I don't understand

If low intensity cardio burns more fat than carbs for fuel, what makes cardio good for fat burning?

I mean how is that different than your normal daily activities? Wouldn’t adjusting your calories to below maintainence have the same effect?

Yes, I know that a higher intensity will burn more calories for the same time period (though a higer percentage from carbs) and raise matabolic rate so you burn more calories at rest and all that and yes I know about HIIT, etc. etc.

If the answer is just elevated calorie expendature, wouldn’t walking or weight training be even better?

Unless you are doing it for cardiovascular health or glycogen depletion, is there any benefit to low intensity cardio when cutting?

When cutting, it just speeds up your metabolism so you “cut” faster. It can also have recuperative effects, as it increases blood flow to your muscles.

Well, let’s see:

  1. It increases insulin sensitivity
  2. It mobilizes fat and burns free fatty acids
  3. It will build a more extensive network of capillaries, which allows for better nutrition for working muscles and better removal of waste and lactic acid
  4. It improves blood flow to the brain (i.e., it’s mentally energizing)
  5. Subcutaneous fat is lost/reduced via exercise (visceral fat is lost via a caloric/dietary deficit)
  6. It has reduced my resting heart rate (i.e., the cardiovascular benefits you alluded to)

I’m sure others will be able to stop by with other benefits.

Increased aerobic enzymes, allowing the body to mobilise and burn greater volumes of fat. However it will also increase intramuscular fat stores.

A7, you’re not the only one that doesn’t understand. Many in the past have sworn by doing no cardio during a phase geared towards fat loss. While their logic may have been flawed (i.e. “I hate cardio”), there is a very simple physiological explanation behind it that makes sense: Aerobic and Resistance training send two very different stimuli/signals to the muscle cell and, subsequently, stimulate synthesis of different proteins.

For example, aerobic training stimulates synthesis of mitochondrial proteins, whereas resistance training stimulates synthesis of actin and myosin proteins.

However, there are many valid reasons to support energy system work during all phases of training for physique-oriented athletes (excluding PLs). Tampa T spewed a laundry list of excellent adaptations and responses to energy system work.

Add on top of that that the type, time and intensity of training can incite a very beneficial hormonal environment for muscle maintenance/growth.

Thanks all for your input. TT and Timbo - always a pleasure!

But I think there is a slight misunderstnding of what I was trying to ask.

I like cardio and I’ve always done moderate to high intensity when I do cardio but I recently learned not too long ago that high intensity cardio burns more glycogen whereas low intensity cardio burns more fat and I’ve been confused ever since.

I guess my main question was How is low intensity cardio different from your daily activities or walking?

I can see all the benefits you listed from moderate to high intensity cardio but in terms of fat burning , how is low intensity cardio any different from your daily activities or walking? Is it even worth doing?

In other words, is low intensity cardio, “cardio”?

Damn. I’m flawed. :slight_smile:

Good Breakdown Tampa T…

  1. Subcutaneous fat is lost/reduced via exercise (visceral fat is lost via a caloric/dietary deficit)

TT, just curious as to where you got that information from. There are quite a few individuals that I know of who have no problem dropping subcutaneous fat (as measured via skinfolds) without incorporating cardio into their cutting phases. I’ve never seen any work that stated that, and empirically it doesn’t seem to be the case.

Also, I’ll just add that literature has proven that both diet and exercise is the way to go for fat loss w/o muscle loss. Straight up calorie restriction (even if it equals the same amount of calories that you burn during exercise) leads to more LBM loss than if the two were combined. Also, your metabolism is sure to crash a lot sooner if you aren’t exercising to sort of “tell” your brain that everything is okay and you’re just trying to shed some fat. Otherwise, your body will simply think you are malnourished and will hold on to fat much more so than when exercise is incorporated.

Joel

Hi A7,

Not sure what you would define as low intensity cardio. I do Fasted state cardio every morning for 45 minutes @ 75% of my max heart rate. I consider this to be low intensity. If I go much above 75% than I start to work to hard and start losing LBM. I don’t think the feeling I have at 75% of max heart rate can be equaled in daily activates such as walking or carrying things. Did I say that right or did I make it worse? I guess to recap for me: My resting heart rate is about 62 beats per minute and my max heart rate is 180. Low intensity for me is between 145 and 155 beats per minute. Which means I have to do more than just walk or move around, I got to work to achive that.

In Faith,
Colin

I agree with Joel. I can drop subcutaneous fat without any cardio. The only reason I do cardio is so I don’t have to cut my calories as harshly. I would rather eat a little bit more and do some cardio but I do hate it!!

Joel, honestly at this point I don’t remember. However, if you do a search for “subcutaneous visceral fat loss” you’ll get plenty of hits, some on point, some not. I found some PubMed references, too, but I’m not as good at analyzing PubMed as you are.

Below is something I found on Google, but I don’t know who did the study.

If I had been more awake when I posted, I would have used the word “preferentially.”


"Publishing their findings in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Japanese researchers have shown that dieting leads to a greater reduction in visceral fat ? the fat that protects your internal organs [1]. Exercise, on the other hand, has a greater impact on subcutaneous fat.

"The women in the study took part in a 13-week program that combined exercise with a restricted-calorie diet. One group followed the diet, combined with 1-2 days per week of exercise. Group two made no change to their diet, but exercised 3-4 days each week.

"Although both groups lost roughly the same amount of fat, the women who exercised for 3-4 days each week lost more subcutaneous fat than those who exercised only 1-2 days weekly.

"In the group who exercised more frequently, 6 of every 10 pounds of fat lost came from subcutaneous fat.

"In the group who exercised less frequently, less than 3 of every 10 pounds of fat lost came from subcutaneous fat.

"When the results of both groups were analyzed, the researchers found a link between exercise frequency and the loss of subcutaneous fat. In other words, the more often you exercise, the more subcutaneous fat you’ll lose. The minor effect of dieting on subcutaneous fat could explain why dieters can lose a lot of weight, but remain unhappy with their appearance.

A7, walking IS low-intensity cardio. I think all we’re probably talking about is a matter of degree. Washing dishes uses less (fat) calories than walking but more calories than lying in bed, watching TV. Not trying to oversimply things, here, but if you increase excercise intensity, you burn more fat and more calories.

I think what you’re referring to is that the higher the exercise intensity, the higher the PERCENTAGE of calories that come from glycogen. Even though more calories are burned and more fat utilized by doing HIIT, the PERCENTAGE of fat calories burned/utilized is lower.

I love both, longer-duration, moderate-intensity cardio and HIIT. They each provide different benefits. No need to choose an either or. You can do both.

If my carb intake and energy levels are low, I’ll do the longer-duration, low-to-moderate intensity. If time is of the essence and I want the biggest caloric and cardiovascular bang for the buck, I’ll do HIIT.