Too much cardio?
shortone100
Posts: 4 Member
My current goal is fat loss while maintaining muscle. Right now I'm averaging about 5 days of cardio per week, and I mix it up between steady state and HIIT. Along with that I do 3-4 days of heavy weights per week.
My question is, am I doing too much cardio? I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts...but I can just keep upping the intensity, right? Any thoughts are appreciated!
My question is, am I doing too much cardio? I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts...but I can just keep upping the intensity, right? Any thoughts are appreciated!
0
Replies
-
I swim 6000 yards 5 to 7 days a week. So I have no idea what constitutes "too much cardio."
Some of the trainers I know do little to know cardio and just lift heavy. It would seem to me that it really depends on what works for you and your schedule.
Spinning class can be use to mix cardio with a heavy duty leg workout because one can do some pretty hard pushing. My quads feel an beat after a spin class as they do after a leg day in the weight room.0 -
You don't have to up the intensity; up the time.0
-
There is such a thing as too much cardio, and too much intensity, if your goal is health, not winning races. Generally speaking, an hour a day, 5 days a week, is the outside limit, at a moderate pace, and 20 minutes is good for intense cardio. Of course, there are many ways to mix that up.
I would love to do more cardio than that. The take-home, for me, is that I can be active for hours every day, as long as it doesn't reach the level of a cardio workout. But when I start taking long uphill hikes, I have to consider that in my cardio allowance, and back off the exercise I do at the gym.
Here's an expert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0 0 -
It really depends on your goal... your ticker says you have 2 lbs to lose and you're saying you want to lose fat and maintain muscle, so I would recommend minimal cardio and increase the weights. If you're really just looking to reduce body fat, you could do about 30 mins of cardio everyday, do HIIT maybe twice a week and go heavier on the weights.0
-
Guess I'm doing to much 5 hrs of vigorous cardio a week. But still trying to figure out what is too much.0
-
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »Guess I'm doing to much 5 hrs of vigorous cardio a week. But still trying to figure out what is too much.
Same here! I like my exercise high.
0 -
Good video. I sure like my elliptical and hopefully my intensity is such that I fall in the middle of the "U", because I like to use it everyday. I've been thinking about changing up my schedule to include lifting some. It seems many sources suggest that.0
-
IGood video. I sure like my elliptical and hopefully my intensity is such that I fall in the middle of the "U", because I like to use it everyday. I've been thinking about changing up my schedule to include lifting some. It seems many sources suggest that.
I started with this as a guideline when I got my HRM
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/adults/index.htm
0 -
shortone100 wrote: »My question is, am I doing too much cardio?
As long as you are fuelling your training it's very unlikely. Overtraining would involve several hours per day, no rest days an insufficient fuel to compensate for the expenditure.I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts
Calorie expenditure is a function of the distance you move your body mass through, whether running, rowing, cycling swimming or prancing around in front of a DVD. Your body doesn't get used to it and magically stop converting energy from one type to another. As you get lighter you will burn less for equivalent distance, hence a need to progressively overload, in the same way as you would with weights.
I'd ignore the advice above about limiting to five hours per week. There are plenty of people who do a lot more than that with no ill effects.0 -
I'd ignore the advice above about limiting to five hours per week. There are plenty of people who do a lot more than that with no ill effects.
I would look at the facts, and make your own informed decision.
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »I'd ignore the advice above about limiting to five hours per week. There are plenty of people who do a lot more than that with no ill effects.
I would look at the facts, and make your own informed decision.
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
Of course if ones objective is purely about weight gain the stick to lifting, eating at a surplus and doing minimal CV work. For most people somewhere between 3:30-7 hours is probably adequate though.
0 -
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
this isn't to your comment, but that slippery slope you're sliding down.
https://youtu.be/OWwOJlOI1nU
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
You do appreciate that research is discredited. A very small samle size that's not statistically significant.
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
You do appreciate that research is discredited. A very small samle size that's not statistically significant.
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
To the best of my knowledge, the findings are not discredited.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
You do appreciate that research is discredited. A very small samle size that's not statistically significant.
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
To the best of my knowledge, the research is not discredited.
I'll dig out a few links later, im on my mobile at the moment.
Essentially a small sample size and no corroboration of the reasons for the result means a big leap in analysis to get from running 60-80 miles per week to the conclusion above.
0 -
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »IGood video. I sure like my elliptical and hopefully my intensity is such that I fall in the middle of the "U", because I like to use it everyday. I've been thinking about changing up my schedule to include lifting some. It seems many sources suggest that.
I started with this as a guideline when I got my HRM
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/adults/index.htm
I just had to laugh at your screen name scubasteve
Edited...
Why does MFP keep dropping off my text after posting??? Anyways, we say scuba Steve all the time in our house because it's a line from big daddy. Know it? Anyways moving on!...0 -
shortone100 wrote: »My current goal is fat loss while maintaining muscle. Right now I'm averaging about 5 days of cardio per week, and I mix it up between steady state and HIIT. Along with that I do 3-4 days of heavy weights per week.
My question is, am I doing too much cardio? I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts...but I can just keep upping the intensity, right? Any thoughts are appreciated!
I don't know the correct answer but I would say you'd be fine as long as you're eating enough to maintain your muscle. Chris Powell believes in FITT when things plateau OR after 4 weeks of the same thing (I think he says 4 weeks...) change either your frequency, intensity,time or total (reps). Again, I don't know the "right" answer and there probably isn't 1 true answer...if you're seeing results...keep going or change things up.0 -
bmchenry02 wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »IGood video. I sure like my elliptical and hopefully my intensity is such that I fall in the middle of the "U", because I like to use it everyday. I've been thinking about changing up my schedule to include lifting some. It seems many sources suggest that.
I started with this as a guideline when I got my HRM
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/adults/index.htm
I just had to laugh at your screen name scubasteve
didn't know about the Movie, just what everyone was calling me when I started diving, so I embraced it
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
Are your views based on that O keefe lecture, care to link us up to some peer reviewed studies rather than one mans opinion?MeanderingMammal wrote: »
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
Diminishing returns in what sense?0 -
Cardiovascular Damage Resulting from Chronic Excessive Endurance Exercise
Here is a paper on it. http://www.msma.org/docs/communications/momed/Excessive_Endurance_Exercise_and_Heart_Disease_MOMED_JulyAug2012.pdf
It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.0 -
It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.
"Which puts a 55 year old male at higher risk for early death due to heart disease: sitting on my *kitten* eating ice cream and buttered popcorn (my two weaknesses) or getting off my *kitten* and swimming, riding and/or running, sometimes for well over an hour, and maybe someday entering an endurance event that will take many hours to finish? "
I will say that 6 hrs a week is a light week. 8-12 more like it. Pros are 18-24 hrs/week.
And running 9 min/mile with an HR less than 110 is pretty awesome too. Some people have that sitting on the couch.
0 -
I agree which is why I'm headed out for my third run today in a few minutes.It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.
"Which puts a 55 year old male at higher risk for early death due to heart disease: sitting on my *kitten* eating ice cream and buttered popcorn (my two weaknesses) or getting off my *kitten* and swimming, riding and/or running, sometimes for well over an hour, and maybe someday entering an endurance event that will take many hours to finish? "
I will say that 6 hrs a week is a light week. 8-12 more like it. Pros are 18-24 hrs/week.
And running 9 min/mile with an HR less than 110 is pretty awesome too. Some people have that sitting on the couch.
My quick scan of the study leads me to believe that a big part of the problem is people running too hard all the time rather than simply running a lot. If people train intelligently they can probably avoid most or all of the problems.
And I like being able to walk around at a lower heart rate than most people get when sleeping.0 -
Cardiovascular Damage Resulting from Chronic Excessive Endurance Exercise
Here is a paper on it. http://www.msma.org/docs/communications/momed/Excessive_Endurance_Exercise_and_Heart_Disease_MOMED_JulyAug2012.pdf
It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.
Thanks I've had a quick scan an it looks a lot more reasonable plus put things into context. Deffo worth a read.0 -
For a discussion and link to a study that had a much larger sample and did not find the U-shaped curve, see this post from Alex Hutchinson's Sweat Science blog:
http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/does-greater-fitness-increase-or-decrease-longevity
The takeaway: more exercise was associated with a decrease in mortality (i.e. lower chance of dying) at any fitness level. Now, they weren't looking at volume of fitness but peak MET output, but there's such a strong correlation between volume of training and fitness level that the results are highly suggestive.
BTW, here's Hutchinson's take on the earlier paper using the Copenhagen City Heart Study:
http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much
The key sentences: "Yes, the conclusion of the study (that "strenuous" jogging is as bad as being sedentary) is based on two deaths over more than a decade of follow-up. (Thank goodness a third person didn't die, or public health authorities would be banning jogging.)"0 -
Cardiovascular Damage Resulting from Chronic Excessive Endurance Exercise
Here is a paper on it. http://www.msma.org/docs/communications/momed/Excessive_Endurance_Exercise_and_Heart_Disease_MOMED_JulyAug2012.pdf
It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.
Essentially the statistical normalisation required to demonstrate that the whole life mortality risk doubled was extensive: http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/the-too-much-running-myth-rises-again
There are several variants, given that the O'Keefe paper appears pretty much every year.
Also: http://www.outsideonline.com/1922301/nope-running-isnt-going-shorten-your-lifespan0 -
The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.0
-
shortone100 wrote: »I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts...
Ummm...no.
You run 5k, you're running 5k.
At extreme levels of fitness, there might a 2-3% improvement in "efficiency" (ie, 10-15 calories on a 500 calorie burn), but unless you're fit enough to ride the Tour de France, it's not something that needs to be considered.0 -
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »Guess I'm doing to much 5 hrs of vigorous cardio a week. But still trying to figure out what is too much.
It's not "too much" unless you aren't fit enough to do it.
The idea that an hour a day of cardio could possibly be "too much" is straight out of Generation Slacker.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
Diminishing returns in what sense?
If one is looking for improved CV capacity, then that's largely going to come from lots of long easy sessions in the aerobic range. Clearly working in the threshold range and anaerobic range have different effects, but both of them depend on an aerobic base.
But the level of improvement becomes negligible, so for simple health improvement not much worth it. One will get more from combining the CV work with resistance work, rather than just thrashing out more CV.
OTOH if one is looking at improving performance, whether running, cycling, rowing etc, then there is a lot of benefit in lots of miles.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions