This is something I’ve always wondered, but could never really find an answer (probably because everyone is different).
I know the general consensus among the majority of people these days regarding medium/low intensity cardio, is that it is simply a means of burning calories (as well as strengthening the heart and lungs).
I do agree that cardio like running or biking is going to build little (if any) muscle, unless you were previously a very sedentary person to start with.
I do “feel” however, that if you take someone who is on the smaller side (say 5’ 10" 150 lbs.) who does not participate in “much” physically (no cardio, weight training etc…), and then you take the same guy at the same weight who runs his ass off for an hour a day, that the guy who runs for an hour a day is going to be considerable leaner then the guy who doesn’t.
For example, my uncle was always on the skinny side (5’ 10" 150 lbs.), but ever since he starting running miles, he looks like he is carved out of stone, but his weight has remained the same. He was always reasonably lean (12% or so), but now he looks well under 10% bf for sure.
Now I’ve also heard of people who lost a lot of muscle doing cardio (usually bigger guys).
What are your guys’s experiences with doing cardio (running in particular), and body fat?
What are your guys’s experiences with doing cardio (running in particular), and body fat?
[/quote]
Prior to catching the weightlifting bug I used to run about 20 miles a week or so. I only weighed 135 pounds, but I’d be surprised if I had 7lbs of body fat. I was so lean that every time I’d step on one of those bio impedance body fat scales, it would give an error message when it tried to compute my body fat.
The thing is, I’m not really sure how much of that was due to genetics and how much was due to my exercise regimen. I’m current in the middle of a dirty bulk (I’ve gained 40 lbs since April 2008), but I can still see my abs even when I’m not flexing them.
I do “feel” however, that if you take someone who is on the smaller side (say 5’ 10" 150 lbs.) who does not participate in “much” physically (no cardio, weight training etc…), and then you take the same guy at the same weight who runs his ass off for an hour a day, that the guy who runs for an hour a day is going to be considerable leaner then the guy who doesn’t.
[/quote]
so your contention is that someone who is sedentary will most likely have a higher BF% than an active person? Brilliant!
I used to run marathons and ultras. I rarely ran less than 40 miles/week, and 50 to 60 was not uncommon. I usually did a long run once per week of 16 to 20 miles. This did NOT keep me lean, however. I ate lots of carbs because that’s what the conventional “wisdom” states. It wasn’t until I tried a low carb diet that I was able to get fairly lean.
I developed arthritis in several joints (result of old injuries) which eventually put an end to my long distance running. I had always lifted weights on and off, so I turned to that big time to fix my exercise jones.
I have found that a combination of lifting, other high-intensity exercises, along with steady state cardio and a low-carb diet are the best way for me to control body fat. I think I must either be an endomorph, or ultra sensitive to carbs, or both.
Running a mile only burns about 100 Kcal/mile extra above your basal metabolic rate, and it does not ‘rev up’ your metabolism like high intensity exercise. I found it made me hungry, as well as feeling that I ‘deserved’ a bagel, some pasta, and a few beers. One bagel and 3 lite beers cancels out a 6 mile run!
[quote]mathineer wrote:
I used to run marathons and ultras. I rarely ran less than 40 miles/week, and 50 to 60 was not uncommon. I usually did a long run once per week of 16 to 20 miles. This did NOT keep me lean, however. I ate lots of carbs because that’s what the conventional “wisdom” states. It wasn’t until I tried a low carb diet that I was able to get fairly lean.
I developed arthritis in several joints (result of old injuries) which eventually put an end to my long distance running. I had always lifted weights on and off, so I turned to that big time to fix my exercise jones.
I have found that a combination of lifting, other high-intensity exercises, along with steady state cardio and a low-carb diet are the best way for me to control body fat. I think I must either be an endomorph, or ultra sensitive to carbs, or both.
Running a mile only burns about 100 Kcal/mile extra above your basal metabolic rate, and it does not ‘rev up’ your metabolism like high intensity exercise. I found it made me hungry, as well as feeling that I ‘deserved’ a bagel, some pasta, and a few beers. One bagel and 3 lite beers cancels out a 6 mile run! [/quote]
Yeah, it definately sounds like genetics have the biggest impact here.
I usually stick with HIIT as a means of fat loss (400m and under runs), I was just curious to hear about other people’s experiences.
[quote]VibeAlive wrote:
If they don’t do much physically… no cardio/weight training… would that not qualify as sedentary??[/quote]
It depends on what your definition of sedentary is? I’m just talking about your average joe, who gets a little movement in at his job, but doesn’t dedicate any of his time to exercising.
[quote]Mcflurry wrote:
VibeAlive wrote:
If they don’t do much physically… no cardio/weight training… would that not qualify as sedentary??
It depends on what your definition of sedentary is? I’m just talking about your average joe, who gets a little movement in at his job, but doesn’t dedicate any of his time to exercising.
[/quote]
That is not the defining factor of how fat someone is. Genetics and lifestyle are at the base no matter who you are discussing in regards to metabolism and calories utilized.
I have known several lean skinny sedentary people who hardly do any exercise. They don’t overeat. They don’t have super slow metabolisms.
You don’t judge how fat someone is by how much work they do. There are powerlifters who work harder than any of us who are fatter than most of us.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mcflurry wrote:
VibeAlive wrote:
If they don’t do much physically… no cardio/weight training… would that not qualify as sedentary??
It depends on what your definition of sedentary is? I’m just talking about your average joe, who gets a little movement in at his job, but doesn’t dedicate any of his time to exercising.
That is not the defining factor of how fat someone is. Genetics and lifestyle are at the base no matter who you are discussing in regards to metabolism and calories utilized.
I have known several lean skinny sedentary people who hardly do any exercise. They don’t overeat. They don’t have super slow metabolisms.
You don’t judge how fat someone is by how much work they do. There are powerlifters who work harder than any of us who are fatter than most of us.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand exactly what the original question is, but here’s my take.
There has been a lot of antagonism toward steady-state cardio in the training community recently as people have jumped on the “HIIT” bandwagon. Alywn Cosgrove’s remarks in particular stand out in my mind; he has stated that steady-state cardio is basically worthless for fat loss (to paraphrase him).
I strongly disagree. It is possible to create higher caloric expenditures with aggressive endurance activity than with any other manner of training. A competent runner can easily burn well over 1,000 in an hour of running, and a lot of them run for well over an hour at a time. The critical consideration is that this requires a high degree of activity-specific fitness.
Now, whether such a regimen would be beneficial, or even possible, for a bodybuilder or strength athlete is an entirely different matter altogether. MOST TRAINEES do not have the fitness to run 10 miles a day, and should not do it even if they are able to, because it would be antagonistic to the goal of building muscle and strenght. If you are a bodybuilder, the amount of running or other exercise that is realistic for you is not enough to create much of a caloric expenditure. You might kill off a few hunderd calories per day at a cost to your muscular development, but nothing that is going to get you shredded.
The point? If your only goal is to burn calories, go ahead and run as much as you can without getting hurt, but if you are a bodybuilder, it is probably not going to get you where you want to be. Bodybuilders should focus on diet when leaning out rather than trying to purge huge numbers of calories through endurance exercise.
Started lifting 2.5 yrs ago for soccer whilst injured. Gained 18 lbs over the course of 7 months while not doing legs and messing around some with the ball for three months.
Then I started running again for soccer. Lost 21 lbs in a matter of 4 months. Granted I only went from 161-140, but the long distance running alternating with sprints/lactic running will absolutely annihilate muscle if not eating anough (was only eatin about 3000 cal/day at the time). But I was also very lean. While I do know that those electrical meters are inaccurate, I was measured a few times at about 4% bf.
It’s all about nutrition. Too much food and running might make you fat and weak. Too much food and running and lifting will make you leaner and stronger. Too little food and either activity or both will make you small and weak. The right amount of food and running will likely make you lean.
Running a few miles a week will never be a bad thing for a training individual, methinks.
[quote]Heavy-Duty wrote:
Cardio is ALWAYS a good idea. I do cardio 6 days a week for 45 minute sessions. Great for the most important muscle in the body: the heart![/quote]
[quote]Stength4life wrote:
Heavy-Duty wrote:
Cardio is ALWAYS a good idea. I do cardio 6 days a week for 45 minute sessions. Great for the most important muscle in the body: the heart!
I agree[/quote]
I don’t. If you have a very fast metabolism and are trying to gain size, doing cardio 6 days a week for 45minutes a session will put an end to that real quick.
There are people getting ready for contests who don’t do that much cardio every single week.
It depends on what your goals. The belief that more and more cardio is better and better for you is false.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stength4life wrote:
Heavy-Duty wrote:
Cardio is ALWAYS a good idea. I do cardio 6 days a week for 45 minute sessions. Great for the most important muscle in the body: the heart!
I agree
I don’t. If you have a very fast metabolism and are trying to gain size, doing cardio 6 days a week for 45minutes a session will put an end to that real quick.
There are people getting ready for contests who don’t do that much cardio every single week.
It depends on what your goals. The belief that more and more cardio is better and better for you is false.[/quote]
I totally agree with Professor X on the cardio issue. If you are looking to gain muscle, then six 45 minute sessions of cardio a week is insane. A few years ago I did four 45 minute sessions a week, and that was enough to seriously impede my progress.
Running for fitness while bodybuilding is going to make serious inroads into your recovery ability, very likely reduce the intensity of your lifting sessions, and burn nutrients and energy that would otherwise have been used to build muscle.
If that isn’t enough, you will be looking for progression in your running as well as your weight training. Both will suffer as a result.
Cardio for fat loss is a totally different animal: you will only be doing as much as necessary to get the job done, and you won’t be constantly pushing yourself to get ‘fitter’. It is a tool to be used over the short term.
You would never see a bodybuilder training for fat loss and muscle gains at the same time: one is always prioritized over the other. The reason should be obvious.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stength4life wrote:
Heavy-Duty wrote:
Cardio is ALWAYS a good idea. I do cardio 6 days a week for 45 minute sessions. Great for the most important muscle in the body: the heart!
I agree
[/quote]
These people and the “I do cardio for the most important muscle in my body: the Heart” blah blah blah…these are the same people eating highly processed foods and fail to use heart healthy supplements. At least this is what the general population does. Eating lean meats, veggies, fruits, taking fish oil, and resistance training is just as good for your heart if not better than what most of these people do. Shit, when you get done a set of heavy squats your heart is racing, if your heart rate is not elevated during your workout your training like a pussy.
Shit, when you get done a set of heavy squats your heart is racing, if your heart rate is not elevated during your workout your training like a pussy.
[/quote]
Exactly. When did weight training become so ‘unhealthy’ for the heart that some trainees absolutely have to supplement weight training with copious amounts of unecessary long duration cardio?
Any activity that involves physical exertion will work the heart. How does heavy lifting not fall into that category?