick wrote:
Sprinting and hill runs are very quite tiring on the body and require you to eat a helluva lot of carbs to actually allow you to do them properly and recover from them.[/quote]
This, plus the general wear and tear that can come from a 250+ pound body doing high impact cardio/intervals. Add in the anti-catabolic nature of some AAS (bypassing a common issue with long duration, steady-state cardio), and low intensity work wins for assisted pros, hands-down.
A natural lifter needs to give more consideration to muscle preservation when it comes to fat burning and the if/when/how of cardio. Just like a natural lifter would likely not thrive on the type of high intensity-high volume-high frequency lifting program an assisted lifter may use, they won’t necessarily reap the same rewards from mimicking their methods of cardio.
[quote]magick wrote:
Sprinting and hill runs are very quite tiring on the body and require you to eat a helluva lot of carbs to actually allow you to do them properly and recover from them.[/quote]
This, plus the general wear and tear that can come from a 250+ pound body doing high impact cardio/intervals. Add in the anti-catabolic nature of some AAS (bypassing a common issue with long duration, steady-state cardio), and low intensity work wins for assisted pros, hands-down.
A natural lifter needs to give more consideration to muscle preservation when it comes to fat burning and the if/when/how of cardio. Just like a natural lifter would likely not thrive on the type of high intensity-high volume-high frequency lifting program an assisted lifter may use, they won’t necessarily reap the same rewards from mimicking their methods of cardio.[/quote]
Wrong, Chris. Naturals can do anything an assisted lifter can do. ANYTHING! Any perceived differences steroids might provide should never be talked about, mentioned, or even thought about. NEVER, EVER.
I know there are experienced guys out there that have used steroids and admit there are differences in how they could train when they were on gear as opposed to when they were off. BUT, some guy on the internet that says he’s natural said there is no difference. So I’m going to go with my gut and take his word for it.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just like a natural lifter would likely not thrive on the type of high intensity-high volume-high frequency lifting program an assisted lifter may use, they won’t necessarily reap the same rewards from mimicking their methods of cardio.[/quote]
I agree with most of what you wrote…except this and only the way it is written. The problem with this statement is the fact that no, not all steroid users or even most would find “high intensity-high volume-high frequency lifting” to be optimal. Too many pros using Dogg Crap to arrive at that conclusion.
This again comes down to the genetics of the individual.
What you wrote about overall body weight is spot on and that goes for natural or assisted.
Another factor might be the drug assisted bodybuilder may not want to put high levels of stress on his/her heart due to the effects of some of these drugs on hypertension and/or heart enlargment. Maybe more of a factor early in the prep when they are at their largest and perhaps still on “wet” compounds.
[quote]magick wrote:
Sprinting and hill runs are very quite tiring on the body and require you to eat a helluva lot of carbs to actually allow you to do them properly and recover from them.[/quote]
This, plus the general wear and tear that can come from a 250+ pound body doing high impact cardio/intervals. Add in the anti-catabolic nature of some AAS (bypassing a common issue with long duration, steady-state cardio), and low intensity work wins for assisted pros, hands-down.
A natural lifter needs to give more consideration to muscle preservation when it comes to fat burning and the if/when/how of cardio. Just like a natural lifter would likely not thrive on the type of high intensity-high volume-high frequency lifting program an assisted lifter may use, they won’t necessarily reap the same rewards from mimicking their methods of cardio.[/quote]
Wrong, Chris. Naturals can do anything an assisted lifter can do. ANYTHING! Any perceived differences steroids might provide should never be talked about, mentioned, or even thought about. NEVER, EVER.
I know there are experienced guys out there that have used steroids and admit there are differences in how they could train when they were on gear as opposed to when they were off. BUT, some guy on the internet that says he’s natural said there is no difference. So I’m going to go with my gut and take his word for it.[/quote]
You are such a hater.
It’s silly to insinuate that naturals cannot train the same as assisted bodybuilders.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just like a natural lifter would likely not thrive on the type of high intensity-high volume-high frequency lifting program an assisted lifter may use, they won’t necessarily reap the same rewards from mimicking their methods of cardio.[/quote]
I agree with most of what you wrote…except this and only the way it is written. The problem with this statement is the fact that no, not all steroid users or even most would find “high intensity-high volume-high frequency lifting” to be optimal. Too many pros using Dogg Crap to arrive at that conclusion.[/quote]
For sure not all pros lift with high volume and high intensity and high frequency, but the bigger point I was getting at (and I think one that the OP was wondering about) was that it’s understood that lifters on steroids will benefit from types of training that would be considered “excessive” for natural lifters.
Yes, most people in the gym could probably build up to training with more volume, intensity, and/or frequency than they currently are, but I think it’s safe to say that even the most experienced natural lifter would not see results on a training program that was specifically-designed for an assisted lifter.