Cardio make you fat???
Options
Replies
-
Cardio does not make you fat.
/thread0 -
Common misconception. The body actually generally prefers getting rid of muscle to fat in the context of cardiovascular exercise (unless you are someone who won the genetic lotto, or are taking performance enhancing drugs, in which case what are you doing on this site?!). Think about it... a pound of muscle yields at most 600 calories of usable energy. A pound of fat yields 3500. The body say "OMG I have to run to survive, and I have to lose a pound of something"... guess which one it's going to pick? Lean muscle mass that is not related to the task at hand. This is why cyclists/marathoners who don't resistance train are so scrawny in the upper body (I have a friend who can cycle over 100 miles in one go, and rides several hundred miles/week, but can't do 1 body-weight push-up). The muscle:fat ratio is going to be determined heavily by genetics and current body composition (someone who is morbidly obese and insulin resistant will probably not lose a significant amount of muscle mass, someone who is at 'athletic' body fat levels will lose almost exclusively muscle). Once you add resistance training in, muscle preservation is greatly improved, as it causes the body to prioritize muscle sparing over fat sparing.No, it's not going to make you fat. If you are eating at a calorie deficit where is this fat going to come from? And unless you were lifting weights a lot and then stop, it's not going to make you lose muscle either unless you are starving yourself.
Your body will preserve the muscle it needs to meet its demands, given proper diet. If all else remains the same, why would it suddenly start shedding muscle? And why would it suddenly start burning through muscle when the body is specifically designed to store fat and then to use that fat as an energy source when in a calorie deficit?
Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT MUSCLE MASS. In a race like the Tour de France, they throw away 6 oz empty water bottles at the beginning of a climb so they aren't carrying extra weight. 2 lbs of extra weight from any source can make a 30-40 sec difference on the final climb of a tour stage. Any muscle that is not absolutely necessary for forward motion is not wanted. The same with marathoners. It's sport-specific training for elite performance that has almost no relevance to the average exerciser.
Triathletes do as much aerobic training if not more than either marathoners or cyclists. For them, a few extra pounds of muscle is beneficial. They seem to be able to do hours and hours of cardiovascular training without losing any of the muscle they want.0 -
In the past 12 months I have run around 2500 miles. That is roughly 275,000 calories. I have also lost weight in this time. If the body preferred to burn muscle for this cardio at 600 calories per pound it would have burned through 458 pounds of muscle. I would have died long ago.
So, either I am a genetic frieak or the body does not prefer muscle tissue over fat as fuel.
And your bench press numbers have increased by how much over this time period? And your biceps have grown how many inches? Sorry, but it's an accepted fact that steady state cardio burns thru both muscular size and strength.
That said, both the OP and the excellent article by the second poster are a weeee bit on the alarmist side. Cardio will burn off your muscle, but it WILL NOT make you fat. It's just that if your version of "being fit" includes a greater than average amount of muscle (either "bulky" or "toned", your choice), then running alone doesn't really get the job done.
The Olympics start soon. Who looks more fit: The Marathoners or the Sprinters? That sort of comes down to personal opinion. But to me the distance runners just look like a bunch of guys and gals in serious need of a sandwich. With extra mayo.
Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT MUSCLE MASS. In a race like the Tour de France, they throw away 6 oz empty water bottles at the beginning of a climb so they aren't carrying extra weight. 2 lbs of extra weight from any source can make a 30-40 sec difference on the final climb of a tour stage. Any muscle that is not absolutely necessary for forward motion is not wanted. The same with marathoners. It's sport-specific training for elite performance that has almost no relevance to the average exerciser.
Triathletes do as much aerobic training if not more than either marathoners or cyclists. For them, a few extra pounds of muscle is beneficial. They seem to be able to do hours and hours of cardiovascular training without losing any of the muscle they want.
I'm going to fix the typo in your post: "Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T CAN'T *SUSTAIN* MUSCLE MASS".
There, that's better. Glad to help out.0 -
In the past 12 months I have run around 2500 miles. That is roughly 275,000 calories. I have also lost weight in this time. If the body preferred to burn muscle for this cardio at 600 calories per pound it would have burned through 458 pounds of muscle. I would have died long ago.
So, either I am a genetic frieak or the body does not prefer muscle tissue over fat as fuel.
And your bench press numbers have increased by how much over this time period? And your biceps have grown how many inches? Sorry, but it's an accepted fact that steady state cardio burns thru both muscular size and strength.
That said, both the OP and the excellent article by the second poster are a weeee bit on the alarmist side. Cardio will burn off your muscle, but it WILL NOT make you fat. It's just that if your version of "being fit" includes a greater than average amount of muscle (either "bulky" or "toned", your choice), then running alone doesn't really get the job done.
The Olympics start soon. Who looks more fit: The Marathoners or the Sprinters? That sort of comes down to personal opinion. But to me the distance runners just look like a bunch of guys and gals in serious need of a sandwich. With extra mayo.
Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT MUSCLE MASS. In a race like the Tour de France, they throw away 6 oz empty water bottles at the beginning of a climb so they aren't carrying extra weight. 2 lbs of extra weight from any source can make a 30-40 sec difference on the final climb of a tour stage. Any muscle that is not absolutely necessary for forward motion is not wanted. The same with marathoners. It's sport-specific training for elite performance that has almost no relevance to the average exerciser.
Triathletes do as much aerobic training if not more than either marathoners or cyclists. For them, a few extra pounds of muscle is beneficial. They seem to be able to do hours and hours of cardiovascular training without losing any of the muscle they want.
I'm going to fix the typo in your post: "Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T CAN'T *SUSTAIN* MUSCLE MASS".
There, that's better. Glad to help out.
Once again, a serious discussion turns into a Broscience kegger.
Hint: if you have to use the "marathoner vs sprinter" example, then you have already lost the argument.0 -
There needs to be a distinction made based on your goals. If your immediate plan is to keep or build muscle, resistance training is better (though cardio is still good). If your goal is to lose weight and become a leaner person, resistance training is great but so is cardio, but in this case diet really trumps. I started out with about 70 pounds to lose, I am down almost 50, and as I near my goal I am adding more and more weight training and I higher protein diet.
Bottom line if you are burning more calories than you are taking in you aren't going to get fatter :-)0 -
Two types of people here. First are those training to excell at sport and second are those training to admire themselves in the mirror.
We don't speak the same language.0 -
Once again, a serious discussion turns into a Broscience kegger.
Hint: if you have to use the "marathoner vs sprinter" example, then you have already lost the argument.
Huh???? You were the one that popped the cork on the "look at the marathoners/triathletes" line. And you even presumed to know exactly how much muscle mass marathoners/triathletes wanted to keep vs how much they actually retained. Are you able to read the minds of world class athletes? And it becomes a broscience kegger when someone points out the serious flaw in your logic. Okay. Got it.
Thanks for the debating tip, "bro"! What methodology would you prefer to use, sense using things you can see with your own two eyes offends your delicate sensibilities? I'm prepared to debate this in whatever manner you see fit. After we're done and one of us has won the internets, we can sit down at the kegger you have me throwing and chug some brewskis.
So I'm asking, do you have an actual point? Or did you just wish to insult? You may not have appreciated my presentation, but I actually had a point to make, so I'm one up on you and well on my way to winning the internets!0 -
All this ^^^ makes might be of interest to someone who is trying to achieve a particular look or compete in a particular event - but we are all in basic agreement:
Exercise in any shape or form does not make you fat. Period.
That said, my 2 cents is that all the athletes I know don't really give a monkeys how they look in terms of muscle mass or toning - they want to go faster, further and harder than before. if that means building muscle, then that's what they will do: For distance runners the most useful type of weight training is for core strength, then legs, then definitely not much advantage in upper body - have a look at these 'puny' long distance runners: they have stomachs, thighs and calves of steal!0 -
"And your bench press numbers have increased by how much over this time period? And your biceps have grown how many inches?"
I can't decide whether this question is more sad or hilarious? I'm leaning towards tragedy. The man is a marathon runner. He might as well as you how far you've managed to hobble.... Different aims, and your value system (hey man, mine is SO MUCH bigger) doesn't apply.
Your answer also doesn't apply to the question. The question was 'does cardio make you fat'. The answer, for anyone whose brain hasn't been addled by too much testosterone, is 'no, don't be silly, of course it doesn't'.0 -
"And your bench press numbers have increased by how much over this time period? And your biceps have grown how many inches?"
I can't decide whether this question is more sad or hilarious? I'm leaning towards tragedy. The man is a marathon runner. He might as well as you how far you've managed to hobble.... Different aims, and your value system (hey man, mine is SO MUCH bigger) doesn't apply.
Your answer also doesn't apply to the question. The question was 'does cardio make you fat'. The answer, for anyone whose brain hasn't been addled by too much testosterone, is 'no, don't be silly, of course it doesn't'.
meerkat, I'm sorry if I made you sad but happy if I made you laugh. Either way, you completely misunderstand me and my point. Scott made a sarcastically ridiculous response to a post and I replied to him in a sarcastically ridiculous manner. I'm not comparing arm sizes and I'm damn sure not denigrating his progress or the hard work he has put into himself. I have no doubt he is a far better runner than I am a lifter.
Scott and I (along with pretty much everyone else here) agree that cardio does not make people fat. I implicitly said that, but perhaps you were too busy laughing/crying to get that far into my post. I was, however, taking a dig at Scott for "proving" that cardio didn't hinder muscular performance because he RUNS BUT HAS NOT TURNED INTO A SKELETON AND DIED. He was being facetious and I enjoyed it, but someone inexperienced may not realize that and keep doing too much cardio even tho their goal is to get bigger and stronger.
Apologies to any I've offended....well, except for that guy that "broscience guy". I'm going to sign off so I can do a kegstand while further addling my brain with testosterone.0 -
bump!! need to study this information!!0
-
Can't we all just get along???!!!0
-
Two types of people here. First are those training to excel at sport and second are those training to admire themselves in the mirror.
We don't speak the same language.
Best response ever!Common misconception. The body actually generally prefers getting rid of muscle to fat in the context of cardiovascular exercise (unless you are someone who won the genetic lotto, or are taking performance enhancing drugs, in which case what are you doing on this site?!). Think about it... a pound of muscle yields at most 600 calories of usable energy. A pound of fat yields 3500. The body say "OMG I have to run to survive, and I have to lose a pound of something"... guess which one it's going to pick?
Would you care to back this up with something other than your scrawny upper body cyclist anecdote? Everything I've ever read suggests that low intensity cardio burns primarily calories from fat and higher intensity burns carbohydrates from glycogen and fat.0 -
Middle aged soccer dad who's been carrying extra weight most of my adult life......
strong progress/10.0 -
Middle aged soccer dad who's been carrying extra weight most of my adult life......
strong progress/10.
That adds even less :huh: (I finally got to use the ignore button!)0 -
there maybe truth to this go to the gym only the BIGS are on the treadmills...hince the terms cows on conveyor belts.
When you write a post, some words have red, squiggly lines under them. You should ask somebody what that means. It won't help much with the grammatical errors, though.0 -
It isn't even remotely true. Running burns fat. Lifting weights burns fat. Eating at a caloric deficit encourages your body to use fat stores.
Exercise + Eating Healthy = PROFIT!0 -
I have not seen any research that suggests cardio will increase fat - that notion is utterly far-fetched.
There is, however, substantial science demonstrating that extended periods of constant cardio (e.g. runinng for an hour at a steady 6.5 mph), will definitely result in the reduction of muscle mass as well as fat. The arguments for this are rather concisely portrayed in Mark Lauren's 'You are Your Own Gym'. He would contend that resistance exercise combined with very high intensity cardio, such as Interval and Tabata training is by far the most effective method for sustainable weight loss.
All of that said, I have successfully lost weight with a combination of careful diet and extensive cardio (5/6 times a week, an hour at a time). However, I feel that I have lost some lean weight into the bargain!
My view is that, as with most things in life, balance is the key to sustained success. I am now weight training 3 times a week and doing a variety of cardio 3 times a week, and whilst the weight loss is a steady 2-3lbs a week, I feel that my body shape is changing (for the better) far more rapidly than it did through just diet and cardio.
I find that there is a tremendous amount of conflicting information regarding fitness and fat loss. At the end of the day, you've got to do what works, what you enjoy and what is sustainable.0 -
I read the article that one poster put up about cardio being bad for you. In the author's example, he said he knew women who ate a lot...and I mean a LOT and then went to the gym to "run it off" on the treadmill. That's where the flaw in the argument is...for me anyway.
Of course, if you eat 4000 calories a day and then go and try to burn it off on a treadmill, you're not going to lose weight!
It's about making a lifestyle change, both in diet and exercise. I think it's important for our heart muscle to get some cardio in each week. Most importantly, you need a heart monitor...a way to make sure you're staying at your goal heart rate. I have had various personal trainers over the years tell me that it's a waste to "over" cardio...that is, to go over your goal range in your heart rate. If you want to lose weight, eat healthy, do cardio with a heart monitor(or use the monitor on the machine, if you don't have a HRM), and work in some strength exercises as well. Now, if I would just follow my own advice 100% of the time, instead of about 85%. lol0 -
In the past 12 months I have run around 2500 miles. That is roughly 275,000 calories. I have also lost weight in this time. If the body preferred to burn muscle for this cardio at 600 calories per pound it would have burned through 458 pounds of muscle. I would have died long ago.
So, either I am a genetic frieak or the body does not prefer muscle tissue over fat as fuel.
And your bench press numbers have increased by how much over this time period? And your biceps have grown how many inches? Sorry, but it's an accepted fact that steady state cardio burns thru both muscular size and strength.
That said, both the OP and the excellent article by the second poster are a weeee bit on the alarmist side. Cardio will burn off your muscle, but it WILL NOT make you fat. It's just that if your version of "being fit" includes a greater than average amount of muscle (either "bulky" or "toned", your choice), then running alone doesn't really get the job done.
The Olympics start soon. Who looks more fit: The Marathoners or the Sprinters? That sort of comes down to personal opinion. But to me the distance runners just look like a bunch of guys and gals in serious need of a sandwich. With extra mayo.
Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT MUSCLE MASS. In a race like the Tour de France, they throw away 6 oz empty water bottles at the beginning of a climb so they aren't carrying extra weight. 2 lbs of extra weight from any source can make a 30-40 sec difference on the final climb of a tour stage. Any muscle that is not absolutely necessary for forward motion is not wanted. The same with marathoners. It's sport-specific training for elite performance that has almost no relevance to the average exerciser.
Triathletes do as much aerobic training if not more than either marathoners or cyclists. For them, a few extra pounds of muscle is beneficial. They seem to be able to do hours and hours of cardiovascular training without losing any of the muscle they want.
I'm going to fix the typo in your post: "Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T CAN'T *SUSTAIN* MUSCLE MASS".
There, that's better. Glad to help out.
Sorry but that's not true. I have a friend who is an elite athlete and right now he's training for a full Iron Man in November. He's greatly reduced his weight training because he HAS to focus on the cardio conditioning that's needed in order to complete the event. When he's not training for something as bad-as*ed as this he lifts weights, cycles a LOT, runs a LOT and he's jacked.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
- 399 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
- 985 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions