cardio- thoughts?

grinch031

Its all about context here. If you want to be a long-distance runner and see continued improvement, you must run more than 30 minutes at a time and you must do it frequently. However if you want to burn fat and improve physical fitness, then 30+ minutes of cardio is not the best use of your time. You are better off doing resistance training and high intensity intervals. But if cardio keeps your more motivated, better that than nothing!

Oh and I am in marathon training and have actually gotten stronger because I always lift weights before I run, and I have upped my protein intake to prevent muscle loss. I've definitely burned fat without losing muscle in recent weeks.

What sort of weight exercises do you do for running training? I am seriously thinking of getting back into weights after years away. I run a lot, but never used weight training for my running.

What do you do, an overall body session or legs or what? Also, do you lift heavy or light.

Sorry for all the questions lol. :flowerforyou:

Oh I don't do weight training specifically for running, I just do it to stay strong and fit in general. I play tennis and do other activities where having strength comes in handy. I just work the whole body really. I am big on squats/leg press though for lower body.

heybales

But still, by switching to my latest diet, I'm likely burning a much higher percentage of fat for fuel than ever before. So the amount of protein needed for glucose isn't even comparable to the amount of glucose I was using back when I was eating mostly carbs.

The diet could encourage or discourage fat burning through most of the day, and at the beginning of exercise. But not once you get going.

Only through some specific training will you change the ratio of fat/carb burning at the same heart rate.

Your level of intensity is going to have a bigger effect than diet, during the exercise.

That level of intensity determines what % of energy is coming from fat. The rest from glucose. Glucose either stored in muscles/liver, or glucose converted from broken down muscle because of little stored glucose.

Training can cause your "fat-burning" zone to be used at higher and higher heart rates, or level of intensity. As your lactate threshold goes up, so do those other zones (usually).

Diet change just means you aren't starting your workout in fat storage mode because insulin was spiked.

Even now with diet change, If you workout high intensity enough, you can still easily burn more carbs than fat, no matter what your diet is doing.

grinch031

But still, by switching to my latest diet, I'm likely burning a much higher percentage of fat for fuel than ever before. So the amount of protein needed for glucose isn't even comparable to the amount of glucose I was using back when I was eating mostly carbs.

The diet could encourage or discourage fat burning through most of the day, and at the beginning of exercise. But not once you get going.

Only through some specific training will you change the ratio of fat/carb burning at the same heart rate.

Your level of intensity is going to have a bigger effect than diet, during the exercise.

That level of intensity determines what % of energy is coming from fat. The rest from glucose. Glucose either stored in muscles/liver, or glucose converted from broken down muscle because of little stored glucose.

Training can cause your "fat-burning" zone to be used at higher and higher heart rates, or level of intensity. As your lactate threshold goes up, so do those other zones (usually).

Diet change just means you aren't starting your workout in fat storage mode because insulin was spiked.

Even now with diet change, If you workout high intensity enough, you can still easily burn more carbs than fat, no matter what your diet is doing.

My understanding is that when switching from a high-carb to a low-carb diet, protein is only broken down when glucose is needed to fuel the brain, not to provide the same amount of glucose that your body was used to burning at that intensity back when glycogen stores were full. In other words, I've read from multiple sources that advocate lowing carb intake to switch from being a sugar-burner (burning mostly glucose for aerobic activity) to a fat-burner (burning mostly fat). Even at the same intensity.

Di3012

Its all about context here. If you want to be a long-distance runner and see continued improvement, you must run more than 30 minutes at a time and you must do it frequently. However if you want to burn fat and improve physical fitness, then 30+ minutes of cardio is not the best use of your time. You are better off doing resistance training and high intensity intervals. But if cardio keeps your more motivated, better that than nothing!

Oh and I am in marathon training and have actually gotten stronger because I always lift weights before I run, and I have upped my protein intake to prevent muscle loss. I've definitely burned fat without losing muscle in recent weeks.

What sort of weight exercises do you do for running training? I am seriously thinking of getting back into weights after years away. I run a lot, but never used weight training for my running.

What do you do, an overall body session or legs or what? Also, do you lift heavy or light.

Sorry for all the questions lol. :flowerforyou:

Oh I don't do weight training specifically for running, I just do it to stay strong and fit in general. I play tennis and do other activities where having strength comes in handy. I just work the whole body really. I am big on squats/leg press though for lower body.

'Tis a good idea. I might start to incorporate weights into my running training and see how I get on.

Thanks :flowerforyou:

heybales

My understanding is that when switching from a high-carb to a low-carb diet, protein is only broken down when glucose is needed to fuel the brain, not to provide the same amount of glucose that your body was used to burning at that intensity back when glycogen stores were full. In other words, I've read from multiple sources that advocate lowing carb intake to switch from being a sugar-burner (burning mostly glucose for aerobic activity) to a fat-burner (burning mostly fat). Even at the same intensity.

Yes, I've read that too in the past, and was skeptical.
And went and looked at studies that said the diet doesn't magically train what your body is aerobically capable of doing.

Because that is what you are talking about. Aerobic capacity.

Those comments by the more truthful sites is more about the focus of burning all day long, not during exercise.

grinch031

My understanding is that when switching from a high-carb to a low-carb diet, protein is only broken down when glucose is needed to fuel the brain, not to provide the same amount of glucose that your body was used to burning at that intensity back when glycogen stores were full. In other words, I've read from multiple sources that advocate lowing carb intake to switch from being a sugar-burner (burning mostly glucose for aerobic activity) to a fat-burner (burning mostly fat). Even at the same intensity.

Yes, I've read that too in the past, and was skeptical.
And went and looked at studies that said the diet doesn't magically train what your body is aerobically capable of doing.

Because that is what you are talking about. Aerobic capacity.

Those comments by the more truthful sites is more about the focus of burning all day long, not during exercise.

Just to clarify what you're saying. So I've been running a long time, mostly eating a high carb diet. I already had a solid aerobic base so nothing new there. I've been low-carbing for 2 months and have fully adapted such that I can continue to perform at the same level as I did on my previous diet. With that being said, are you saying that I'm still burning the same amount of glucose as before during training, meaning instead of pulling it from glycogen stores, it is now breaking down a lot of muscle?

heybales

Just to clarify what you're saying. So I've been running a long time, mostly eating a high carb diet. I already had a solid aerobic base so nothing new there. I've been low-carbing for 2 months and have fully adapted such that I can continue to perform at the same level as I did on my previous diet. With that being said, are you saying that I'm still burning the same amount of glucose as before during training, meaning instead of pulling it from glycogen stores, it is now breaking down a lot of muscle?

If there are glycogen stores, they will be used first. If not, then muscle. Unless you have improved aerobically from before, same ratio.

A study I was just looking at the other day mentioned that early on in the workout, energy supply has about 2% from protein even if plenty of glucose, and that could come from just the amino acids already available in system, and then some from normal muscle breakdown because of it being used. Then purposeful breakdown because it is there.

After you start getting close to glucose stores being used up, and the body sees that as bad for the brain so it starts before all used up, muscle can be broken down, and energy needs can have 10-15% come from protein. At this point, that means muscle since you already used up free ones.

During this whole time, if your level of effort and the aerobic system can handle 60% of energy needs from fat, that stays about the same. Longer you go, slightly more can come from fat, but this is now into that low glucose stage. The amount of fat your trained cells can use for that level of effort doesn't change much. it is what they can do.

And as you suggest, this aerobic capacity didn't change with your diet, because that's what it is at this point.

Now, if the diet has you loosing more weight, muscles moving less mass means less effort at same pace. Better fat burning. Or, move the pace faster! Same fat burning.

Now, the diet change is effecting how fast you get into that protein breakdown stage.

That's why those Primal/Paleo diets do NOT recommend long cardio. Forgot their term for.

Because you can't possibly rebuild your glucose stores on that low of carbs, and so day after day you will enter that zone quicker. And I've seen the the tweaks from those that just love the cardio, so they do either workout in better zone, or eat more carbs at right time (within 30 min after workout), to deal with the above effect.

ojell

I didn't read all of the responses, but I just wanted to say that honestly, I always thought that 30 mins is good if you want to "maintain" but I've always believed you need to do more than that to actually lose weight.

heybales

Grinch031,

Here you go. Not just stories from others, seems to be an official support for it now. Recognition that many love to exercise and do those long events. Even if it is "Chronic Cardio".

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-fuel-a-marathon/#axzz1kRK3f4Hu

Having yielded to those of you who still insist on running a marathon, yesterday I offered a training strategy that gets you the best results with the least amount of damage. Today’s post is about fueling a marathon – what food to eat and when to eat it. It’s not solely about race day nutrition, because if you just focused on what to eat the day of the race, you’d be missing out on a lot (and you’d likely have problems finishing, or at the very least your performance would suffer). It’s about what to eat while training, a few days before the race, and the day of the race itself. This is the stuff I would do if I had to go back and do another marathon with my current knowledge. I might tweak things slightly if I was trying to make the Olympics, but for the average, relatively fit Primal dude or gal who wants to check this off their bucket list? This is the perfect way to fuel your efforts. And this works equally as well for those of you who think a century ride (100 miles on a bike) might be in the cards.

Dave198lbs

I didn't read all of the responses, but I just wanted to say that honestly, I always thought that 30 mins is good if you want to "maintain" but I've always believed you need to do more than that to actually lose weight.

you can lose weight doing 5 minutes if 5 minutes is more than what you were doing before.

lovinbeinold

I haven't heard that exactly. But my cardiologist told me to work back up to 30 to 40 minutes a day on cardio exercise. So, I am assuming that is the ideal amount.

I can only do about 7 to 8 minutes now, and he wants me up to 30 or 40. Then just to keep doing that every day.

ImJDLookatME

Bump

spyder_rose

Ok so I have heard from multiple people that doing any cardio over 30 mins is basically a waste. They say that your body stops resisting after 30 mins. Anyone have any thoughts supporting this or against this? I would appreciat as much feedback as I can get. I mean... who wants to do more cardio than is necessary?! :bigsmile:

if your body stops resisting at 30 minutes...who or what is doing the work at minute 31?

Love it!!!

I have been told that you need to do AT LEAST 30 minutes cardio a day for your heart to benefit from it...

sblueyez

I aim for 60 minutes of exercise. It helps lower my a1c (keeping me further from diabetes) and keeps me at a lower risk for cardiovascular problems. I lowered my a1c from 5.7 to 5.2 by doing cardio, even light cardio, an hour a day. Any thing over 30 minutes is definitely not a waste in the long run.

angel79202

Ok so I have heard from multiple people that doing any cardio over 30 mins is basically a waste. They say that your body stops resisting after 30 mins. Anyone have any thoughts supporting this or against this? I would appreciat as much feedback as I can get. I mean... who wants to do more cardio than is necessary?! :bigsmile:

this is not true..but i wish it was..I do 11-12 hours a week

Dustinryan24

ive heard this bs too.. curious who thought this up?

grinch031

ive heard this bs too.. curious who thought this up?

studies show...<enter bs here>

Dave198lbs

Ok so I have heard from multiple people that doing any cardio over 30 mins is basically a waste. They say that your body stops resisting after 30 mins. Anyone have any thoughts supporting this or against this? I would appreciat as much feedback as I can get. I mean... who wants to do more cardio than is necessary?! :bigsmile:

if your body stops resisting at 30 minutes...who or what is doing the work at minute 31?

Love it!!!

I have been told that you need to do AT LEAST 30 minutes cardio a day for your heart to benefit from it...

depends on your intensity

Devlyn_P

Ok so regarding cardio. You want first identify what you are trying to do:

Fitness Target Zones: Heart Rates

Exercise Level Benefits Intensity Level (Max HR %)
Light Exercise Healthy Heart Maintenance 50% - 60%
Weight Loss Burn Fat & Calories 60% - 70%
Base - Aerobic Increase stamina & endurance 70% - 80%
Conditioning Fitness , muscle building, and athletic training 80% - 90%
Athletic - elite Athletic training and endurance 90% - 100%

Time < HRM
As time increases so does caloric expenditure but based on the intensity from the above HR%'s.
Someone can run for 45m and burn the same amount of calories versus someone who ran for 20m. It comes down to intensity.

Macrocarpa

I'd be only too happy to go on a 10 mile run with that person to test the theory...

I suspect they've heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard the tail end of a conversation with a professional athlete or something, talking about intervals training rather than steady cardio.