Repost? Why women shouldn't do alot of cardio
Options
Replies
-
Here is a rebuttal to the piece in the OP:
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/how-does-endurance-training-affect-your-thyroid-and-vice-versaOkay, okay, I’m done. The reason I went through these 11 studies so exhaustively is because this is such a prime example of someone making a totally unambiguous claim (“studies demonstrate beyond a doubt...”), citing a pile of studies, and then apparently assuming that no one will actually look at the studies. In this case, I don’t know if it’s deliberate misdirection, or if the guy simply didn’t have access to the full text of the studies he’s citing, or just couldn’t be bothered to read them – but the result is the same.
Bottom line is that the author of the orginal blog post did not read (or understand) the references he cited. T3 levels may drop initially on starting exercise (or upping intensity) but they soon normalize. If you add additional stress to your body (by not eating enough) T3 can stay low. Which is why MFP recommends eating back exercise calories. But just not eating enough can have the same effect on T3: it's the under-eating that does it, not the exercise.
tl;dr - don't get your science from blog posts.0 -
One recent thing I've done.
I had my macros set at 1 lb/week. But as I got closer to my goals, it started to get really tough. I actually adjusted my macros to 1/2 lb per week. This actually UPPED my calorie allotment. In theory, I should gain right?
But in reality, I was able to be more honest about my logging. I've tried to be more diligent about my logging also.
I still log my strength training under cardiovascular. As I double and triple set and I train for 60 min. It has to be burning something. But this site only adds around 200 calories or so for lifting. Not much but its something. I'm also trying to do more cardio.
Since adjusting, I've been able to see the weight SLOWLY start creeping down again. Could be I'm better/more honest about logging. It could be I'm actually eating closer to what I actually log (vs cheating and not logging). It could be that extra cardio is the difference. I don't know.
Without knowing your weight etc...I'll assume you have your calorie deficit set to high? I think this site works but you have to be ultra honest about logging the calories0 -
Thanks Richard!
I would have to say that a lot of people waste a lot of time at the gym. For instance, I used to spend over an hour an a half on weight circuits. Now I'm doing NROLFW, I'm in and out in just under 30 minutes, because I'm not doing peripheral crap that doesn't get me where I want to be.
Same thing with cardio. All of us know women who spend inordinate time doing it EVERY DAY and worrying about how to get more in. I'm still getting major increases in running speed and efficiency (because I'm new) doing about 2 and a half hours of running *a week*. And I experienced awesome weight loss and terrific muscle gain in my legs at the same time. (my thighs are like iron).
I spend 3-4 hours a week on my body, and that's sustainable for me. I'm very happy with my results so far.
Training stupid is a waste of time. But we knew that already.
Jeff - I'm a complete newbie runner, but I'm loving the Runner's World "SmartCoach" training plan. It's tailored to you and very efficient.0 -
Here is a rebuttal to the piece in the OP:
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/how-does-endurance-training-affect-your-thyroid-and-vice-versaOkay, okay, I’m done. The reason I went through these 11 studies so exhaustively is because this is such a prime example of someone making a totally unambiguous claim (“studies demonstrate beyond a doubt...”), citing a pile of studies, and then apparently assuming that no one will actually look at the studies. In this case, I don’t know if it’s deliberate misdirection, or if the guy simply didn’t have access to the full text of the studies he’s citing, or just couldn’t be bothered to read them – but the result is the same.
Bottom line is that the author of the orginal blog post did not read (or understand) the references he cited. T3 levels may drop initially on starting exercise (or upping intensity) but they soon normalize. If you add additional stress to your body (by not eating enough) T3 can stay low. Which is why MFP recommends eating back exercise calories. But just not eating enough can have the same effect on T3: it's the under-eating that does it, not the exercise.
tl;dr - don't get your science from blog posts.
QFT!!!0 -
Thanks for sharing your experience. I am struggling myself with MFP logging - it seesm to calculate my calories at a near starvation level, my lifting workout counts for zilch calories (or near zilch) and I am told it overstates cardio - so I guess I have to take all numbers with a pinch of salt (which if I log in, will surely show my sodium intake as too high!!) - and hope that the process of logging will add to increased compliance.
This is a question that the moderators should answer, but my experience was that my activity level was set for sedentary because I work a desk job. However, this underestimated my BMR numbers I got from hydrostatic testing, so I adjusted my activity level to reflect the more accurate BMR.0 -
Here is a rebuttal to the piece in the OP:
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/how-does-endurance-training-affect-your-thyroid-and-vice-versaOkay, okay, I’m done. The reason I went through these 11 studies so exhaustively is because this is such a prime example of someone making a totally unambiguous claim (“studies demonstrate beyond a doubt...”), citing a pile of studies, and then apparently assuming that no one will actually look at the studies. In this case, I don’t know if it’s deliberate misdirection, or if the guy simply didn’t have access to the full text of the studies he’s citing, or just couldn’t be bothered to read them – but the result is the same.
Bottom line is that the author of the orginal blog post did not read (or understand) the references he cited. T3 levels may drop initially on starting exercise (or upping intensity) but they soon normalize. If you add additional stress to your body (by not eating enough) T3 can stay low. Which is why MFP recommends eating back exercise calories. But just not eating enough can have the same effect on T3: it's the under-eating that does it, not the exercise.
tl;dr - don't get your science from blog posts.
I'll read the article. But the original one mentions women pigging out and then doing 2x the cardio to combat it. so the implication there is that it's not under eating. Not unless they are doing so much cardio that its putting them at a too high of a deficit.0 -
Here is a rebuttal to the piece in the OP:
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/how-does-endurance-training-affect-your-thyroid-and-vice-versa
tl;dr - don't get your science from blog posts.
Interesting you say that because that rebuttal:
Let me start this blog.............0 -
Here is a rebuttal to the piece in the OP:
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/how-does-endurance-training-affect-your-thyroid-and-vice-versaOkay, okay, I’m done. The reason I went through these 11 studies so exhaustively is because this is such a prime example of someone making a totally unambiguous claim (“studies demonstrate beyond a doubt...”), citing a pile of studies, and then apparently assuming that no one will actually look at the studies. In this case, I don’t know if it’s deliberate misdirection, or if the guy simply didn’t have access to the full text of the studies he’s citing, or just couldn’t be bothered to read them – but the result is the same.
Bottom line is that the author of the orginal blog post did not read (or understand) the references he cited. T3 levels may drop initially on starting exercise (or upping intensity) but they soon normalize. If you add additional stress to your body (by not eating enough) T3 can stay low. Which is why MFP recommends eating back exercise calories. But just not eating enough can have the same effect on T3: it's the under-eating that does it, not the exercise.
tl;dr - don't get your science from blog posts.
I'll read the article. But the original one mentions women pigging out and then doing 2x the cardio to combat it. so the implication there is that it's not under eating. Not unless they are doing so much cardio that its putting them at a too high of a deficit.
Well, that comment was highly anecdotal (and the plural of anecdote is NOT data). He may have seen them pigging out one day, and then did not see them starving the rest of the week.0 -
Here is a rebuttal to the piece in the OP:
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/how-does-endurance-training-affect-your-thyroid-and-vice-versa
tl;dr - don't get your science from blog posts.
Interesting you say that because that rebuttal:
Let me start this blog.............
Bonus points for spotting the irony :drinker:
But go read the actual papers if you don't believe the RW post. Here are the abstracts of 2 of them.Induction of low-T3 syndrome in exercising women occurs at a threshold of energy availability.
Loucks AB, Heath EM.
Source
Department of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens 45701-2979.
Abstract
To investigate the relationship between energy availability (dietary energy intake minus energy expended during exercise) and thyroid metabolism, we studied 27 untrained, regularly menstruating women who performed approximately 30 kcal.kg lean body mass (LBM)-1.day-1 of supervised ergometer exercise at 70% of aerobic capacity for 4 days in the early follicular phase. A clinical dietary product was used to set energy availability in four groups (10.8, 19.0, 25.0, 40.4 kcal.kg LBM-1.day-1). For 9 days beginning 3 days before treatments, blood was sampled once daily at 8 A.M. Initially, thyroxine (T4) and free T4 (fT4), 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (T3) and free T3 (fT3), and reverse T3 (rT3) were in the normal range for all subjects. Repeated-measures one-way analysis of variance followed by one-sided, two-sample post hoc Fischer's least significant difference tests of changes by treatment day 4 revealed that reductions in T3 (16%, P < 0.00001) and fT3 (9%, P < 0.01) occurred abruptly between 19.0 and 25.0 kcal.kg LBM-1.day-1 and that increases in fT4 (11%, P < 0.05) and rT3 (22%, P < 0.01) occurred abruptly between 10.8 and 19.0 kcal.kg LBM-1.day-1. Changes in T4 could not be distinguished. If energy deficiency suppresses reproductive as well as thyroid function, athletic amenorrhea might be prevented or reversed by increasing energy availability through dietary reform to 25 kcal.kg LBM-1.day-1, without moderating the exercise regimen.
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8160876Induction and prevention of low-T3 syndrome in exercising women.
Loucks AB, Callister R.
Source
Department of Biological Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens 45701.
Abstract
To investigate the influence of exercise on thyroid metabolism, 46 healthy young regularly menstruating sedentary women were randomly assigned to a 3 x 2 experimental design of aerobic exercise and energy availability treatments. Energy availability was defined as dietary energy intake minus energy expenditure during exercise. After 4 days of treatments, low energy availability (8 vs. 30 kcal.kg body wt-1.day-1) had reduced 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (T3) by 15% and free T3 (fT3) by 18% and had increased thyroxine (T4) by 7% and reverse T3 (rT3) by 24% (all P < 0.01), whereas free T4 (fT4) was unchanged (P = 0.08). Exercise quantity (0 vs. 1,300 kcal/day) and intensity (40 vs. 70% of aerobic capacity) did not affect any thyroid hormone (all P > 0.10). That is, low-T3 syndrome was induced by the energy cost of exercise and was prevented in exercising women by increasing dietary energy intake. Selective observation of low-T3 syndrome in amenorrheic and not in regularly menstruating athletes suggests that exercise may compromise the availability of energy for reproductive function in humans. If so, athletic amenorrhea might be prevented or reversed through dietary reform without reducing exercise quantity or intensity.
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/84986020 -
The article wasn't posted a statement of absolute. But others to view from someone looking at the other side. Who would think that too much cardio would be a detriment to weight loss? Or not eating enough would be a detriment to weight loss?
For all the semantic discussion about T3 levels, you have people here that cardio themselves to death and wonder why they aren't improving. Either from too much cardio or not enough calories. Or BOTH. Too much cardio AND not enough calories. Both could bring about a too large of a calorie deficit that the body sees as stress.0 -
I wonder if the supposed negative benefits of cardio counterbalance the positive things that arise from having a good level of cardiovascular fitness........0
-
I wonder if the supposed negative benefits of cardio counterbalance the positive things that arise from having a good level of cardiovascular fitness........
Probably not. But the author is targeting the more extreme examples.
I'm no expert and this is very unscientific, but I've seen this one woman on the elliptical every time I'm at the Y. Comes in, does her elliptical for about 1 hour, gets covered in sweat and leaves. Now it's almost impossible to see changes visually and only more drastic changes are noticeable. But this has been going on for months (if not close to 6 months+). And I haven't seen any changes. Not knowing what her goals/diet are, again it's tough to guage. But only to say that IF her goal is weight loss, she's almost wasting her time. If her goal is cardiovascular fitness, she's doing okay. But hasn't improved much over time. If her goal is maintenance, she's right on schedule0 -
The article wasn't posted a statement of absolute. But others to view from someone looking at the other side. Who would think that too much cardio would be a detriment to weight loss? Or not eating enough would be a detriment to weight loss?
For all the semantic discussion about T3 levels, you have people here that cardio themselves to death and wonder why they aren't improving. Either from too much cardio or not enough calories. Or BOTH. Too much cardio AND not enough calories. Both could bring about a too large of a calorie deficit that the body sees as stress.
Seemed pretty absolute to me! It was titled "Why Women Should Not Run". But the science says it's not the running (or ANY particular form of exercise) that causes stalling - it's the lack of calories to sustain a healthy metabolism at any given activity level. Running (despite the title) is not the enemy. Under eating is.
It should really have been called "Women and Men Who Want To Lose Weight Should Make Sure They Are Eating At A Reasonable Calorie Deficit (And Lift Weights If They Want To Maintain Lean Body Mass)". But that isn't quite as catchy, is it?0 -
The article wasn't posted a statement of absolute. But others to view from someone looking at the other side. Who would think that too much cardio would be a detriment to weight loss? Or not eating enough would be a detriment to weight loss?
For all the semantic discussion about T3 levels, you have people here that cardio themselves to death and wonder why they aren't improving. Either from too much cardio or not enough calories. Or BOTH. Too much cardio AND not enough calories. Both could bring about a too large of a calorie deficit that the body sees as stress.
Seemed pretty absolute to me! It was titled "Why Women Should Not Run". But the science says it's not the running (or ANY particular form of exercise) that causes stalling - it's the lack of calories to sustain a healthy metabolism at any given activity level. Running (despite the title) is not the enemy. Under eating is.
It should really have been called "Women and Men Who Want To Lose Weight Should Make Sure They Are Eating At A Reasonable Calorie Deficit (And Lift Weights If They Want To Maintain Lean Body Mass)". But that isn't quite as catchy, is it?
If it's a calorie deficit and I think it's plausible, why it couldn't it be the cardio that's causing a too high of a calorie deficit??
If she is eating let's say 1500 calories but doing 600 calories of cardio, that puts her into the same condition as if she ate 900 calories that day. Maybe worse because of the stress of the cardio.
Not sure about your title as he talks about the women that do cardio only.0 -
I wonder if the supposed negative benefits of cardio counterbalance the positive things that arise from having a good level of cardiovascular fitness........
Probably not. But the author is targeting the more extreme examples.
I'm no expert and this is very unscientific, but I've seen this one woman on the elliptical every time I'm at the Y. Comes in, does her elliptical for about 1 hour, gets covered in sweat and leaves. Now it's almost impossible to see changes visually and only more drastic changes are noticeable. But this has been going on for months (if not close to 6 months+). And I haven't seen any changes. Not knowing what her goals/diet are, again it's tough to guage. But only to say that IF her goal is weight loss, she's almost wasting her time. If her goal is cardiovascular fitness, she's doing okay. But hasn't improved much over time. If her goal is maintenance, she's right on schedule
You also don't know what her challenges are. My best friend eats like a bird, teaches karate, and lifts but also needs to run in order to lose weight because of her thyroid.0 -
The article wasn't posted a statement of absolute. But others to view from someone looking at the other side. Who would think that too much cardio would be a detriment to weight loss? Or not eating enough would be a detriment to weight loss?
For all the semantic discussion about T3 levels, you have people here that cardio themselves to death and wonder why they aren't improving. Either from too much cardio or not enough calories. Or BOTH. Too much cardio AND not enough calories. Both could bring about a too large of a calorie deficit that the body sees as stress.
Seemed pretty absolute to me! It was titled "Why Women Should Not Run". But the science says it's not the running (or ANY particular form of exercise) that causes stalling - it's the lack of calories to sustain a healthy metabolism at any given activity level. Running (despite the title) is not the enemy. Under eating is.
It should really have been called "Women and Men Who Want To Lose Weight Should Make Sure They Are Eating At A Reasonable Calorie Deficit (And Lift Weights If They Want To Maintain Lean Body Mass)". But that isn't quite as catchy, is it?
If it's a calorie deficit and I think it's plausible, why it couldn't it be the cardio that's causing a too high of a calorie deficit??
If she is eating let's say 1500 calories but doing 600 calories of cardio, that puts her into the same condition as if she ate 900 calories that day. Maybe worse because of the stress of the cardio.
Not sure about your title as he talks about the women that do cardio only.
Thats why I said eat at a level that supports the level of activity that you are doing. If you are only netting 900 calories, you aren't eating enough. Again - it's not the cardio that is the enemy. Cardio is good for your CV system after all. Everyone should do some form of cardio. Just eat more! Eat back those exercise calories, or do TDEE - 20%. But don't be telling people to simply stop running. Educate them on nutrition and calorie intake instead.
And my title had a bit in parenthesis as it was parenthetical. i.e. not the main point, but implied. I think that everyone should do resistance training too. Maintaining LBM is a good thing. Getting stronger is a good thing. And all the other benefits that come from lifting heavy things up and putting them down again.0 -
Tagging...coz studies...0
-
Cardio *does* have significant health benefits. And articles like this make it seem all too black and white for me. How much cardio exactly is too much? Running 45 minutes 3 times a week? Probably not. Running (or other steady state cardio) for 6 hours or more per week? Perhaps.Studies—both clinical and observational—make a compelling case that too much cardio can impair the production of the thyroid hormone T3, its effectiveness and metabolism[1-11], particularly when accompanied by caloric restriction, an all too common practice.
In any case, it would be unwise to cut out all cardio activities completely.0 -
Cardio *does* have significant health benefits. And articles like this make it seem all too black and white for me. How much cardio exactly is too much? Running 45 minutes 3 times a week? Probably not. Running (or other steady state cardio) for 6 hours or more per week? Perhaps.Studies—both clinical and observational—make a compelling case that too much cardio can impair the production of the thyroid hormone T3, its effectiveness and metabolism[1-11], particularly when accompanied by caloric restriction, an all too common practice.
In any case, it would be unwise to cut out all cardio activities completely.
And the point that the articles made was that the cardio impaired production *only* when paired with calorie restriction.
And how much outdoor running is really "steady state" enough to cause this problem even under conditions of calorie restriction? Does this mean that you should do the elliptical rather than the treadmill indoors because you are likely to vary your speed more? Or should you just do interval programs?0 -
we evolved to run the equivalent of marathons. long distance running does not damage the human body, unless you fail to feed your body properly, and if you fail to feed your body properly, then the problem is undereating, and that's a problem whether you are sedentary or whatever kind of exercise you do.
the vast majority of women who are running excessively to try to lose weight are also not eating properly. I think you have to eliminate those people from these studies, and look only at women who run a lot and eat properly, and I think you'll find an entirely different picture is painted.
here's my blog post on this subject: http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/running-is-bad-for-you-because-what/0
