nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

MyFitnessPal Community

Catobolic vs. Anabolic

rjmudlax13

This is a general thread about catabolism and anabolism.

I've done research on the topic and I get the general concept (even know the actual chemistry behind can be complicated). However, how does it apply practically to bulking and cutting routines and/or recompostiion. For example, people say that if you lift while in a calorie deficit your fat loss to muscle loss ratio will be higher than if you did just cardio with the same deficit. Is this true and why?

Also, is catabolism and being in a calorie deficit the same thing (and vice versa) or can you be catabolic while in a surplus? I ask this because a lot of the advice I hear is you never want to do steady state cardio when trying to bulk because cardio is catabolic. But what if you still maintain a surplus?

Another question I have related to the topic is why is the trend today that high intensity cardio is better for fat loss? It seems counterintuitive to me because there is no way you can burn more calories doing 5 minutes of HIIT than 30 minutes of running.

I ask these questions here because there seems to be people who know what they are talking about. There is a lot of BS and
contradicting advice out there.

Replies

SideSteel

. For example, people say that if you lift while in a calorie deficit your fat loss to muscle loss ratio will be higher than if you did just cardio with the same deficit. Is this true and why?

Because the act of resistance training provides a stress/stimulus to encourage muscle growth. From a science standpoint I can't tell you deep details because I don't have that knowledge but my understanding of it is that it effects nutrient partitioning in that resistance training will elevate muscle protein synthesis. This would offset protein breakdown.

Also, is catabolism and being in a calorie deficit the same thing (and vice versa) or can you be catabolic while in a surplus? I ask this because a lot of the advice I hear is you never want to do steady state cardio when trying to bulk because cardio is catabolic. But what if you still maintain a surplus?

I would say that if you are in a caloric deficit then you are in a net state of catabolism although in reality you go through periods of anabolism and catabolism.

Specifically regarding "never doing steady state cardio" I believe that's an example of taking things too far. You probably don't want to start marathon training if your goal is to build a muscular physique, but doing some steady state cardio as a means of increasing energy expenditure isn't going to suddenly make your muscles fall off.

Another question I have related to the topic is why is the trend today that high intensity cardio is better for fat loss? It seems counterintuitive to me because there is no way you can burn more calories doing 5 minutes of HIIT than 30 minutes of running.

I don't have the math in front of me but generally it's promoted for fat loss because it's more efficient. You do burn more calories per unit time doing HIIT vs steady state. HIIT has a higher EPOC (cliffs - burn more calories at rest afterwards).

The bigger concern (or at least, one often neglected concern) with selecting cardio type and duration is how this cardio fits into the overall training program. Just for example, someone squatting 4xweek might not have a fun time adding in multiple HIIT sessions into their program because HIIT is more difficult to recover from.

Hendrix7

has a higher EPOC (cliffs - burn more calories at rest afterwards).

I think part of the popularity is people have started going overboard on the whole EPOC theory claiming silly numbers like you burn double the amount of calories from HIIT post workout. I think the actual number is about 8%-15% of the calories burned from the exercise only, which when you work it back is pretty negligible.

I think this is mostly people sweating the small stuff and missing the big picture, even in a daily calorie surplus your body will constantly switch between a catabolic and anabolic state, however the calorie suplus means the long term effect will be a net gain instead of a loss.....there is a good helms video on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5bFy_WHYLI

is running conducive to building muscle? well no but that doesn't mean that including some cardio in a bulking routine will give you less gains/make you lose muscle (assuming the energy expenditure is accounted for).

SideSteel

has a higher EPOC (cliffs - burn more calories at rest afterwards).

I think part of the popularity is people have started going overboard on the whole EPOC theory claiming silly numbers like you burn double the amount of calories from HIIT post workout. I think the actual number is about 8%-15% of the calories burned from the exercise only, which when you work it back is pretty negligible.

I think this is mostly people sweating the small stuff and missing the big picture, even in a daily calorie surplus your body will constantly switch between a catabolic and anabolic state, however the calorie suplus means the long term effect will be a net gain instead of a loss.....there is a good helms video on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5bFy_WHYLI

is running conducive to building muscle? well no but that doesn't mean that including some cardio in a bulking routine will give you less gains/make you lose muscle (assuming the energy expenditure is accounted for).

Agreed. Didn't click the link yet but hopefully this is the peeling back a layer vid. Perfect for this discussion.

Also regarding the HIIT thing, perhaps it's more accurate to say that it's more efficient mostly because it's higher intensity. So even regardless of the EPOC you're just burning more calories in a shorter time. But perhaps I'm simplifying.

IMO, the idea of matching up cardio modality to the overall training program and to personal preference is going to be more important for the vast majority of people than trying to capture any benefits that lie within those methods specifically. So for example I think we could both present scenarios where one mode would fit the bill better than another for a given person.

EDIT: It would also appear as though Lyle agrees with you regarding EPOC differences. Here's a good summary:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-intervals-and-epoc-practical-application.html