Repost? Why women shouldn't do alot of cardio
Replies
-
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 -
If the calorie deficit is the problem then cardio is related to that. However you get to that dangerous deficit has to be addressed. Whether you do LESS cardio (artlcle doesn't really say stop regardless of the title) or you have that person eat MORE.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/
It's not just about running. It's about stready state cardio. Some people run and eat too much and don't lose weight from the calorie in/out. Some eat not enough.
Personally, it would be alot easier to do less cardio to get your calorie count up to specifications vs eating more and wasting time in the gym. Unless you ENJOY running. But as you said, in this case, you state that people are running to lose weight, not for enjoyment.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/
It's not just about running. It's about stready state cardio. Some people run and eat too much and don't lose weight from the calorie in/out. Some eat not enough.
Personally, it would be alot easier to do less cardio to get your calorie count up to specifications vs eating more and wasting time in the gym. Unless you ENJOY running. But as you said, in this case, you state that people are running to lose weight, not for enjoyment.
I personally do very little cardio mostly because I don't enjoy it all that much. But I don't see why anyone who enjoys running (or any other cardio) should be advised not to. as for people who want to lose weight, running may or may not help, depending on the person, but in any case they need to be eating enough calories to support the exercise they're doing. Most women who run are undereating by huge amounts, e.g. eating only 1200 cals/day while doing 2+ hrs cardio a day (not eating back exercise calories). So yeah I pretty much agree with you. I'm just sick of all the stuff circulating around the internet saying cardio is bad.
btw from an evolutionary point of view, any steady state cardio the same argument would apply as for running, i.e. we evolved for steady state cardio. and we also evolved to be capable of becoming very strong and lifting and carrying a lot of weight. These arguments about the supremacy of one over the other are doing my head in. For ultimate fitness, you probably should do both. To stay healthy for life, do whatever you'll stick with. That's my take on it.0 -
I didnt say that. i didn't advise less cardio if you enjoy it. I made that distinction in the reply you quoted. Also the article specifically mentions losing weight. Not being healthy. Being healthy is actually another subject.0
-
But there are women (a lot of them) who are running because they think running, in and of itself, burns fat. And the second you try to tell them that they could burn fat a lot more efficiently by eating at a deficit and getting really strong by lifting heavy weights, they get defensive, and they don't want to hear it. I used to be the same way.
Sometimes repetition is key. I was in this situation with someone today. One day the light bulb will go off.
Or results. Your progress has been incredible
Some people also ask questions to which they are unprepared to accept the answers. I remember one thread from a woman asking how to get a body like Jamie Eason. The response from 1ConcreteGirl (with photos to show her results) was "lift heavy, this is what my results were."
Response? "Oh I don't want to lift heavy and get all bulky." Facepalm.....0 -
I am one of those who dislike cardio and cardio dislikes me - and after years of not budging any weight despite cardio (though admittedly I was never a serious runner), I have now shifted to NROF4W - but when I am told that on recovery days I should not do any intense cardio, I must say I feel guilty, like there are a thousand little shocked voices in my head, whispering "what, no cardio"? Is it indeed okay to do only lifting and no cardio at all? or some amount of cardio on the non lifting days is actually advisable, if it is kept at a low-key level?
I don't see how going for a walk would be anything but beneficial.0 -
Tagging...coz studies...
Ok....I laughed.0 -
Bottom line is that the author of the orginal blog post did not read (or understand) the references he cited.
That's Keifer's MO. Make a claim, then post a bunch of studies that don't actually support it.0 -
Another article that tears this argument apart: http://gokaleo.com/2013/06/11/women-and-running/
I wish MFP would knock off this anti-cardio nonsense. I don't even do any cardio, and I'm tired of it.0 -
He's not anti cardio. Just anti excessive cardio. There's also the diet aspect of it.0
-
Another article that tears this argument apart: http://gokaleo.com/2013/06/11/women-and-running/
I wish MFP would knock off this anti-cardio nonsense. I don't even do any cardio, and I'm tired of it.
Good read. My 2c - for weight loss LISS should be used sparingly but incorporated when appropriate, however, if someone enjoys it, there are ways to incorporate it.
Summary of the article:
"Steady-state cardio has been shown numerous times to have many health benefits leading to decreased mortality risks. Sure, “too much” (so far quantified only as “long term and excessive” amounts typically used by competitive, extreme distance athletes) is not good for you and can be detrimental to general health and fitness goals. But for all the Jessicas out there, moderate amounts can easily be included in a well-rounded routine to complement fat loss goals or general health pursuits.
That said, steady-state cardio is not a requirement. If someone doesn’t want to do it or doesn’t like it, there are other alternatives that can be used. What this all boils down to is this: If you enjoy running and feel it benefits you and your training, and aligns with your goals… then keep on running."0 -
Another article that tears this argument apart: http://gokaleo.com/2013/06/11/women-and-running/
I wish MFP would knock off this anti-cardio nonsense. I don't even do any cardio, and I'm tired of it.
Good read. My 2c - for weight loss LISS should be used sparingly but incorporated when appropriate, however, if someone enjoys it, there are ways to incorporate it.
Summary of the article:
"Steady-state cardio has been shown numerous times to have many health benefits leading to decreased mortality risks. Sure, “too much” (so far quantified only as “long term and excessive” amounts typically used by competitive, extreme distance athletes) is not good for you and can be detrimental to general health and fitness goals. But for all the Jessicas out there, moderate amounts can easily be included in a well-rounded routine to complement fat loss goals or general health pursuits.
That said, steady-state cardio is not a requirement. If someone doesn’t want to do it or doesn’t like it, there are other alternatives that can be used. What this all boils down to is this: If you enjoy running and feel it benefits you and your training, and aligns with your goals… then keep on running."
I wonder if that's just a combined effect of weight loss in general? I fully realize the benefits of cardiovascular fitness. Everyone does. But there have been studies that weight loss in itself is beneficial. Even if it wasn't done in a particularly healthy way.0 -
I haven't finished reading, but here is a counterpoint to Kiefer's article:
http://gokaleo.com/2013/06/11/women-and-running/0 -
why did we feel the need to repost this?
ETA: I would very much like for OP to read the above linked article and reply with his thoughts on why after all the cat gifs from yesterday we needed another post.0 -
I haven't finished reading, but here is a counterpoint to Kiefer's article:
http://gokaleo.com/2013/06/11/women-and-running/
That was a really good read!0 -
why did we feel the need to repost this?
ETA: I would very much like for OP to read the above linked article and reply with his thoughts on why after all the cat gifs from yesterday we needed another post.
I have posted my thoughts.
for the records, this thread in this group was posted before the one in the main forums.0 -
why did we feel the need to repost this?
ETA: I would very much like for OP to read the above linked article and reply with his thoughts on why after all the cat gifs from yesterday we needed another post.
I have posted my thoughts.
for the records, this thread in this group was posted before the one in the main forums.
No comments regarding the article that supposedly was proving a point actually had little factual basis to back it up.0 -
why did we feel the need to repost this?
ETA: I would very much like for OP to read the above linked article and reply with his thoughts on why after all the cat gifs from yesterday we needed another post.
I have posted my thoughts.
for the records, this thread in this group was posted before the one in the main forums.
No comments regarding the article that supposedly was proving a point actually had little factual basis to back it up.
What type of reply are you seeking from me? Is it that important that you?0 -
why did we feel the need to repost this?
ETA: I would very much like for OP to read the above linked article and reply with his thoughts on why after all the cat gifs from yesterday we needed another post.
I have posted my thoughts.
for the records, this thread in this group was posted before the one in the main forums.
No comments regarding the article that supposedly was proving a point actually had little factual basis to back it up.
What type of reply are you seeking from me? Is it that important that you?
I think I'll sleep tonight either way. Just don't start linking posts from marks daily apple next time in three different threads.0 -
why did we feel the need to repost this?
ETA: I would very much like for OP to read the above linked article and reply with his thoughts on why after all the cat gifs from yesterday we needed another post.
I have posted my thoughts.
for the records, this thread in this group was posted before the one in the main forums.
No comments regarding the article that supposedly was proving a point actually had little factual basis to back it up.
What type of reply are you seeking from me? Is it that important that you?
I think I'll sleep tonight either way. Just don't start linking posts from marks daily apple next time in three different threads.
Sleep is important. You can ask about the importance of sleep in his forums
What three threads? I posted this twice.0
