How does cardio cause muscle loss?
Replies
-
jeremywm1977 wrote: »It doesn't cause it, it just does little to prevent it, and in certain circumstances can increase it.
This probably sums it up best.
If you want to do only cardio like treadmill, elliptical, or running, and you enjoy it and can maintain such a routine, and such a routine has caused you to lose weight..........then great, you're already doing more than the next person doing nothing.
As far as the physiology behind your question. If, for instance, all you are doing is running, then over time you are going to become a more efficient runner. Unfortunately, your body is going to work to strengthen those muscles needed to run to create an improved economy of motion, but those muscles not used in your selected workout are going to atrophy.......you body will adapt to improve your selected method of exercise by burning the muscle no longer needed.
Yes, if you maintain a calorie deficit, you are going to appear more muscular-ish, but that is because the fat that previously covered those muscles is burning too.......it's kind of a lose/win.......you're burning fat, but you're also burning muscle which is probably a greater component in burning fat than that 30 minute run you just did.
In the end, do what you want, do what you can maintain and consistently do, and anybody who wishes to tell you you're doing wrong can just go away.
This was helpful too. I think what you're saying is that running strengthens leg muscles, but doens't really do anything for the muscles that aren't really used much in running. That makes sense to me, but wouldn't the same apply to strength training? Calves and quads come immediately to mind. I'm guessing that legs kind of get the short end of the stick in strength training.
Im not sure what program you are doing but it should definitely include leg work.
Running does not strengthen leg muscle beyond what it takes to run with your body weight which is not much.
0 -
perseverance14 wrote: »
You think so? Try squatting 200 lbs. then come back and tell me that again. I can't do as much cardio as I used to along with my lifting because my leg muscles don't recover from the lifting then, they need a break to recover, things like squats all leg muscles and compound exercises are full body. You talk like somebody who has never done it, or you would know that is not true.This was helpful too. I think what you're saying is that running strengthens leg muscles, but doens't really do anything for the muscles that aren't really used much in running. That makes sense to me, but wouldn't the same apply to strength training? Calves and quads come immediately to mind. I'm guessing that legs kind of get the short end of the stick in strength training.
Hey hey! I'm not looking for a fight, only understanding. I'm sure very serious people like yourself focus on their entire body, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that for most people, the legs are the bottom of the hierarchy when it comes to what is most important to them. I think this is especially true for guys. I don't hear a lot of people on here talking about how they want muscular thighs, but I do hear a ton of people talking about their abs and upper body. Just sayin'.
And you are right. I don't do free weights just yet. I mentioned earlier that I prefer running, but I do hit the weight machines three times a week. Even so, this isn't a question about how you or I workout. It's about how muscle is built and/or burnt off. People often take things very personally when others are speaking in generalities. I'm trying to stick with generalities as much as I can on this one.0 -
jeremywm1977 wrote: »It doesn't cause it, it just does little to prevent it, and in certain circumstances can increase it.
This probably sums it up best.
If you want to do only cardio like treadmill, elliptical, or running, and you enjoy it and can maintain such a routine, and such a routine has caused you to lose weight..........then great, you're already doing more than the next person doing nothing.
As far as the physiology behind your question. If, for instance, all you are doing is running, then over time you are going to become a more efficient runner. Unfortunately, your body is going to work to strengthen those muscles needed to run to create an improved economy of motion, but those muscles not used in your selected workout are going to atrophy.......you body will adapt to improve your selected method of exercise by burning the muscle no longer needed.
Yes, if you maintain a calorie deficit, you are going to appear more muscular-ish, but that is because the fat that previously covered those muscles is burning too.......it's kind of a lose/win.......you're burning fat, but you're also burning muscle which is probably a greater component in burning fat than that 30 minute run you just did.
In the end, do what you want, do what you can maintain and consistently do, and anybody who wishes to tell you you're doing wrong can just go away.
This was helpful too. I think what you're saying is that running strengthens leg muscles, but doens't really do anything for the muscles that aren't really used much in running. That makes sense to me, but wouldn't the same apply to strength training? Calves and quads come immediately to mind. I'm guessing that legs kind of get the short end of the stick in strength training.
There are two kinds of muscle - fast twitch and slow twitch. Distance running uses slow twitch muscle, essentially, you don't need much of it to propel your body at a steady pace for a long time. Fast twitch muscle is used for explosive movements, and can only fire for a short period of time. It is this muscle you are building when you lift weights.
Quite a good illustration of muscle types can be found in fish - if you cook a fish and peel the skin off, the dark flesh along the lateral line is its slow twitch muscle, the rest is fast twitch. The contrast between the two is particularly noticeable in salmonids if you want to look.0 -
prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
Ditto -- Mine was all fat too....
0 -
perseverance14 wrote: »
You think so? Try squatting 200 lbs. then come back and tell me that again. I can't do as much cardio as I used to along with my lifting because my leg muscles don't recover from the lifting then, they need a break to recover, things like squats all leg muscles and compound exercises are full body. You talk like somebody who has never done it, or you would know that is not true.This was helpful too. I think what you're saying is that running strengthens leg muscles, but doens't really do anything for the muscles that aren't really used much in running. That makes sense to me, but wouldn't the same apply to strength training? Calves and quads come immediately to mind. I'm guessing that legs kind of get the short end of the stick in strength training.
Hey hey! I'm not looking for a fight, only understanding. I'm sure very serious people like yourself focus on their entire body, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that for most people, the legs are the bottom of the hierarchy when it comes to what is most important to them. I think this is especially true for guys. I don't hear a lot of people on here talking about how they want muscular thighs, but I do hear a ton of people talking about their abs and upper body. Just sayin'.
And you are right. I don't do free weights just yet. I mentioned earlier that I prefer running, but I do hit the weight machines three times a week. Even so, this isn't a question about how you or I workout. It's about how muscle is built and/or burnt off. People often take things very personally when others are speaking in generalities. I'm trying to stick with generalities as much as I can on this one.
most people neglect legs but do not realize that legs actually work your whole body and that you actually release more growth hormone by working your legs which helps build more muscle mass...
AND working legs is hard work...0 -
prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
I wish I could have more muscles I've ever had w/o lifting anything0 -
prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
Ditto -- Mine was all fat too....
not sure if serious or not....0 -
SteveJWatson wrote: »jeremywm1977 wrote: »It doesn't cause it, it just does little to prevent it, and in certain circumstances can increase it.
This probably sums it up best.
If you want to do only cardio like treadmill, elliptical, or running, and you enjoy it and can maintain such a routine, and such a routine has caused you to lose weight..........then great, you're already doing more than the next person doing nothing.
As far as the physiology behind your question. If, for instance, all you are doing is running, then over time you are going to become a more efficient runner. Unfortunately, your body is going to work to strengthen those muscles needed to run to create an improved economy of motion, but those muscles not used in your selected workout are going to atrophy.......you body will adapt to improve your selected method of exercise by burning the muscle no longer needed.
Yes, if you maintain a calorie deficit, you are going to appear more muscular-ish, but that is because the fat that previously covered those muscles is burning too.......it's kind of a lose/win.......you're burning fat, but you're also burning muscle which is probably a greater component in burning fat than that 30 minute run you just did.
In the end, do what you want, do what you can maintain and consistently do, and anybody who wishes to tell you you're doing wrong can just go away.
This was helpful too. I think what you're saying is that running strengthens leg muscles, but doens't really do anything for the muscles that aren't really used much in running. That makes sense to me, but wouldn't the same apply to strength training? Calves and quads come immediately to mind. I'm guessing that legs kind of get the short end of the stick in strength training.
There are two kinds of muscle - fast twitch and slow twitch. Distance running uses slow twitch muscle, essentially, you don't need much of it to propel your body at a steady pace for a long time. Fast twitch muscle is used for explosive movements, and can only fire for a short period of time. It is this muscle you are building when you lift weights.
Quite a good illustration of muscle types can be found in fish - if you cook a fish and peel the skin off, the dark flesh along the lateral line is its slow twitch muscle, the rest is fast twitch. The contrast between the two is particularly noticeable in salmonids if you want to look.
Now that is very interesting. So...with this in mind I'm extrapolating that you simply have more room for muscle building if you focus on lifting and such because there is naturally more of that type of muscle (fast twitch) to start with, and you can demand more of it since you can increase weights as much as the muscles can handle. On the other hand, with running, you don't really tax the muscles past a certain need (strength-wise) no matter what distance you add (after a certain distance, of course). That is a good piece of info. The puzzle is starting to come together.0 -
already answered well, calorie defecit sets you up for muscle loss, lifting does much more to prevent you from losing it then cardio. plus cardio would increase your defecit.
its not really accurate to say that cardio eats muscle, but if your not eating enough then it can, more or less as a side effect, help contribute to muscle loss0 -
Is there a minimum of resistance/strength training that one needs per week in order to help maintain current muscle mass? I mean I know why I should do it, but I now prefer to run then lift weights. I was lifting 3 times a week months ago, but would 2 full body days be enough? Are body weight exercises enough when eating in a deficit?
you could probably get away with two. not considering a calorie deficit, your not supposed to lose performance if your working out with in 3 days of your last workout.
performance/strength isn't the same thing as mass... but my opinion is that the mass would last at least some what longer then the ability.0 -
prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
Impossible, especially at the age of 65. The likelyhood is you just see the muscle better because it isn't covered by fat. Otherwise, everyone who didn't lift would be stronger than people who do lift...no? lol0 -
uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
Impossible, especially at the age of 65. The likelyhood is you just see the muscle better because it isn't covered by fat. Otherwise, everyone who didn't lift would be stronger than people who do lift...no? lol
Don't rile up the old dude!...lol-1 -
uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
Impossible, especially at the age of 65. The likelyhood is you just see the muscle better because it isn't covered by fat. Otherwise, everyone who didn't lift would be stronger than people who do lift...no? lol
stop flaming!0 -
Legs only get the short end of the stick if you skip leg day.
I currently weigh about ~200 pounds and can just do 2 sets of 12 bodyweight one legged split squats (aka bulgarian squats), at least when I haven't strained my knees with other exercise. If I only maintain that ability and continue to lose weight, I will actually be lifting 50-70 lbs. less at the end of next year. Therefore, my body would realize that I don't need that muscle and as I continue to lose weight, I could lose some of that muscle.0 -
prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
Ditto -- Mine was all fat too....
not sure if serious or not....
Who cares? He/she is wrong.
And I know you know that, but I wanted you to know that I know, that you know. You know?
0 -
You can also target slow twitch muscles when lifting. It depends on how heavy you lift, your reps, etc. When lifting, you can consider whether or not you want to increase/maintain power, endurance, or strength. You don't always have to progressively overload.0
-
Thank you. I was just curious about that.No_Finish_Line wrote: »Is there a minimum of resistance/strength training that one needs per week in order to help maintain current muscle mass? I mean I know why I should do it, but I now prefer to run then lift weights. I was lifting 3 times a week months ago, but would 2 full body days be enough? Are body weight exercises enough when eating in a deficit?
you could probably get away with two. not considering a calorie deficit, your not supposed to lose performance if your working out with in 3 days of your last workout.
performance/strength isn't the same thing as mass... but my opinion is that the mass would last at least some what longer then the ability.
0 -
People who debate cardio vs. weights for fat loss often assume that the type of cardio has no strength component. Anyone who bikes or runs up steps hills is building lots of lower body strength and if you are kayaking you are building upper body strength. Dedicated lifting work outs are more efficient time-wise and do provide the opportunity to tackle more areas of the body in one work out.
Likewise lifting with a lot of compound exercises and little rest certainly feels a lot like cardio to me. Personally I think everyone should do both with the emphasis on cardio vs. weights depending on your goals. Weight lifting may be better at preventing muscle loss but both can be advantageous depending on the specific choices made. Certainly, both cardio and lifting enthusiasts are ahead of the average person who is lying on their coach gaining weight and losing muscle due to lack of use.
0 -
Thank you. I was just curious about that.No_Finish_Line wrote: »Is there a minimum of resistance/strength training that one needs per week in order to help maintain current muscle mass? I mean I know why I should do it, but I now prefer to run then lift weights. I was lifting 3 times a week months ago, but would 2 full body days be enough? Are body weight exercises enough when eating in a deficit?
you could probably get away with two. not considering a calorie deficit, your not supposed to lose performance if your working out with in 3 days of your last workout.
performance/strength isn't the same thing as mass... but my opinion is that the mass would last at least some what longer then the ability.
I am pretty sure I have seen a study that showed improvement with even one day per week but I dont remember where.
Here is a quote on the CDC site about a study done with 2 days per week on postmenopausal women.
"One 12-month study conducted on postmenopausal women at Tufts University demonstrated 1% gains in hip and spine bone density, 75% increases in strength and 13% increases in dynamic balance with just two days per week of progressive strength training. The control group had losses in bone, strength, and balance. Strength training programs can also have a profound effect on reducing risk for falls, which translates to fewer fractures." -http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/growingstronger/why/
I would still recommend more strength training than that but if you want to just do the bare minimum then 2 days might be fine.0 -
Good info thanks!mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »
Thank you. I was just curious about that.No_Finish_Line wrote: »Is there a minimum of resistance/strength training that one needs per week in order to help maintain current muscle mass? I mean I know why I should do it, but I now prefer to run then lift weights. I was lifting 3 times a week months ago, but would 2 full body days be enough? Are body weight exercises enough when eating in a deficit?
you could probably get away with two. not considering a calorie deficit, your not supposed to lose performance if your working out with in 3 days of your last workout.
performance/strength isn't the same thing as mass... but my opinion is that the mass would last at least some what longer then the ability.
I am pretty sure I have seen a study that showed improvement with even one day per week but I dont remember where.
Here is a quote on the CDC site about a study done with 2 days per week on postmenopausal women.
"One 12-month study conducted on postmenopausal women at Tufts University demonstrated 1% gains in hip and spine bone density, 75% increases in strength and 13% increases in dynamic balance with just two days per week of progressive strength training. The control group had losses in bone, strength, and balance. Strength training programs can also have a profound effect on reducing risk for falls, which translates to fewer fractures." -http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/growingstronger/why/
I would still recommend more strength training than that but if you want to just do the bare minimum then 2 days might be fine.
0 -
People who debate cardio vs. weights for fat loss often assume that the type of cardio has no strength component. Anyone who bikes or runs up steps hills is building lots of lower body strength and if you are kayaking you are building upper body strength. Dedicated lifting work outs are more efficient time-wise and do provide the opportunity to tackle more areas of the body in one work out.
Likewise lifting with a lot of compound exercises and little rest certainly feels a lot like cardio to me. Personally I think everyone should do both with the emphasis on cardio vs. weights depending on your goals. Weight lifting may be better at preventing muscle loss but both can be advantageous depending on the specific choices made. Certainly, both cardio and lifting enthusiasts are ahead of the average person who is lying on their coach gaining weight and losing muscle due to lack of use.
It has been mentioned on here a few times that cardio CAN have a strength component. You will adapt or maintain to the activity you are doing. To continue to adapt you would need to increase the intensity of the activity. Running would become sprinting or adding resistance with incline. So you are correct but doing that for any length of time would be near impossible to maintain. This is why you get crossover training methods like HIIT or circuit training. Trying to get the benefits of both with one exercise. Totally legit way to go about it.
I think most people are not talking about that when they says "cardio" though. They are talking about long bouts of endurance building calorie burning activities. A lot of evidence that this alone is not enough to stop muscle loss during a caloric deficit.
0 -
This should help as well. These are government physical activity guidelines - http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/guidelines/chapter4.aspx . You can scroll to the muscle strengthening section.0
-
prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
Please don't take this as flaming. I also believe it's rubbish that cardio causes muscle loss. But when your body was carrying about 100 lbs more every day, you likely had quite a bit of muscle. You probably couldn't see it because of the extra fat, but try wearing a 100 lb jacket and see how much extra effort it takes just to walk.0 -
You guys ever think about the movements in terms of range of motion? ie.. consider running and something like squatting (to proper depth) and deads (proper form). Much different range of motions and mucles used. I don't think you can equate the two in terms of a discussion about muscle retention0
-
Cardio is such a broad term. There are many exercises that are called cardio that also provide resistance.0
-
jeremywm1977 wrote: »It doesn't cause it, it just does little to prevent it, and in certain circumstances can increase it.
This probably sums it up best.
If you want to do only cardio like treadmill, elliptical, or running, and you enjoy it and can maintain such a routine, and such a routine has caused you to lose weight..........then great, you're already doing more than the next person doing nothing.
As far as the physiology behind your question. If, for instance, all you are doing is running, then over time you are going to become a more efficient runner. Unfortunately, your body is going to work to strengthen those muscles needed to run to create an improved economy of motion, but those muscles not used in your selected workout are going to atrophy.......you body will adapt to improve your selected method of exercise by burning the muscle no longer needed.
Yes, if you maintain a calorie deficit, you are going to appear more muscular-ish, but that is because the fat that previously covered those muscles is burning too.......it's kind of a lose/win.......you're burning fat, but you're also burning muscle which is probably a greater component in burning fat than that 30 minute run you just did.
In the end, do what you want, do what you can maintain and consistently do, and anybody who wishes to tell you you're doing wrong can just go away.
This was helpful too. I think what you're saying is that running strengthens leg muscles, but doens't really do anything for the muscles that aren't really used much in running. That makes sense to me, but wouldn't the same apply to strength training? Calves and quads come immediately to mind. I'm guessing that legs kind of get the short end of the stick in strength training.
What?0 -
prdavies1949 wrote: »Its a load of rubbish promulgated by those who like to pick things up and put them down again. I have lost over 100lbs and believe me that was all fat. I now have more muscle than I have ever had and I haven't lifted anything. (Stands back and waits for flaming)
Ditto -- Mine was all fat too....
not sure if serious or not....
Who cares? He/she is wrong.
And I know you know that, but I wanted you to know that I know, that you know. You know?
I know...0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »You guys ever think about the movements in terms of range of motion? ie.. consider running and something like squatting (to proper depth) and deads (proper form). Much different range of motions and mucles used. I don't think you can equate the two in terms of a discussion about muscle retention
What about things like burpees, mountain climbers, hiking or swimming?0 -
Is there a minimum of resistance/strength training that one needs per week in order to help maintain current muscle mass? I mean I know why I should do it, but I now prefer to run then lift weights. I was lifting 3 times a week months ago, but would 2 full body days be enough? Are body weight exercises enough when eating in a deficit?
I'm a big proponent of body weight exercises.......so much variety, so much more money in your pocket (money saved from not buying equipment or paying for gym memberships).
Pound for pound, nothing beats the push up or burpee, or perhaps the burpee push up. No weights needed for that beast........and you work your upper body, lower body, core, plus it's cardio. I absolutely love the Prison Cell Push Up from P90X.......look it up on YouTube (I checked, it's there) and give it a try.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »You guys ever think about the movements in terms of range of motion? ie.. consider running and something like squatting (to proper depth) and deads (proper form). Much different range of motions and mucles used. I don't think you can equate the two in terms of a discussion about muscle retention
What about things like burpees, mountain climbers, hiking or swimming?
Not sure people are pushing burpees and mountain climbers for endurance but they are definitely a strength builders up to a point. Getting to 50 burpees in a row is great but eventually is stops being a strength builder. Hiking and swimming will have the same limitations for adaptation that other forms of cardio will have. Eventually you will need to increase the resistance to continue to adapt. Just doing it longer wont have any additional strength building effect.
Again swimming laps for an hour is not the same as sprinting for time. Just like lifting a light weight a hundred times is not strength training. I think most people know the difference.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions