Cardio Is Anabolic! : Part 1

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

Mufasa, it’s great you decided to bring this topic up now as I have been having an internal war with myself as to whether or not I should be doing aerobics right now. Many gurus are saying no to them, but I just plain feel better when I do some. Much moreso than going carbless and doing none. My past experience has been that if I overdid it my legs would shrivel, but if I did a moderate amount I got harder and held a pump longer. I’ve done martial arts for over 15 years and could never grow when I was training like a madman (and yes martial arts are aerobic; i.e. sparring), but benefited with moderate training. Moreover, 20 minute jogs always did the trick. I even noticed the results by playing basketball once or twice a week. Though arguments can be made that that has explosive movements in it as well. Bottom line is I was healthier and happier when I did a moderate amount, even if it was just running the bases once a week.
My best guess is that aerobics mixed with explosive movements(what’s that new buzz-word, Iso something?) can stimulate hormones way differently than weightlifting, that can lead to a metabolic shift, and be a great compliment. Look at wide-recievers. Sprints can be considered anearobic but there’s plenty of wind required to stay in a game, and if you add them on top of eachother it is a significant cumulative effect.

I think I’m going to go back to 3 20 minute treadmill sessions per week. If antyhiing I know it helps my recuperation time.

AW

22

For me cardio is the worst thing I can do if I want to gain mass. I am a hard gainer, and on top of that, I am on my feet 8-10 hours a day. I have enough trouble putting down 3000 calories a day(you would think it would be easy being a chef, and around food all day, but I’m lucky if I have time to eat even one meal)let alon the 3500 to 4000 that I need to gain mass. If I did cardio, I would wither away. I think that it is totally dependent on a persons bodytype.

23

What is the best method to determine the truth of theories about training? I suppose most will suggest that we try the theories out and see if they work. It is my belief that the theory must be wrong if it doesn’t work. Or you have to come up with some explanation why it did not work.

For example, how do we define concepts? Like “intensity”. It is something we all seem to know but it is not so easy to define so that scientists can measure it.

Someone suggested that I had a holier than thou attitude. The holier bit is depending on science and a proper method before I accept explanations about phenomena. The method is holier, not me! We are all going to stick with our pet theories until they either don’t serve us any more or are proved wrong.

Now, pray tell when was the last time you saw anyone declare that their theory about getting big was mistaken? That is why everyone who has succeeded in building some muscle feels he knows how to do it. His theories worked. Thus he knows what he is doing and there is a certain amount of pride in attaining a marked degree of hypertrophy.

It is not possible to build huge muscles without following at least part of the correct theory in your training and nutrition programs. It is possible for an individual to do things but have no idea of any theory that he is following. He just gets in the gym and works out heavy.

What is difficult to do is to isolate factors and determine what each is contributing to the overall success. If one is simultaneously training, supplementing, and resting in specific ways it is difficult to say which things are making the gains happen. Yes, of course we have to get the whole enterprise right or nothing will happen.

An example. Suppose we know that vitamin C is important to recovery. So we take additional vitamin C via a supplement. How are we going to know if this is being effective or how much to take? The truth is most take plenty “just to be sure”. That is some sort of method I suppose but hardly an accurate one. Unless someone kept a log on all factors it is unlikely that he will be able to know if any factor is making a difference.

When it comes to bodybuilding there are heaps of factors working at the same time. It is way too complicated to be able to know what is going on in the body.

We hear the statement that everyone is different. Yet how do we know that? Does anyone have different processes inside cells? How would we know? All the really technical and detailed internal workings are opaque to the brain unless scientific experiments are done to find out what is going on. It is after we have information and facts about our systems that we can apply that information.

In the current debate about including cardio for growing muscle we have a typical example of how things are decided in gyms. Do we look at the literature and speculate if we cannot find an answer? Or do we think about it and weigh everything on our individual experiences? If the latter occurs then science is virtually irrelevant and everyone is an expert because the test for correctness is correlation with what works for particular individuals. With this sort of method there is unlikely to be anything approaching a scientific method to build muscle.

Is the answer about using aerobics that some can use it and others not? Well, it is clear that most young, active men have a hard time eating enough calories to put on weight. They are unlikely to grow if they include more activity even if it would assist growth. That assistance will be lost because the individual cannot benefit because of not being able to create a positive nitrogen balance because of a lack of calories.

What we want to determine is if everyone would benefit from aerobics if everything else was optimal. Or are there differences among populations that would not allow this to happen?

24

Vince Basile 2002-04-11 03:59:23
“Are we going to settle a physiological question with arguments? What is required is controlled studies.”

I disagree with this. If we want studies any one of us can go do a medline search and find them. The reason I frequent many forums is so I can get a little anecdotal evidence of what MIGHT be a good idea to incorporate into my training based on others experience. If I feel it MIGHT be beneficial I will try it and see how MY body reacts.

=w=

25

It’s interesting that you suddenly question the premise that we are all different and what my work for one, may not work for another. Weren’t you the guy that claimed fat people cann’t work out like us and lose weight and get in shape because they’re different from us and what works for body builders doesn’t work for fat people? I’ve met your kind before. Instead of having true beliefs to stick to, you continuely want to change your tune to accomidate your current “argument”, just for the sake of arguing. You have no true beliefs and constantly change your view point in a lame attempt to discount every body else and stroke your own ego. And as to calorie consumption to maintain positive nitrogen balance, there are lean, hard gainers with a fast metabolism that may have difficulty with energy consumption and then there are people with slower metabolism that need to burn extra calories, so training and diet turns into a very individual thing. And if that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t need personal trainers as we could all just train the same “scientifically proven” way and all gain the same amount of hypertrophy. And by the way, whether cardio actually may or may not benefit hypertrophy for any one individual is not relevant as cardio definately has other important benefits to health and longitivity, that if ignored, is only to the detriment of the individual - case in point - take a good look at the health of your fat friends.

26

The great thing about this site is that we are all gym rats trying different things to see what works. When we find something good, we post the info. This may or not work for someone else , but if it worked for one person it may work for another so you give it a try. If it does not work you try something else. Since every ones different what good is a scientific study? The only way to find what works for you is to experiment on yourself. This site/forum can not give a person definitive answers to what works, but it can give you paths to follow. Nice to have you back Vince, hope you are ready to challenge us this tiime.

27

“It’s interesting that you suddenly question the premise that we are all different and what may work for one, may not work for another.”

There are principles of physics that operate in bodies. There are also individuals who differ from on another in important ways. I doubt that we process energy foods differently in our cells. I presume cells function the same in all humans.

What is clear is that everyone has a different heredity. How we differ from one another isn’t clear.

Following scientific principles about hypertrophy doesn’t imply that everyone will be doing exactly the same thing. They will be applying the same theory that will incorporate different things for different people. However, I don’t personally believe that everyone has to do substantially different things. They have to work out until a stimulus will trigger training effects. It may well be that individuals will need to do somewhat different things to cause growth to occur.

“Weren’t you the guy that claimed fat people can’t work out like us and lose weight and get in shape because they’re different from us and what works for body builders doesn’t work for fat people?”

I was reporting what fat people say. I also believe that losing fat isn’t as easy as many bodybuilders think. As a matter of fact it is obvious most bodybuilders can’t keep it off after contests, either, and most bulk up again.

“I’ve met your kind before. Instead of having true beliefs to stick to, you continually want to change your tune to accommodate your current “argument”, just for the sake of arguing. You have no true beliefs and constantly change your view point in a lame attempt to discount everybody else and stroke your own ego.”

This is a personal attack and not worthy of a serious scientific discussion. It seems to me that you are pulling out all stops to “win” your argument. I most certainly post my beliefs and theories. You either do not comprehend them or are disagreeing and trying to dismiss them. I need arguments not insults.

“there are lean, hard gainers with a fast metabolism”

Yes, these lean hard gainers. Where is the evidence to prove that someone is a hardgainer? Is this some physiological property or just the guys who in fact fail in getting big? I don’t buy that hard gainer theory. It begs the question. Anyone who has trouble growing is labelled a hard gainer. That is not being scientific. There are reasons why some do not grow and it is unlikely to be because they don’t respond to resistance training. Oh, I have see the legions of failures who train in gyms. But they aren’t possessing any quality called hard gainer.

“And if that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t need personal trainers as we could all just train the same “scientifically proven” way and all gain the same amount of hypertrophy.”

Personal trainers vary as far as qualifications go. Most know very little at all. Look at the standard to qualify as a gym instructor. It is not very high. It is obvious that having someone push us is going to result in more gains than stopping short on our own.

“And by the way, whether cardio actually may or may not benefit hypertrophy for any one individual is not relevant as cardio definitely has other important benefits to health and longevity, that if ignored, is only to the detriment of the individual - case in point - take a good look at the health of your fat friends.”

All exercise can benefit everyone. Bodybuilders have traditionally had low aerobic capacity. That has changed over the years because the routines are very demanding. However, building muscle and getting fit are not the same thing. It all depends what we want to be fit for.

Before you cast stones at fat people, many of whom have health problems, have a look at the bodybuilding community. What a disgrace to see what so many are recklessly doing to their bodies. Drugs, diuretics, you name it. Okay, not everyone does these things but bodybuilders are not the epitome of fitness and health. They should be. They could be. But few seldom are. I am referring to competing non-natural bodybuilders.

I haven’t got the time to post serious arguments just for the sake of arguing. It is always refreshing, Heb, to hear the opinion of a true expert.

28

“There are also individuals who differ from one another in important ways. I doubt that we process energy foods differently in our cells. I presume cells function the same in all humans. What is clear is that everyone has a different heredity. How we differ from one another isn’t clear.”

"there are lean, hard gainers with a fast metabolism" Yes, these lean hard gainers. Where is the evidence to prove that someone is a hardgainer? Is this some physiological property or just the guys who in fact fail in getting big? I don't buy that hard gainer theory. It begs the question. Anyone who has trouble growing is labelled a hard gainer. That is not being scientific. There are reasons why some do not grow and it is unlikely to be because they don't respond to resistance training.

If some people put on fat easily, then couldn't some keep it off easily?.No one said that the hard gainer does not respond to resistance training, rather that they require a higher amount of calories to maintain body mass. I am a perfect example.

29

Hmmmmms. Okay makes sense to me on a variety of levels. Come to think of it when I made my best gains ever I was doing cardio…so my question is for mass gains how much cardio and more important when? On workout days or not? :slight_smile:

30

Okay…some mid-thread thoughts:


1)No big disagreement about the anabolic qualities of cardio.


2)For MOST people, cardio should be part of their overall program. (see below).
3)Different “types” of cardio certainly have different effects, and those effects differ from person to person.


4)For the TRUE hardgainer (emphasis on TRUE; NOT someone who eats and trains poorly and then says they are a “hardgainer”)cardio may need to be lessened, maybe even eliminated? (Still up for discussion? For some, maybe not…)


Two additional points


1)I think that it’s interesting that what J.B. presented a few weeks back had two different approaches for two different goals: putting on mass and losing fat.


2)To nkeago: I think that the answer to your question is much like diet and fat loss. There is no “one-size-fits-all” answer (at least with all that I’ve read). I think we have to a)pick a goal b)institute a cardio program, based on current knowledge, that will help us reach those goals THEN c)adjust based on the way our body responds.

31

I am willing to begin a “cardio experiment” on myself. Just to see what type of effect it would have on my development - especially where I’m at now (age, length of training, etc.). See? Mufasa, you made me think about this. However, I ain’t gonna do the treadmill - no way. I’ m going to stay with the rowing machine and/or stairstepper. Less chance for me to lose valuable leg mass.

One thing I would like to say is that I think some people easily mistake what is really anaerobic exercise for aerobic exercise. I distinguish the two by equating "aerobic" with "distance, long term" and "anaerobic" with "short bursts of intensity". Boxing, martial arts require anaerobic strength. Anaerobic activity in the past has always gotten me lean and hard (along with a weight training routine). NOT aerobic activity. But I guess I'll find out if this is still true. (Oh, and am I on the right track here?)

32

Patricia, while it’s true that martial arts, and boxing are typified by short bursts, the training that goes into it however, includes large amount of both aerobic and anaerobic activity. I’ve done a little full-contact fighting, boxing, and typical asian/martial arts (though they do not fall into this category as much), and trust me, if you have no wind you won’t last. Thus, there are heavy aerobic drills, that include and preclude explosive activity. Light blows to a heavy bag for 15 minutes, for instance, is definately very earobic. Jumping rope with intervals of speed bad, is DEFIATNELY very aerobic. Sparring becomes anaerobic after 5 minutes or so, unless you are going a light, controlled, steady pace… If you’re going by a typical “karate” class, you’re more correct. However, if you’re talking about boxing and kick-boxing “training” (and I don’t mean that tae-bo shit), there’s anything from jogging to bag work. Great stuff. I didn’t have an ounce of fat on me back then, but I couldn’t put on much size. In fact, a good alternative to treadmill or stairmaster, is some light bag work. It’s only anearobic when it’s fargmented with numerous intervals and/or when you start getting out of breath continually.
Of course there’s the old oxygen deficit training principle, bu that’s a whole other thread!..:slight_smile:

33

Yes , if you spar for more than 15 to 20 minutes then it would aerobic, but who does that? Three minute rounds are pretty much the standard, with a one minute rest in between. not really enough time to get the lungs burning if you have been doing your road work. The point is that aerobic work is for a sustained amount of time. 15 to twenty minutes with no pause. Actual fight training is done in three minute rounds with one minute rest intervals. If you can kick a heavy bag for 15 minutes, then you are not really gaining any benefit from a fighting standpoint, just working your lungs. Thats what the road work is for. Heavy bag work , rope jumping, speed bags, and focus pads, are for developing speed, power and coordination, which will be needed for 3 minutes, maybe 4. Doing these drills any longer is useless, and woud fall into the "Tae bo " category.

34

Aerobic vs. Anaerobic - What is the difference?

There are very few events that can be labelled solely aerobic or anaerobic. A 40 yard dash can be considered almost totally dependant on anaerobic metabolism, whereas running a marathon (at non competitive speeds) is almost totally reliant on aerobic metabolism.

Activities such as sparring, basketball, or any type of minimal rest interval or Fartlek training are totally reliant on both aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. The aerobic metabolism is the constant supplier of energy. It supplies your base of energy and supplies the much needed oxygen to tissue during breaks or periods of low intensity. Throughout these activities there are frequent bouts of intense activity, where the much extra energy cannot be supplied quick via aerobic mechanisms and we then rely on anaerobic metabolism to supply the extra energy. Basically, a graph of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism vs. time of a boxing match or basketball game would look like a mountain range with periods of high consumption and periods of lower consumption. The aerobic graph would be a little smoother and form the base of the graph and the anaerobic component would be much more jagged and would sit on top of the aerobic base. (I really wish I had a chalkboard right now).

The reason that boxing, martial arts, interval work, etc. is primarily labelled as anaerobic work is because it is much more stressful to the system and require a greater energy expenditure in a shorter period of time. It is also harder to recover from. But, there is still a huge component that aerobic metabolism plays in providing energy for these activities.

Activities such as jogging, bike riding or working out on most cardio machines are labelled primarily aerobic, because most people don't venture past the threshold that requires significant anaerobic metabolism.

Every activity is on a continuum. You can walk (aerobic totally) or you can all out sprint (almost totally anaerobic). Of course you can walk forever, but all out sprint for about 100 yards at the most. What you have to figure out is how to find the best middle ground. Personally, I like to use Fartlek training where I work out a fairly rigourus aerobic pace for my base and jump in and out of my anaerobic area. For example, I'll go out for a run at 6-7 mph, but through in sprints from a certain landmark to another landmark. The list is endless, but to label something as totally aerobic or totally anaerobic when talking about "cardio" is only likely to confuse everyone.

Just remember that everything is on a continuum.

35

Hey, thanks for that post. And wish you did have that chalkboard. Anywhoos - I’m wondering now, do we need to rethink perhaps, Meltdown Training? The idea of that program is that aerobic training causes a increased catabolic response and that anaerobic training will take your body into the other direction, a heightened anabolic response. Do we need to rethink this? I’m just curious, because the Meltdown Program actually seems to be my type of routine. Mostly anaerobic, encouraging me to grow/maintain muscle while also getting lean. W/out the “wasteful” effects of the dreaded aerobic exercises…

Again, thinking out loud.

36

Man, the forum is keeping me busy today :slight_smile:

No, I don't think you have to rethink Meltdown training. Meltdown is going to tax both your aerobic and anaerobic systems.

Alessi's main point about aerobic work is that it does not build muscle and takes away from the ability to build muscle and recover well. True to a certain extent, but it is a very harsh generalization. That is his perspective and many people agree and many of us (including me) don't completely agree with him.

In reality, I'm not sure what to rethink. Meltdown training is fiercely anaerobic, but also causes a huge increase in aerobic metabolism during the work sets and rest periods.

This increase in aerobic metabolism is not going to be catabolic or cause an inability to build muscle, but I also don't think Meltdown is a very good program to build muscle. Well, it looks like I'm being pretty harsh on the program, which is kind of odd because that is what I'm doing now. So here are my thoughts on Meltdown:

It burns a ton of calories and revs up the metabolism for hours after the workout.

It works the muscles hard enough to create a growth stimulus, but not to the extent that a normal high volume hypertrophy program with normal rest periods produces.

It takes the right kind of diet to work well. Either you take in a decent quantity of carbs or you learn how to use BCAA's and glutamine.

Word is still out on the lactic acid/GH thing in my opinion, but I'm looking into it. How important is timing and peaking of natural GH - I don't know. It could be, but I'm not sure.

Well that is it. Hope it helps! Sometime when we head up north toward Portland, we'll (my wife and I) will have to have dinner with you and KO. I'll bring a big pad of paper and a bunch of markers; you guys can provide the food.

37

Sounds like a plan! :wink:

38

I for one can remeber sparring far more than a round, in the are of 15 minutes or so in some instances. A round is a round, but you don’t have to inhibit your sparring. If you’re doing a Mui Thai (Tai boxing) type sparring, you are sometimes going for body conditioning more than anything, but in the whole you’re right, no one spars for 15 to 20 minutes at a healthy clip too often. It is however done (though not in typical boxing I admit) in some instances depending on your training.
Road work will give you the bulk or your aerobic training, true, but not exlusively. That and isn’t road work PART of you fighting trainging regime, as I conteded??

I presonally used to like to kick a heavy bag for 15-20 minutes (if even in intervals mixed with punching) for leg endurance and contitioning. Running alone won’t give you that, and that late round explosiveness. Though I’m not saying to kick yourself into a coma. So though I never would rely on bag work for aerobics, you have to admit under certain conditions it does add to your wind. I’ve seen guys that can run 3 miles at a good speed get winded after 10 kicks. Granted they don’t breath right. So what I’m saying is, there are aerobic benefits to alot of your fighting training. Of course the focus of bag work is power and speed, but many look to it as a form of overall condition too (i.e. bare-handed bag work).
As far as the typical karate classes making you kick and punch the air for a half hour, yeah that’s tae bo’ish. But not what I’ve described above. And if you do bag work, cycled with jump rope, and focus mit drills, you can’t tell me there’s no cumulative aerboic effect. THough when you’re in the panting stage it definately becomes anearobic.
Again, I assert the anaerobic/aerobic mix. I think it’s a no-brainer,but it will vary depending on if your a boxer, kickboxer, knockdwon (Oyama) fighter, or even a grappler.

39

AW: I listen to and trust Ko more than any other martial artist. Especialy about training for a fight, tournament. Reason being - he’s been there. In both tournament and full contact events. And has done more than just “hold his own”. And I have used bag training as my form of “cardio” while prepping for bodybuilding contests. It was the best in terms of muscle sparring for me.

However, I did train via "boxing rounds" and that is how we train whenever we spar. I'm sure Ko can elucidate further on the training specifics required for either martial arts (especially combat martial arts) and boxing. But if you read Jason Norcross' posts above - they also explained beautifully the aerobic and anaerobic "issues".