That is a medical fact that doing 150mins of cardio a week decreases risk of heart related issues by like 30% or something like that. If anyone cares, they can google it, but the number of decrease was very BIG. And doing more, decreased it even more.
And if one doesnt care for that, then…for losing weight doing cardio allows you to eat more cake and lose fat anyways. But for those who bulk, it helps with digestion and metabolism, so one can eat sooner and more and utilize what he ate much better.
Not doing cardio has absolutely NO benefits. Just lifting and not doing cardio is like going to a whorehouse for a hug.
I’d bet in the event of a heart attack, the guy doing the cardio has a better chance of survival too.
Another benefit that hasn’t been mentioned, is that even a little bit of cardio can decrease the amount of time needed between sets. Also, not feeling like dying after a set of squats or deadlifts is nice too.
Planning for weight loss through calorie deficiency can be a good option for the beginners. Initially, reducing your food intake will help you reduce your weight. But soon the process of weight reduction slows. Moreover, this can create nutrient deficiency.
On the other hand opting for cardio can appear to be the best option but it’s not the case. If you are doing cardio but not reducing your food intake then you will not lose weight.
Thus, the best option is that you can check your BMI using the A2Z BMI tool. Now depending on your BMI you can make a plan that involves both calorie deficiency and cardio to reduce weight.
The thing about knowledge and experience is to keep on studying and then offering better info as the time goes.
As a martial arts instructor, i sometimes hear : “hey, 3 years ago you said a different thing” and im like… “well yea, three years ago that was the consensus in the world of fighting, but now we have found a better way”.
A good trainer is a person who actually says different stuff every 3-5 years because it means he studies his art more and more and adapts to the latest science and methodology.
A small problem with what you often comment is that you just come in and say stuff you did 40 years ago and just leave it there. The fact is, no matter the fact that cars were also moving forward in 1950s, the ones nowdays are better. Its not about the fact that you didnt die at 50 and you won something in 70s, its about the fact - can you adapt to NEW information and give advice based on a critisism of your own methods decades ago?
What you shouldnt do is just leave your comment out there as an argument against me saying how cardio is important. What you should do, is follow the research and science, become better at your knowledge and methods and then you can say “i did this, but i believe its better to do this”.
Also winning a show is not an argument against doing cardio. Most times people who are good at something are not good at it because of what they do but in spite of what they do.
You did get a win in spite of doing stuff thats now mostly could be considered obsolete - its all fine, but why do you keep on pushing it and just ignoring the friggin science of the last 40 years? a lot has changed. Read up on it. Study. Critique yourself and give better advice
Unless you still live exactly the way you did in the 70s, drive the same car, watch the same TV, whatever you did then, is not a good advice or worth much in a form of comment, outside a biography or just a topic where people read about how you did things or how they were done in the 70s. Its a completly different genre.
You threw out this cute sound bite. I find it an extreme hyperbole.
There are a multitude of competitors who could excel in bodybuilding and never do cardio.
When I competed in the 1990’s I used cardio to cut for a show. Most competitors were doing that by then.
Science is continually advancing. But it is seldom flawlessly accurate. Especially the biological sciences concerning humans. I am not saying that cardio isn’t good for a person’s health. Or am I saying a person should not do cardio.
What I should say on this forum is what I am an expert in. I speak of my experiences. Take it or leave it. I do not speak up for science. Science speaks for itself. Sadly, science finds itself correcting itself too.
I don’t agree with the adaptation part. I know what you mean but i always found it weird. If an engine needs X amount of gas to drive Y amount of distance then how is going that distance 1000 times suddenly change the fuel requirements?
The adaptation might come in some minimal % in account of becoming more efficient but if adaptation would be significant then runners wouldnt eat ridiculous amounts of calories. Someone skinny is running long distance for 10 years, why he still eats carb gels while running and 10k calories after?
I think its a bit over exaggerated. Me or you walking an incline for 20mins will never adapt to it enough that caloric expenditure goes from lets say 300kcal to 100… Its not possible for a grown mans body to need so little for that no matter the adaptation. As soon as you are somewhat familiar with the movements, there cant be a significant adaptation.
I think the myth might come from people who dont actually measure work they do. In a deficit we just get slower, move less, lean on objects more during the day. Then go for a run, run slower and thats where the myth came from. As soon as you know the movement i don’t see how you can do same work and expend less calories. Its just that expending same calories might feel easier.
Lets say you do stairs for 20min and your HR is 150 on avg. Then sure, when you adapt to 120 on avg, you spend less kcal. But if you do those stairs for 120 on avg for years, the chance that you will see avg HR of 90, is zero. You just dont adapt so much anymore.
I have been doing similar cardio for years and the HR difference is 5 beats at most. Which means like 10kcal for a 20min period at most. I just dont see how i could adapt so much that it doesnt even make sweat anymore therefore burning noticably less kcal.
The crazy adaptation might come for those who havent done cardio and are really gassed at first. But for someone doing similar intensity for 3 months, there is no where to adapt anymore. It takes what it takes to do the activity.
I would have to cut eventually even if i did a slow bulk. Cutting is inevitable. Heart disease is only exasperated here because a lot of forum users or pro bodybuilders are on gear.
Most naturals that are healthy will not have to worry about heart disease unless it runs in the family.
If you arent doing cardio and then add it in, you will lose weight. If youre trying to say diet matters more, you would be right. But your comment didnt imply that?
I am not disagreeing with you here. That is correct.
A point I’d like to make though is that eating that one wrong thing is not as bad (in the context of losing weight) if you had done your calorie burning cardio before hand.
Some people seem to miss this stuff. It’s kinda the mindset of people who make fun of someone for getting a big mac meal with a diet coke. They see giving up the coke for a diet coke as silly. It’s a small reduction in the meal’s calories, so it shouldn’t even be bothered with. I disagree with that. You very likely reduced that meal’s surplus calories by half.
I find for myself that when I am being good, and doing my cardio that I am less likely to eat the really high calorie dense items. It doesn’t seem worth it when I just was sweating for 30 minutes.
That doesn’t logic doesn’t apply for everyone. Some do the opposite of me. I think it is the “I deserve a treat after working hard” thinking.
This could also be a compromise for a person on an insulin management diet. Granted the Big Mac is a poor choice with the bread, but cutting out the sugar with a Diet Coke helps some.
(That said, water would be a much better choice)
I started doing an activity at a certain weight, for a certain time and had never done it before.
After a period of time, I became better at it, more efficient, and weighed less.
The number of calories I burned doing that thing for the same amount of time would seem to be less.
Everything you said makes sense. Once I reach a point of stable weight and no longer get more efficient at the thing, the amount of energy I expend doing it will no longer change.
I am not convinced water is that much superior to a diet coke. In some circumstances sure. Maybe one can’t have caffeine for example.
I guess I have not been convinced that the other things like artificial sweetener, acids (I’ll give you, this is probably bad on teeth), or other ingredients are all that bad for someone. I’d be open if there was evidence on this.
From what I remember, diet drinks would have to be consumed at a level that exceeds what a normal human would do for the artificial sweetener to have much negative impact.
I also saw a study in which diet drinks (sweet ones) were compared to water only for weight loss in obese people. The diet drink group lost more weight, and kept more off after a year. I think the reason for this is that they satisfied their sweet cravings with something without calories. The water group was more likely to give in to other sweets. Just my hypothesis on that.
I think diet drinks are a great hack that most people struggling with weight should use. I really like ocean spray 5 calorie (prefer it over the regular stuff). I probably drink a gallon of that a week.
I have no science to back any of this, but it has been my practice to “touch all the bases.” Ingesting extra non nutritional chemicals to satisfy my taste is a poor reason, IMO. I have full control over my fleshy desires. At least to the point that I can prioritize them, and pick and choose which best benefit my goals.
Clearly, if you are confident that artificial sweeteners are harmless (when I say harmless, I mean there is zero insulin response), then I find no fault in your decision.
