How much cardio vs. strength
Options
Replies
-
I may not be able to train to be taller or shorter. But I can train for more power and better physique.JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
Long-distance runners? Maybe long-distance walkers is a better phrase. We are probably better designed to sprint to a big stick or rock to throw. Always on their feet? Yes. Smarter at figuring out how to hide from predators.
I prefer a sprinter to a marathoner any day. Sprinters seem to be lean and hold onto lots of muscle very well. Marathoners seem to be very lean.
Marathoners are lean because being lean is one of the most crucial factors in performing your best at the marathon. Sprinting performance is enhanced by greater muscle power. At the elite level, athletes are genetically self-selected--they are born with different body types. It's like me saying I'd prefer to train at being a basketball player than a jockey because basketball players always seem to be tall and jockeys seem to be short.
I may not be able to compete at the elite level because of genetics. That is all true.
Sprinting is one way to achieve more power. Sprinters are muscular. And I like the sprinter's physique.
You have to find what works for your body. I find a good mix of plyometrics, weights and cardio is helping me achieve my goals. And hitting my macros is feeding my output.
Wanting to train for a certain physique is one thing, but sweeping generalizations that marathoners don't have a lot of muscle because endurance training is catabolic is another. They are very lean because many of them prefer to be borderline underweight for faster time. Extra weight, including muscle weight, hinders that. That's why you will see many long distance specialized athletes who prefer to not build their muscles. Some cross athletes or those who do both long distance running and weight training have both the extra muscle and the endurance. It hasn't been catabolic in their case because of the way they train.
Case in point:
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
I may not be able to train to be taller or shorter. But I can train for more power and better physique.JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
Long-distance runners? Maybe long-distance walkers is a better phrase. We are probably better designed to sprint to a big stick or rock to throw. Always on their feet? Yes. Smarter at figuring out how to hide from predators.
I prefer a sprinter to a marathoner any day. Sprinters seem to be lean and hold onto lots of muscle very well. Marathoners seem to be very lean.
Marathoners are lean because being lean is one of the most crucial factors in performing your best at the marathon. Sprinting performance is enhanced by greater muscle power. At the elite level, athletes are genetically self-selected--they are born with different body types. It's like me saying I'd prefer to train at being a basketball player than a jockey because basketball players always seem to be tall and jockeys seem to be short.
I may not be able to compete at the elite level because of genetics. That is all true.
Sprinting is one way to achieve more power. Sprinters are muscular. And I like the sprinter's physique.
You have to find what works for your body. I find a good mix of plyometrics, weights and cardio is helping me achieve my goals. And hitting my macros is feeding my output.
Wanting to train for a certain physique is one thing, but sweeping generalizations that marathoners don't have a lot of muscle because endurance training is catabolic is another. They are very lean because many of them prefer to be borderline underweight for faster time. Extra weight, including muscle weight, hinders that. That's why you will see many long distance specialized athletes who prefer to not build their muscles. Some cross athletes who do both long distance running and weight training have both the extra muscle and the endurance. It hasn't been catabolic in their case because of the way they train.
Case in point:
Who is sweeping? One way to lose mass is to endurance train. Constantly. To a deficit. And, yes, I am aware that heavier loads hinder long distance performance.
The comparison was to sprinters and marathon runners specifically. Plyometrics vs. endurance-type running. And the statement was specifically my aesthetic preference. To each their own.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
I may not be able to train to be taller or shorter. But I can train for more power and better physique.JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
Long-distance runners? Maybe long-distance walkers is a better phrase. We are probably better designed to sprint to a big stick or rock to throw. Always on their feet? Yes. Smarter at figuring out how to hide from predators.
I prefer a sprinter to a marathoner any day. Sprinters seem to be lean and hold onto lots of muscle very well. Marathoners seem to be very lean.
Marathoners are lean because being lean is one of the most crucial factors in performing your best at the marathon. Sprinting performance is enhanced by greater muscle power. At the elite level, athletes are genetically self-selected--they are born with different body types. It's like me saying I'd prefer to train at being a basketball player than a jockey because basketball players always seem to be tall and jockeys seem to be short.
I may not be able to compete at the elite level because of genetics. That is all true.
Sprinting is one way to achieve more power. Sprinters are muscular. And I like the sprinter's physique.
You have to find what works for your body. I find a good mix of plyometrics, weights and cardio is helping me achieve my goals. And hitting my macros is feeding my output.
Wanting to train for a certain physique is one thing, but sweeping generalizations that marathoners don't have a lot of muscle because endurance training is catabolic is another. They are very lean because many of them prefer to be borderline underweight for faster time. Extra weight, including muscle weight, hinders that. That's why you will see many long distance specialized athletes who prefer to not build their muscles. Some cross athletes who do both long distance running and weight training have both the extra muscle and the endurance. It hasn't been catabolic in their case because of the way they train.
Case in point:
Who is sweeping? One way to lose mass is to endurance train. Constantly. To a deficit. And, yes, I am aware that heavier loads hinder long distance performance.
The comparison was to sprinters and marathon runners specifically. Plyometrics vs. endurance-type running. And the statement was specifically my aesthetic preference. To each their own.
I must have misunderstood you then. Probably because it was in a reply to "Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass" as a sweeping generalization. No it will not if you don't let it, like is shown in the long distance runners above (with runs that include 50-milers and 100-milers). Even someone who does nothing but strength train will look lean and less muscular if they are borderline underweight. One way to lose mass is to be underweight, regardless if you do endurance, strength, or nothing at all.0 -
I think it just depends on what you want to get out of your weight loss as well as your fitness goals. I think you can say that in general, weight lifting while losing weight tends to lead to a better body composition when you reach your goal.
I alternate lifting days with cardio days for that very reason. However, I now have to pay more attention to the amount of protein that I eat, and I tend to be much more hungry than when I was just doing cardio. (In fact, cardio generally suppresses my appetite.) Those may not be worthwhile trades for people who are trying to lose weight and don't have a lot of energy to put into meal planning and battling late-night cravings. I'm not trying to scare you away from lifting - it gets easier with time, and I love making progress towards my fitness, so I find it completely worthwhile. I would definitely try incorporating more lifting (using a structured program) and see how you feel. If you don't like it, there's no shame in sticking with your cardio routine!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions