Trying to gain muscle. Why no cardio?

Fithealthyforlife

Ok, here's what I found from this site - http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/81/11/1810.long

"Regardless of the classification scheme used to group muscle fibers, there is overwhelming evidence that muscle fibers—and therefore motor units—not only change in size in response to demands, but they can also convert from one type to another.2,18,19 This plasticity in contractile and metabolic properties in response to stimuli (eg, training and rehabilitation) allows for adaptation to different functional demands.2 Fiber conversions between type IIB and type IIA are the most common, but type I to type II conversions are possible in cases of severe deconditioning or spinal cord injury (SCI).2,20"

So, muscles definitely change types, and the change can happen both ways.

Sounds good. I figured it had to be reversible. Biological systems don't generally move in just one direction.

Fithealthyforlife

OMG so much bad advice here.
You are not going to lose muscle if you are using it until the vast majority of your fat stores are diminished this occurs once you reach around 4% body fat (for men, higher for women).
You can do cardio - for now to get any excess fat off but once its low then you will need to decrease the amount of cardio you do - not because your body is going to eat your muscle but because you will have to eat a substantial amount in order to GAIN muscle.

No, if you stay with below lactate threshold you will burn fat. Over that and your body just cannot burn fat fast enough and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up, you will start to break down muscle. Sorry! It happened to me, doing far too much sprinting for triathlon training, without a good enough base fitness (we are talking 22 min 5ks-fast), bit of a calorie deficit and BAM. Loss of LBM and to top it off, FAT gain from small periods of over eating.

You're right. Now that I think about it, I learned this in biochemistry. But I think the key is that glycogen is used up. Most people don't run down to empty routinely. It's unfortunate to hear that it happened to you. At least you're aware of it now and are able to avoid it in the future.

Springfield1970

OMG so much bad advice here.
You are not going to lose muscle if you are using it until the vast majority of your fat stores are diminished this occurs once you reach around 4% body fat (for men, higher for women).
You can do cardio - for now to get any excess fat off but once its low then you will need to decrease the amount of cardio you do - not because your body is going to eat your muscle but because you will have to eat a substantial amount in order to GAIN muscle.

No, if you stay with below lactate threshold you will burn fat. Over that and your body just cannot burn fat fast enough and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up, you will start to break down muscle. Sorry! It happened to me, doing far too much sprinting for triathlon training, without a good enough base fitness (we are talking 22 min 5ks-fast), bit of a calorie deficit and BAM. Loss of LBM and to top it off, FAT gain from small periods of over eating.

You're right. Now that I think about it, I learned this in biochemistry. But I think the key is that glycogen is used up. Most people don't run down to empty routinely. It's unfortunate to hear that it happened to you. At least you're aware of it now and are able to avoid it in the future.

Here's where it gets freaky. Now that I have more muscle, I can store more glycogen, and I could do all the same things and not go so catabolic. The other thing is I can train myself to go faster aerobically, and that higher level of fitness means meow fat burning and less catabolism. But this is early days for me. My fitness has plumetted since bulking started in November, but my body is pretty much where I want it to be. The bulk has really changed things for me.

I think and have read that the less fit you are (lower vo2 max) the less engines (muscle) containing glycogen you have, the more likely you are to bonk quicker, say only an hour. Also the more fat you carry, the more horsepower you need to oxygenate that ballast. This is what sent me here to MFP in the first place. To get a higher strength to power ratio (lose the fat).

Mr_Knight

No, if you stay with below lactate threshold you will burn fat.

By the time the body gets to LT, it is already long past the "fuel from fat" point. Even plain old walking requires more energy than can be supplied through fat metabolism (except for obese individuals).

...and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up...

Glycogen stores are typically sufficient to support 1-2 hours of solid running, depending on the individual and running speed.

rrowdiness

Have you ever seen a jacked marathoner? no.

Have you seen jacked sprinters? yes.

This is because long,steady state cardio wears/breaks down and uses muscle as fuel.

That's why body builders do 'incline' walk and some light-medium cardio on an empty stomach 3 x / week for no more than 30 min.

Errr...bit selective looking at just runners mate.

There is a benefit to distance runners not carrying as much weight, as there is for distance cyclists. Anywhere where you have to carry weight a long distance, the longer you're competing the greater the benefit of being very light.

If weight carriage is negated - ie swimming where the body is supported by water - there is less benefit to being lighter / leaner.
Swimmers of all distances are pretty muscular. ie 1500m / 3km swimmers still carry a ****load of muscle.

Swimmers still do a ****load of cardio. At the local pool the squad do a minimum of 8km per day, essentially 2 hours intense cardio, 5 days per week. and they look like frickin supermodels.

Triathletes (olympic distance and up - 1km / 50km / 10km) are also pretty bulky in comparison to marathoners and road cyclists.

Ironman triathletes tend to be leaner and closer to the distance runner physique but still relatively bulky.

SteveJWatson

OMG so much bad advice here.
You are not going to lose muscle if you are using it until the vast majority of your fat stores are diminished this occurs once you reach around 4% body fat (for men, higher for women).
You can do cardio - for now to get any excess fat off but once its low then you will need to decrease the amount of cardio you do - not because your body is going to eat your muscle but because you will have to eat a substantial amount in order to GAIN muscle.

No, if you stay with below lactate threshold you will burn fat. Over that and your body just cannot burn fat fast enough and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up, you will start to break down muscle. Sorry! It happened to me, doing far too much sprinting for triathlon training, without a good enough base fitness (we are talking 22 min 5ks-fast), bit of a calorie deficit and BAM. Loss of LBM and to top it off, FAT gain from small periods of over eating.

You're right. Now that I think about it, I learned this in biochemistry. But I think the key is that glycogen is used up. Most people don't run down to empty routinely. It's unfortunate to hear that it happened to you. At least you're aware of it now and are able to avoid it in the future.

Here's where it gets freaky. Now that I have more muscle, I can store more glycogen, and I could do all the same things and not go so catabolic. The other thing is I can train myself to go faster aerobically, and that higher level of fitness means meow fat burning and less catabolism. But this is early days for me. My fitness has plumetted since bulking started in November, but my body is pretty much where I want it to be. The bulk has really changed things for me.

I think and have read that the less fit you are (lower vo2 max) the less engines (muscle) containing glycogen you have, the more likely you are to bonk quicker, say only an hour. Also the more fat you carry, the more horsepower you need to oxygenate that ballast. This is what sent me here to MFP in the first place. To get a higher strength to power ratio (lose the fat).

Odd - now that I'm at the end of my cut I notice my 'power' dropping off...like I can catch someoene but its a real effort to then tackle them...

Hopefully bulking will get my speed and power back to where they were.

eating4me

I'm also trying to gain muscle right now; just in for the thread.

__Di__

...and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up...

Roughly 20 miles of running can be run before glycogen is used up - this will be when the runner hits the wall, but not all runners hit it, it depends on how the run is performed from setting out.

20 miles of running can take four hours or more in some peoples' case, it all depends on how fast they run of course.

This puts paid to the ridiculous claims that 15 or 20 mins of continuous cardio will suddenly make people eat into their muscles lmao.

After glycogen is used up, the body turns to fat to get energy, and the human body, even in the most slimmest of runners, contains enough fuel in fat to carry for another 600 - yes SIX HUNDRED miles.

It is the most amazing piece of biological machinery.

tigersword

...and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up...

Roughly 20 miles of running can be run before glycogen is used up - this will be when the runner hits the wall, but not all runners hit it, it depends on how the run is performed from setting out.

20 miles of running can take four hours or more in some peoples' case, it all depends on how fast they run of course.

This puts paid to the ridiculous claims that 15 or 20 mins of continuous cardio will suddenly make people eat into their muscles lmao.

After glycogen is used up, the body turns to fat to get energy, and the human body, even in the most slimmest of runners, contains enough fuel in fat to carry for another 600 - yes SIX HUNDRED miles.

It is the most amazing piece of biological machinery.

Without sources and citations, this is just another "ridiculous claim."

Springfield1970

...and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up...

Roughly 20 miles of running can be run before glycogen is used up - this will be when the runner hits the wall, but not all runners hit it, it depends on how the run is performed from setting out.

20 miles of running can take four hours or more in some peoples' case, it all depends on how fast they run of course.

This puts paid to the ridiculous claims that 15 or 20 mins of continuous cardio will suddenly make people eat into their muscles lmao.

After glycogen is used up, the body turns to fat to get energy, and the human body, even in the most slimmest of runners, contains enough fuel in fat to carry for another 600 - yes SIX HUNDRED miles.

It is the most amazing piece of biological machinery.

What ARE you talking about? Is this something someone told you maybe? Or did you dream it?
Think about this, what happens when the body can't burn fat fast enough to keep up then? Ie in the higher heart rate zones and over threshold? Why do athletes hit the wall, bonk, use gels, glucose?

MeanderingMammal

Roughly 20 miles of running can be run before glycogen is used up - this will be when the runner hits the wall, but not all runners hit it, it depends on how the run is performed from setting out.

20 miles of running can take four hours or more in some peoples' case, it all depends on how fast they run of course.

Lots of different factors and whilst the pratical marathon example is quite useful to illustrate things it doesn't accont for training over a period, where glycogen can be depleted and if one is overtraining doesn't have the opportunity to replenish adequately.

That said, we are talking about some serious mileage before one starts cannibalising muscle. For someone whose objectives are weight gain, whether lmited as in the originator or more significant, it's not going to kick in on 3-4 45-60 minute sessions per week.

After glycogen is used up, the body turns to fat to get energy, and the human body, even in the most slimmest of runners, contains enough fuel in fat to carry for another 600 - yes SIX HUNDRED miles.

Which is largely irrelevant as it's not actually accessible to the individual in a meaningful way. Whilst the calorific value of the stored energy may reflect that the conversion isn't particuularly efficient. If we're thinking about practical energy to train then neither cannibalisation of the muscles nor residual fat is really an issue for the majority of trainers.

Fithealthyforlife

Roughly 20 miles of running can be run before glycogen is used up - this will be when the runner hits the wall, but not all runners hit it, it depends on how the run is performed from setting out.

20 miles of running can take four hours or more in some peoples' case, it all depends on how fast they run of course.

Lots of different factors and whilst the pratical marathon example is quite useful to illustrate things it doesn't accont for training over a period, where glycogen can be depleted and if one is overtraining doesn't have the opportunity to replenish adequately.

That said, we are talking about some serious mileage before one starts cannibalising muscle. For someone whose objectives are weight gain, whether lmited as in the originator or more significant, it's not going to kick in on 3-4 45-60 minute sessions per week.

After glycogen is used up, the body turns to fat to get energy, and the human body, even in the most slimmest of runners, contains enough fuel in fat to carry for another 600 - yes SIX HUNDRED miles.

Which is largely irrelevant as it's not actually accessible to the individual in a meaningful way. Whilst the calorific value of the stored energy may reflect that the conversion isn't particuularly efficient. If we're thinking about practical energy to train then neither cannibalisation of the muscles nor residual fat is really an issue for the majority of trainers.

I'm not a runner anymore.

But my experience as someone who used to run and has always been in single digit bodyfat percentages, has been that undereating has caused me to lose muscle in the past...not running or any other normal cardio. And when I lost the muscle I was basically sedentary to moderately active and hardly weight training at all. It also took like 8 years to lose 20 lbs of LBM. (Though I'd say half of that happened during a two-year period of severe undereating.)

trojan_bb

It's not about fuel used while running. Not about muscle breakdown while running. There is more than enough glycogen, though it has also already been mentioned that not only glycogen is used while running. Other energy sources are used regardless.

The impediment to mass gain comes from the impaired recovery. Just as excess weightlifting reduces mass gain. It is ALL about recovery.

A person running 6 miles a day AND lifting intensely for 60 minutes will have lower recovery. Period. Just like a person who trains for 2.5 hours instead of 45 minutes. It's a balancing act. A runner in perfect health, mid 20's, maybe with hormone supplementation (huge difference), proper intra workout nutrition, etc etc can tilt the scale further. It probably won't cause a net loss in muscle unless you ran a marathon every day. But it will certainly reduce a net gain.

mikeabboud

i think it was layne norton that said in one of his videos that its a balance between all the fuel sources your body can use. It doenst just use one then move to the others it takes in energy from all sources in some type of ratio and as they deplete it leans heavier on the energy left. Something like that.

Soccermavrick

Bump - so I can find this again later. Good topic.

leslisa

No, you never use just one fuel source. It's always a combination of them, just in varying degrees. It all depends on how fit you are and how used to the workout type you are. Muscle is a last resort fuel, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's expensive to maintain and heavy to carry around, but used as fuel for exercise? Not so much. Takes too long to convert to fuel for short term cardio use.

Tell Chris Hoy that he shouldn't do cardio:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2177954/Olympics-2012-Chris-Hoy-His-intense-workout-regime-diet.html

I agree with this.


I do a lot of cardio (spin, run, classes) - I'm building muscle very nicely! I think you just have to be careful what you eat, make sure you eat enough protein, fuel your workouts adequately, eat enough carbs, etc.

How do you know you're building muscle though? It is extremely difficult for a female to build muscle. A body building female is going to be hard pressed to put on 6lbs of muscle in a year......

Well, when I was lifting I knew I was gaining muscle because the weights went up and the measurements increased.

Fithealthyforlife

No, you never use just one fuel source. It's always a combination of them, just in varying degrees. It all depends on how fit you are and how used to the workout type you are. Muscle is a last resort fuel, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's expensive to maintain and heavy to carry around, but used as fuel for exercise? Not so much. Takes too long to convert to fuel for short term cardio use.

Tell Chris Hoy that he shouldn't do cardio:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2177954/Olympics-2012-Chris-Hoy-His-intense-workout-regime-diet.html

I agree with this.


I do a lot of cardio (spin, run, classes) - I'm building muscle very nicely! I think you just have to be careful what you eat, make sure you eat enough protein, fuel your workouts adequately, eat enough carbs, etc.

How do you know you're building muscle though? It is extremely difficult for a female to build muscle. A body building female is going to be hard pressed to put on 6lbs of muscle in a year......

Well, when I was lifting I knew I was gaining muscle because the weights went up and the measurements increased.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Women on my friends list have disproved it. A quarter pound a week for a year is a lot more than 6 lbs in a year!

JoRocka

No, you never use just one fuel source. It's always a combination of them, just in varying degrees. It all depends on how fit you are and how used to the workout type you are. Muscle is a last resort fuel, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's expensive to maintain and heavy to carry around, but used as fuel for exercise? Not so much. Takes too long to convert to fuel for short term cardio use.

Tell Chris Hoy that he shouldn't do cardio:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2177954/Olympics-2012-Chris-Hoy-His-intense-workout-regime-diet.html

I agree with this.


I do a lot of cardio (spin, run, classes) - I'm building muscle very nicely! I think you just have to be careful what you eat, make sure you eat enough protein, fuel your workouts adequately, eat enough carbs, etc.

How do you know you're building muscle though? It is extremely difficult for a female to build muscle. A body building female is going to be hard pressed to put on 6lbs of muscle in a year......

Well, when I was lifting I knew I was gaining muscle because the weights went up and the measurements increased.

strength gains do not equal muscle gains. Just an FYI for all our readers out there.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Women on my friends list have disproved it. A quarter pound a week for a year is a lot more than 6 lbs in a year!

6 lbs OF MUSCLE a year.

That could easily be 12-15 lbs TOTAL so fat and muscle gains. putting on 6+ lbs a year for a woman IN MUSCLE- is hard.

Reality is women are hella hard gainers when it comes to muscle.

Fithealthyforlife

No, you never use just one fuel source. It's always a combination of them, just in varying degrees. It all depends on how fit you are and how used to the workout type you are. Muscle is a last resort fuel, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's expensive to maintain and heavy to carry around, but used as fuel for exercise? Not so much. Takes too long to convert to fuel for short term cardio use.

Tell Chris Hoy that he shouldn't do cardio:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2177954/Olympics-2012-Chris-Hoy-His-intense-workout-regime-diet.html

I agree with this.


I do a lot of cardio (spin, run, classes) - I'm building muscle very nicely! I think you just have to be careful what you eat, make sure you eat enough protein, fuel your workouts adequately, eat enough carbs, etc.

How do you know you're building muscle though? It is extremely difficult for a female to build muscle. A body building female is going to be hard pressed to put on 6lbs of muscle in a year......

Well, when I was lifting I knew I was gaining muscle because the weights went up and the measurements increased.

strength gains do not equal muscle gains. Just an FYI for all our readers out there.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Women on my friends list have disproved it. A quarter pound a week for a year is a lot more than 6 lbs in a year!

6 lbs OF MUSCLE a year.

That could easily be 12-15 lbs TOTAL so fat and muscle gains. putting on 6+ lbs a year for a woman IN MUSCLE- is hard.

Reality is women are hella hard gainers when it comes to muscle.

I still stand by my original numbers...if everything is dialed in right, a man can theoretically put on half a pound of muscle a week, and a woman, a quarter lb of muscle a week. Of course, to do that, people will usually gain fat, too I guess...and I understand not everyone is willing to gain a lot of fat. (Heck, I don't want my own bulk to backfire and end up fat, just like the next person doesn't.) For a first year or other non-advanced level woman lifting, I still say more muscle is possible in that timeframe...same goes for men...it really matters how far the person is from genetic potential, all else being equal. But I guess I'm an optimist who thinks he can put on 20+ lbs of muscle in a year...

trojan_bb

No, you never use just one fuel source. It's always a combination of them, just in varying degrees. It all depends on how fit you are and how used to the workout type you are. Muscle is a last resort fuel, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's expensive to maintain and heavy to carry around, but used as fuel for exercise? Not so much. Takes too long to convert to fuel for short term cardio use.

Tell Chris Hoy that he shouldn't do cardio:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2177954/Olympics-2012-Chris-Hoy-His-intense-workout-regime-diet.html

I agree with this.


I do a lot of cardio (spin, run, classes) - I'm building muscle very nicely! I think you just have to be careful what you eat, make sure you eat enough protein, fuel your workouts adequately, eat enough carbs, etc.

How do you know you're building muscle though? It is extremely difficult for a female to build muscle. A body building female is going to be hard pressed to put on 6lbs of muscle in a year......

Well, when I was lifting I knew I was gaining muscle because the weights went up and the measurements increased.

strength gains do not equal muscle gains. Just an FYI for all our readers out there.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Women on my friends list have disproved it. A quarter pound a week for a year is a lot more than 6 lbs in a year!

6 lbs OF MUSCLE a year.

That could easily be 12-15 lbs TOTAL so fat and muscle gains. putting on 6+ lbs a year for a woman IN MUSCLE- is hard.

Reality is women are hella hard gainers when it comes to muscle.

I still stand by my original numbers...if everything is dialed in right, a man can theoretically put on half a pound of muscle a week, and a woman, a quarter lb of muscle a week. Of course, to do that, people will usually gain fat, too I guess...and I understand not everyone is willing to gain a lot of fat. (Heck, I don't want my own bulk to backfire and end up fat, just like the next person doesn't.) For a first year or other non-advanced level woman lifting, I still say more muscle is possible in that timeframe...same goes for men...it really matters how far the person is from genetic potential, all else being equal. But I guess I'm an optimist who thinks he can put on 20+ lbs of muscle in a year...

Maybe a first year lifter starting with 130lbs of lean mass and eating 6000 Calories a day.


With 150mg of Anadrol for 6 months....

Mr_Knight

I still stand by my original numbers...if everything is dialed in right, a man can theoretically put on half a pound of muscle a week, and a woman, a quarter lb of muscle a week.

This only applies to people who haven't already added much muscle, are in the right age window, train at elite, professional levels, and have their diet locked down solid.

IE, it doesn't apply to anybody on MFP.

But if you're a top-of-the-draft hockey player and your team puts you under Gary Roberts' training care for a year, yeah, in that first year you could put on 20 pounds of lean nastiness.

leslisa

No, you never use just one fuel source. It's always a combination of them, just in varying degrees. It all depends on how fit you are and how used to the workout type you are. Muscle is a last resort fuel, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's expensive to maintain and heavy to carry around, but used as fuel for exercise? Not so much. Takes too long to convert to fuel for short term cardio use.

Tell Chris Hoy that he shouldn't do cardio:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2177954/Olympics-2012-Chris-Hoy-His-intense-workout-regime-diet.html

I agree with this.


I do a lot of cardio (spin, run, classes) - I'm building muscle very nicely! I think you just have to be careful what you eat, make sure you eat enough protein, fuel your workouts adequately, eat enough carbs, etc.

How do you know you're building muscle though? It is extremely difficult for a female to build muscle. A body building female is going to be hard pressed to put on 6lbs of muscle in a year......

Well, when I was lifting I knew I was gaining muscle because the weights went up and the measurements increased.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Women on my friends list have disproved it. A quarter pound a week for a year is a lot more than 6 lbs in a year!

Strange you are not a woman and yet you know so much about us.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but I will. It's about body type. I'm only 5' but I'm a "large frame". I look at food and gain weight. I ran when I lifted to keep my weight around 125. When I was in my late teens/ early twenties was lifting 6 days a week (3 upper, 3 lower, 6 of core/abs) 2 hrs a day and it turned straight to muscle. Heck, even before I started lifting people thought I was a body builder. I grew up throwing bales of hay, breaking horses, and working my *kitten* off. My family is generations of German/Irish farmers. We all gain muscle and do pretty quickly. We also don't break. Literally. None of the family but my brother who was in an accident where he was smashed into a tree ever broke a bone that I know of. Doc said bro and I have "dense" bones. Unfortunately most of those in my family die by the time we are 55 from stroke, heart attack, thyroid, or diabetes.

So maybe someone else couldn't and there is no way I would now as I don't particularly care for heavy lifting (my bi-ceps, thighs, and calves especially get huge), but I'm pretty certain if I went back to my high in the sky protein diet and ate 3000+ cals a day again I most certain could gain 6 lbs of muscle in a year. I'm also certain I'd have to do cardio or I'd get fat also. And note, I never did steroids. At the time was lifting it was "easy" so why not? And I can admit I liked the shock factor too. It was always nice to squat more than the new *kitten* who call me "honey" and "sweetie" and asked if I wanted help. (none of the regulars did). Could I max out with muscle? Probably, but I never did. After my second child came along I concentrated on quickly routines so running was in, although with mommy and kid yoga, and lifting was out.

terizius

Here's a great article from Lyle McDonald talking about lean mass gains (genetic potential):

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

Here is his chart.. keep in mind that everything is pretty much cut in half for a woman.


"Year of Proper Training Potential Rate of Muscle Gain per Year
1 20-25 pounds (2 pounds per month)
2 10-12 pounds (1 pound per month)
3 5-6 pounds (0.5 pound per month)
4+ 2-3 pounds (not worth calculating)


Again, these values are for males, females would use roughly half of those values (e.g. 10-12 pounds in the first year of proper training)."

Fithealthyforlife

Here's a great article from Lyle McDonald talking about lean mass gains (genetic potential):

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

Here is his chart.. keep in mind that everything is pretty much cut in half for a woman.


"Year of Proper Training Potential Rate of Muscle Gain per Year
1 20-25 pounds (2 pounds per month)
2 10-12 pounds (1 pound per month)
3 5-6 pounds (0.5 pound per month)
4+ 2-3 pounds (not worth calculating)


Again, these values are for males, females would use roughly half of those values (e.g. 10-12 pounds in the first year of proper training)."

That's what I was going by, as well as reports from others. Again, maybe I'm an optimist.

Fithealthyforlife

No, you never use just one fuel source. It's always a combination of them, just in varying degrees. It all depends on how fit you are and how used to the workout type you are. Muscle is a last resort fuel, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's expensive to maintain and heavy to carry around, but used as fuel for exercise? Not so much. Takes too long to convert to fuel for short term cardio use.

Tell Chris Hoy that he shouldn't do cardio:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2177954/Olympics-2012-Chris-Hoy-His-intense-workout-regime-diet.html

I agree with this.


I do a lot of cardio (spin, run, classes) - I'm building muscle very nicely! I think you just have to be careful what you eat, make sure you eat enough protein, fuel your workouts adequately, eat enough carbs, etc.

How do you know you're building muscle though? It is extremely difficult for a female to build muscle. A body building female is going to be hard pressed to put on 6lbs of muscle in a year......

Well, when I was lifting I knew I was gaining muscle because the weights went up and the measurements increased.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Women on my friends list have disproved it. A quarter pound a week for a year is a lot more than 6 lbs in a year!

Strange you are not a woman and yet you know so much about us.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but I will. It's about body type. I'm only 5' but I'm a "large frame". I look at food and gain weight. I ran when I lifted to keep my weight around 125. When I was in my late teens/ early twenties was lifting 6 days a week (3 upper, 3 lower, 6 of core/abs) 2 hrs a day and it turned straight to muscle. Heck, even before I started lifting people thought I was a body builder. I grew up throwing bales of hay, breaking horses, and working my *kitten* off. My family is generations of German/Irish farmers. We all gain muscle and do pretty quickly. We also don't break. Literally. None of the family but my brother who was in an accident where he was smashed into a tree ever broke a bone that I know of. Doc said bro and I have "dense" bones. Unfortunately most of those in my family die by the time we are 55 from stroke, heart attack, thyroid, or diabetes.

So maybe someone else couldn't and there is no way I would now as I don't particularly care for heavy lifting (my bi-ceps, thighs, and calves especially get huge), but I'm pretty certain if I went back to my high in the sky protein diet and ate 3000+ cals a day again I most certain could gain 6 lbs of muscle in a year. I'm also certain I'd have to do cardio or I'd get fat also. And note, I never did steroids. At the time was lifting it was "easy" so why not? And I can admit I liked the shock factor too. It was always nice to squat more than the new *kitten* who call me "honey" and "sweetie" and asked if I wanted help. (none of the regulars did). Could I max out with muscle? Probably, but I never did. After my second child came along I concentrated on quickly routines so running was in, although with mommy and kid yoga, and lifting was out.

That makes a lot of sense. The way I read it is you're into being very cautious and taking it slow on purpose to avoid fat gain. But I don't understand why what you wrote above initially disagreed with what I had said (that women *can* gain more than 6 lbs of muscle in a year, and I have a few on my list who have proven it). It sounds like you and I actually *agree*!

Fithealthyforlife

No, you never use just one fuel source. It's always a combination of them, just in varying degrees. It all depends on how fit you are and how used to the workout type you are. Muscle is a last resort fuel, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's expensive to maintain and heavy to carry around, but used as fuel for exercise? Not so much. Takes too long to convert to fuel for short term cardio use.

Tell Chris Hoy that he shouldn't do cardio:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2177954/Olympics-2012-Chris-Hoy-His-intense-workout-regime-diet.html

I agree with this.


I do a lot of cardio (spin, run, classes) - I'm building muscle very nicely! I think you just have to be careful what you eat, make sure you eat enough protein, fuel your workouts adequately, eat enough carbs, etc.

How do you know you're building muscle though? It is extremely difficult for a female to build muscle. A body building female is going to be hard pressed to put on 6lbs of muscle in a year......

Well, when I was lifting I knew I was gaining muscle because the weights went up and the measurements increased.

strength gains do not equal muscle gains. Just an FYI for all our readers out there.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Women on my friends list have disproved it. A quarter pound a week for a year is a lot more than 6 lbs in a year!

6 lbs OF MUSCLE a year.

That could easily be 12-15 lbs TOTAL so fat and muscle gains. putting on 6+ lbs a year for a woman IN MUSCLE- is hard.

Reality is women are hella hard gainers when it comes to muscle.

I still stand by my original numbers...if everything is dialed in right, a man can theoretically put on half a pound of muscle a week, and a woman, a quarter lb of muscle a week. Of course, to do that, people will usually gain fat, too I guess...and I understand not everyone is willing to gain a lot of fat. (Heck, I don't want my own bulk to backfire and end up fat, just like the next person doesn't.) For a first year or other non-advanced level woman lifting, I still say more muscle is possible in that timeframe...same goes for men...it really matters how far the person is from genetic potential, all else being equal. But I guess I'm an optimist who thinks he can put on 20+ lbs of muscle in a year...

Maybe a first year lifter starting with 130lbs of lean mass and eating 6000 Calories a day.


With 150mg of Anadrol for 6 months....

Well, that was/is me (minus the 6000 calories and steroids). I started with like 126 lbs of lean mass and 5% bodyfat, down 20 lbs from my high school weight (at which time I had roughly 142 lbs of lean mass and marginally higher but still low bodyfat).

If I ate 6000 calories a day, I'd probably be fat and constipated, lol. That'd be like a 3000-calorie surplus. No one recommends that!

__Di__

...and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up...

Roughly 20 miles of running can be run before glycogen is used up - this will be when the runner hits the wall, but not all runners hit it, it depends on how the run is performed from setting out.

20 miles of running can take four hours or more in some peoples' case, it all depends on how fast they run of course.

This puts paid to the ridiculous claims that 15 or 20 mins of continuous cardio will suddenly make people eat into their muscles lmao.

After glycogen is used up, the body turns to fat to get energy, and the human body, even in the most slimmest of runners, contains enough fuel in fat to carry for another 600 - yes SIX HUNDRED miles.

It is the most amazing piece of biological machinery.

What ARE you talking about? Is this something someone told you maybe? Or did you dream it?
Think about this, what happens when the body can't burn fat fast enough to keep up then? Ie in the higher heart rate zones and over threshold? Why do athletes hit the wall, bonk, use gels, glucose?

No, it is something that has be widely researched by scientists and no I did not dream it, it is quite widely known, I am not quite sure where you have been hiding, under a rock perhaps?

They hit the wall because they run out of glycogen. By using gels they are replacing energy, THAT is why they take them.

I got this off a number of sites, one of which is http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/running/training/hitting-the-wall.htm

You don't mind sweetcheeks do you, only not all of us like bro-science, we actually like to back it up with something other than people's (such as yours) opinions.

If you do not know what I was originally talking about, perhaps some googling about or surfing the web will educate you slightly, it is all there at your fingertips, but please, leave out telling people they speak rubbish or asking them if they dreamed the info, because it just shows that you have no idea what YOU are on about.

Roughly 20 miles running will use up glycogen, this is when 40% of runners hit the wall, the remainder may not do so, this can be due to their preparation beforehand.

600 miles of fat is in the slimmest of runners that can be used up and will be used once all glycogen is depleted.

Now then, if you do not like what I am saying, there is nothing I can do about that, but I strongly suggest you research first, before further comments.

__Di__

...and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up...

Roughly 20 miles of running can be run before glycogen is used up - this will be when the runner hits the wall, but not all runners hit it, it depends on how the run is performed from setting out.

20 miles of running can take four hours or more in some peoples' case, it all depends on how fast they run of course.

This puts paid to the ridiculous claims that 15 or 20 mins of continuous cardio will suddenly make people eat into their muscles lmao.

After glycogen is used up, the body turns to fat to get energy, and the human body, even in the most slimmest of runners, contains enough fuel in fat to carry for another 600 - yes SIX HUNDRED miles.

It is the most amazing piece of biological machinery.

Without sources and citations, this is just another "ridiculous claim."

Yeah just like 99% of the bro science claims on this site eh.

Springfield1970

...and then if your liver and muscle glycogen is used up...

Roughly 20 miles of running can be run before glycogen is used up - this will be when the runner hits the wall, but not all runners hit it, it depends on how the run is performed from setting out.

20 miles of running can take four hours or more in some peoples' case, it all depends on how fast they run of course.

This puts paid to the ridiculous claims that 15 or 20 mins of continuous cardio will suddenly make people eat into their muscles lmao.

After glycogen is used up, the body turns to fat to get energy, and the human body, even in the most slimmest of runners, contains enough fuel in fat to carry for another 600 - yes SIX HUNDRED miles.

It is the most amazing piece of biological machinery.

What ARE you talking about? Is this something someone told you maybe? Or did you dream it?
Think about this, what happens when the body can't burn fat fast enough to keep up then? Ie in the higher heart rate zones and over threshold? Why do athletes hit the wall, bonk, use gels, glucose?

No, it is something that has be widely researched by scientists and no I did not dream it, it is quite widely known, I am not quite sure where you have been hiding, under a rock perhaps?

They hit the wall because they run out of glycogen. By using gels they are replacing energy, THAT is why they take them.

I got this off a number of sites, one of which is http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/running/training/hitting-the-wall.htm

You don't mind sweetcheeks do you, only not all of us like bro-science, we actually like to back it up with something other than people's (such as yours) opinions.

If you do not know what I was originally talking about, perhaps some googling about or surfing the web will educate you slightly, it is all there at your fingertips, but please, leave out telling people they speak rubbish or asking them if they dreamed the info, because it just shows that you have no idea what YOU are on about.

Roughly 20 miles running will use up glycogen, this is when 40% of runners hit the wall, the remainder may not do so, this can be due to their preparation beforehand.

600 miles of fat is in the slimmest of runners that can be used up and will be used once all glycogen is depleted.

Now then, if you do not like what I am saying, there is nothing I can do about that, but I strongly suggest you research first, before further comments.

Springfield1970

.