Cardio makes you fat: "Women: Running into Trouble"
Replies
-
Ihave just started my fitness plan and was very motivated 4 weeks in have lost 9lbs, am at week 4 of c25k running plan and was feeling pretty good. read this post and and very demotivated
soapparently you cant win and running makes you fat. well i give up bavk to the couch. this is just as disapointing as when i read apples are bad for you.
And this, in a nutshell is why this thread makes me a grumpy git.
Please don't take this article as seriously as you are. (Unless your last sentence is intended to suggest we read the whole post tongue in cheek?) Keep doing the things that make you feel good, that produce results, that build your fitness and aid your weightloss. Just think about adding in things like strength training, either now, or as you develop your programme.
The original article is alarmist, and as Briansharpe mentioned all the way back on page 1, there's a strong critique of the author's interpretation / misrepresentation of the data.
120lbs down. Mostly with running. I'm not getting *fatter*. It won't be the *only* thing you'll want to do, long term, but it *is* a good thing to do.0 -
Both are fine in moderation.Ihave just started my fitness plan and was very motivated 4 weeks in have lost 9lbs, am at week 4 of c25k running plan and was feeling pretty good. read this post and and very demotivated soapparently you cant win and running makes you fat. well i give up bavk to the couch. this is just as disapointing as when i read apples are bad for you. 0 -
I hate running. I ran 3 times this year. Twice to know what 5K felt like and a third time for the actual 5k race.0
-
you're... serious?? You don't think the afterburn from anaerobic resistance training would overall increase metabolic activity compared to the cardio group? This is a no brainer. There is a reason elite strength athletes eat 10k calories a day on FAR less hours trained compared to their runner training counterparts. It's because strength training boosts metabolism into overdrive. Ask ANYONE who lifts heavy how much of a pain in the *kitten* it is actually trying to gain weight.
regardless I can't do this right now as I have to run for a bit. Google cardio vs resistance training fat loss study. And go wild. You won't find a single one that says cardio is better in all the blogs, and the actual studies they link or directly reference.
It’s hard to believe that you’re actually serious with this. You think the “afterburn,” or excess postexercise energy consumption (EPOC), would really make you burn that much more than cardio, enough to make up the difference? Unfortunately, “no brainer” is a good description of your statement here. Maybe you should take a step back from broscience and read some articles based on actually scientific studies. Steady-state cardio can give you an EPOC of ~24-162 calories, depending on time & intensity. There has not been much research directly comparing EPOC from weight training to cardio, but one study showed a 40 min cardio session resulted in EPOC of 34, circuit cardio of 51, and 53 calories for weights. Hardly anything to brag about. Next time, please do a little research before spouting your broscience.
Ref: http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/epocarticle.html
This goes back to the whole question of which is the superior exercises. It is a foolish debate since neither is superior to the other in all ways—it depends on your original stats and goals. And I do think people should ideally do both, and concentrate on the exercise they enjoy more and will help them achieve long term goals. Do you think someone who’s obese is going to be concerned with preserving every bit of muscle mass or losing a maximal amount of fat? It might be more beneficial to do cardio sometimessince they can burn an overall larger amount of fat, even though they are not burning 100% fat.
I'll explain why with 2 simple assertations.And here you repeat your fallacy. You are claiming that strength training is superior to cardio for fat loss. Yet this study compares cardio+diet to diet only, not any sort of cardio plan to a strength-training plan.
1) Caloric deficit causes the body to lose weight.
2) Resistance training will retain more lean body mass compared to not doing any resistance training..
I hope we can both agree on these 2 simple points. If you need further clarification as to why these are true, then I see little further debate on the subject.. But let continue.
So say group A is cardio, group B is resistance training, and they BOTH have 500 calories missing from their intake of food, so are in 500 calorie daily deficit. So if resistance training retains lean mass better than cardio, then whats being burned instead to make up for that 500 daily caloric deficit??? (hint: fat)
I agree with the first two points. Yet here you compound on your logical errors by moving the goal posts. *Fat loss* and *retaining lean body mass* are not the same thing. Yes, many people would like to do both, but the goals can be in conflict. You first argue that weight training is superior to cardio for *fat loss* (yet it’s clearly not) and now you want to change the argument to something else. And if you are super concerned with burning fat and nothing else, your best bet is probably to do low intensity cardio since that exercise gets closest to burning 100% fat.
If someone with a significant amount of weight to lose can speed up the process by adding a cardio session a few times per week (even if they are untrained, an extra ~½ lb per week may be reasonable), why would it matter if the weight lost is not 100% fat? It will be mostly fat, especially if they are eating enough protein. And if they add cardio to weight training and sensible diet, they should definitely not worry about losing large amounts of muscle. But in the example, the cardio group A will likely lose both weight and fat at a faster rate than B. Yes, they may lose LBM faster than B, but I’m pretty sure that it would not be so much as to cause alarm ( again assuming reasonable diet).
Ideally anyone losing would also do resistance training to prevent much muscle loss, but the weight training will not speed up the fat loss more than cardio. (I can bet you that even your body building idol you referred to earlier does some cardio, especially during cutting time.) Now, obviously someone who wants to lose 5-10 vanity pounds may be more concerned with *retaining lean body mass* than with *fat loss*, but their priorities are different.0 -
Well it seems that Dr. Kravits has changed his mind?
EPOC and Weight Management
Because the body continues to expend energy after exercise, EPOC plays a supplemental role to an exercise program in weight management. Currently, researchers are interested in the effect different forms of exercise have on EPOC.
The evidence suggests that a high-intensity, intermittent-type of training (interval training) has a more pronounced effect on EPOC (Haltom et al. 1999). Also, it appears that resistance training produces greater EPOC responses than aerobic exercise (Burleson et al. 1998). The research suggests that high-intensity resistance exercise disturbs the body’s homeostasis to a greater degree than aerobic exercise. The result is a larger energy requirement after exercise to restore the body’s systems to normal (Burleson et al. 1998), and thus an explanation for the higher EPOC. The underlying mechanisms that cause the higher EPOC observed in resistance exercise include elevated blood lactate, and an increase in circulating catecholamines (epinephrine and norepinephrine) and anabolic hormones.
Inspecting the data from several investigations, it appears that EPOC accounts for postexercise expenditure of 51 (Haltom et al. 1999) to 127 (Burleson et al. 1998) kilocalories. Since a pound of fat is equal to 3,500 kilocalories, the effect of EPOC on weight control must be regarded in terms of a cumulative effect over time.
Full article: http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/epoc.html
I sure wish I knew how to bold like some do in a post. Maybe some will be kind enough to tell me. In particular the line that caught my eye was "Also, it appears that resistance training produces greater EPOC responses than aerobic exercise". You can't make this stuff up! BTW, I did read the article you posted and I can't really tell which one was written first.0 -
I think we are going a touch overboard... I think the whole point is to be active, be creative, and change things up. When your body gets into a rhythm, change it up. I found running was great for me to lose inches, but I didn't lose pounds.
Training for the half marathon certainly didn't make me fat - as I think the long slow runs, where you are supposed to be able to talk easily, are great for fat burn. Regardless of the science stats that everyone is so fond of, all I can say is... before running, my thighs rubbed together and I couldn't see my abs... now, they don't and I can. I am not fat.
I have gotten better now that I've added strength training into my routine IN ADDITION to running, AND eating smarter.
My advice (not peer reviewed, not scientifically based, not supported by Dr Whosit or Mr Whatsit, Ph.D) is to eat cleaner, do some cardio, work on some strength, have fun, and be patient!
p.s. I ran for four months 3 - 4 times a week before I saw ANY change in my body... and then holy **** did things start changing and rapidly!0 -
THIS TIMES 3.I think we are going a touch overboard... I think the whole point is to be active, be creative, and change things up. When your body gets into a rhythm, change it up. I found running was great for me to lose inches, but I didn't lose pounds.
Training for the half marathon certainly didn't make me fat - as I think the long slow runs, where you are supposed to be able to talk easily, are great for fat burn. Regardless of the science stats that everyone is so fond of, all I can say is... before running, my thighs rubbed together and I couldn't see my abs... now, they don't and I can. I am not fat.
I have gotten better now that I've added strength training into my routine IN ADDITION to running, AND eating smarter.
My advice (not peer reviewed, not scientifically based, not supported by Dr Whosit or Mr Whatsit, Ph.D) is to eat cleaner, do some cardio, work on some strength, have fun, and be patient!
p.s. I ran for four months 3 - 4 times a week before I saw ANY change in my body... and then holy **** did things start changing and rapidly!
I've been running again since February (and yes, janys, I WAS ACTIVE before running. They aren't synonymous).
And today I finally got fed up with all my ill fitting bras and went and got fit again. HOLY COW the ladies have gotten smaller (YAY), and my actual body size has as well. I'm in a 34!
This is not from losing 8lbs. This is from running. Plain and simple. I've been lifting for years. It's not from weights. It's from running.
To the folks who are discouraged by this thread: I went from a 36/38D to a 34B. That wasn't muscle I lost lol.0 -
How does an EPOC of between 51 and 127 calories allow one to eat 10000 calories a day? The math does not follow.
Also aerobic exercise also has an EPOC albeit a lower one. So, your total extra EPOC from weights over cardio is somewhere between 20 and 80 calories. 80 =/= 10000.
Unless someone is doing a daily workout of around 6000 calories they are not going to eat 10000 calories a day without gaining a lot of weight. How many hours of daily weightlifting does it take to burn 6000 calories? And how does that relate to anyone reading this thread that is interested in losing weight?
Even if all that extra burn can be attributed to extra muscle mass on a 3% fat body the person would have to weigh around 800 lbs and work out for an hour or two per day to eat that much without gaining weight. How many people reading this fit that profile?0 -
THIS TIMES 3.I think we are going a touch overboard... I think the whole point is to be active, be creative, and change things up. When your body gets into a rhythm, change it up. I found running was great for me to lose inches, but I didn't lose pounds.
Training for the half marathon certainly didn't make me fat - as I think the long slow runs, where you are supposed to be able to talk easily, are great for fat burn. Regardless of the science stats that everyone is so fond of, all I can say is... before running, my thighs rubbed together and I couldn't see my abs... now, they don't and I can. I am not fat.
I have gotten better now that I've added strength training into my routine IN ADDITION to running, AND eating smarter.
My advice (not peer reviewed, not scientifically based, not supported by Dr Whosit or Mr Whatsit, Ph.D) is to eat cleaner, do some cardio, work on some strength, have fun, and be patient!
p.s. I ran for four months 3 - 4 times a week before I saw ANY change in my body... and then holy **** did things start changing and rapidly!
I've been running again since February (and yes, janys, I WAS ACTIVE before running. They aren't synonymous).
And today I finally got fed up with all my ill fitting bras and went and got fit again. HOLY COW the ladies have gotten smaller (YAY), and my actual body size has as well. I'm in a 34!
This is not from losing 8lbs. This is from running. Plain and simple. I've been lifting for years. It's not from weights. It's from running.
To the folks who are discouraged by this thread: I went from a 36/38D to a 34B. That wasn't muscle I lost lol.
*sobbing uncontrollably* guess what happens when you start out as a 36 C... f**k it, I'm getting fat! Oh wait... maybe I'll just keep running! LMAO... (sorry OP - it was too hard to resist!)0 -
Thx for the post, I will keepn on researching it. What I DO KNOW is that cardio only does not work well, and that lifting free weights properly 4 times a week has more lasting results. Plus, the muscle you build spends more calories even when you're not moving, which means a better metabolism. But thx for the heads up.
:ohwell:0 -
LOL. Am I the only one who wants smaller boobs??? I've always wanted them to be smaller. I'm thrilled!
THIS TIMES 3.I think we are going a touch overboard... I think the whole point is to be active, be creative, and change things up. When your body gets into a rhythm, change it up. I found running was great for me to lose inches, but I didn't lose pounds.
Training for the half marathon certainly didn't make me fat - as I think the long slow runs, where you are supposed to be able to talk easily, are great for fat burn. Regardless of the science stats that everyone is so fond of, all I can say is... before running, my thighs rubbed together and I couldn't see my abs... now, they don't and I can. I am not fat.
I have gotten better now that I've added strength training into my routine IN ADDITION to running, AND eating smarter.
My advice (not peer reviewed, not scientifically based, not supported by Dr Whosit or Mr Whatsit, Ph.D) is to eat cleaner, do some cardio, work on some strength, have fun, and be patient!
p.s. I ran for four months 3 - 4 times a week before I saw ANY change in my body... and then holy **** did things start changing and rapidly!
I've been running again since February (and yes, janys, I WAS ACTIVE before running. They aren't synonymous).
And today I finally got fed up with all my ill fitting bras and went and got fit again. HOLY COW the ladies have gotten smaller (YAY), and my actual body size has as well. I'm in a 34!
This is not from losing 8lbs. This is from running. Plain and simple. I've been lifting for years. It's not from weights. It's from running.
To the folks who are discouraged by this thread: I went from a 36/38D to a 34B. That wasn't muscle I lost lol.
*sobbing uncontrollably* guess what happens when you start out as a 36 C... f**k it, I'm getting fat! Oh wait... maybe I'll just keep running! LMAO... (sorry OP - it was too hard to resist!)0 -
i think, as i mentioned previously people are reading the conclusion of research (strength training produces higher epoch) but failing to look at the detail of a study. the difference may be statistically significant, but that doesn't mean its substantial, or even particularly meaningful.0
-
LOL. Am I the only one who wants smaller boobs??? I've always wanted them to be smaller. I'm thrilled!
small boobs to start with - great
a good rack, reduced to small boobs, and ravaged by children... not so great!
haha... that said... I just say... hey dont look at those... check my abs instead! (see how I compensate?
) 0 -
I never had kids, but yeah, my sister's were never the same. Mine look pretty good. Just...smaller. It's odd, the most I ever weighed 12 years ago) was 150. I've been in the 135 zone for most of my adult life. And have always worked out. Something about running really melts the inches off me. I'll take it, whatever the reason!LOL. Am I the only one who wants smaller boobs??? I've always wanted them to be smaller. I'm thrilled!
small boobs to start with - great
a good rack, reduced to small boobs, and ravaged by children... not so great!
haha... that said... I just say... hey dont look at those... check my abs instead! (see how I compensate? )0 -
I never had kids, but yeah, my sister's were never the same. Mine look pretty good. Just...smaller. It's odd, the most I ever weighed 12 years ago) was 150. I've been in the 135 zone for most of my adult life. And have always worked out. Something about running really melts the inches off me. I'll take it, whatever the reason!LOL. Am I the only one who wants smaller boobs??? I've always wanted them to be smaller. I'm thrilled!
small boobs to start with - great
a good rack, reduced to small boobs, and ravaged by children... not so great!
haha... that said... I just say... hey dont look at those... check my abs instead! (see how I compensate? )
I don't care if my boobs get smaller as long as my waist and hips are shrinking proportionally- which they are. But I had a small D at 114 lbs, so I doubt they're gonna get too small.
ETA- that was when I was 17 and graduated from HS, I don't expect to get anywhere near that weight again.0 -
The article is totally true and has science to back it up. Cardio is a waste of time except for short bursts of activity. The human body was not designed for long runs or treadmill runs like a herd of zebras. It was designed for quick bursts of emergency activity and lifting. I've noticed that runners have no muscle and look so weak as do bicyclists. They're not healthy looking. It's resistance training that builds the body and garners it free of unhealthy fat. But there's no way to get people to believe that. They have been brainwashed by doctors and others. Even the king of cardio, Cooper, admits he was wrong.
I disagree. I see many runners with TONS of muscle- and bicyclists, have you seen some of their legs? Resistance training can only be seen if you do cardio to burn fat, so you can see the muscle resistance training gives you! Weights are awesome, but cardio is definitely one of the big factors to burn fat. It's not a waste of time, it has so many benefits for weight loss, your heart and other organs.0 -
I never had kids, but yeah, my sister's were never the same. Mine look pretty good. Just...smaller. It's odd, the most I ever weighed 12 years ago) was 150. I've been in the 135 zone for most of my adult life. And have always worked out. Something about running really melts the inches off me. I'll take it, whatever the reason!LOL. Am I the only one who wants smaller boobs??? I've always wanted them to be smaller. I'm thrilled!
small boobs to start with - great
a good rack, reduced to small boobs, and ravaged by children... not so great!
haha... that said... I just say... hey dont look at those... check my abs instead! (see how I compensate? )
I don't care if my boobs get smaller as long as my waist and hips are shrinking proportionally- which they are. But I had a small D at 114 lbs, so I doubt they're gonna get too small.
ETA- that was when I was 17 and graduated from HS, I don't expect to get anywhere near that weight again.
More. Bean.
That is all!
And Meerkat...I know you could care less about my opinion, but I definitely appreciate your recent posts. While they're not quite in line with my own opinion...they certainly aren't steering anyone wrong, and (since I now DO in fact remember you from other interactions...you changed your profile picture!) are far more inline with the respectful, intelligent tone of some of your other posts I've read.
I'd say 'well done'...but I don't think you'd likely take it how I actually mean it lol.0 -
The answer is because heaavvyyyy resistance training requires a crapton of calories to rebuild tissue during rest. 10k a day is not unheard of, and I've seen much higher for the big heavyweights. and I will say I would be very surprised finding any elite lifter of the normal average weight classes eating under 6k a day. Hell, even for me to gain weight I had to hit 5000 a day, and I'm far from elite. Thats only from 7 hours a week training time.How does an EPOC of between 51 and 127 calories allow one to eat 10000 calories a day? The math does not follow.
Also aerobic exercise also has an EPOC albeit a lower one. So, your total extra EPOC from weights over cardio is somewhere between 20 and 80 calories. 80 =/= 10000.
Unless someone is doing a daily workout of around 6000 calories they are not going to eat 10000 calories a day without gaining a lot of weight. How many hours of daily weightlifting does it take to burn 6000 calories? And how does that relate to anyone reading this thread that is interested in losing weight?
Even if all that extra burn can be attributed to extra muscle mass on a 3% fat body the person would have to weigh around 800 lbs and work out for an hour or two per day to eat that much without gaining weight. How many people reading this fit that profile?
the epoc from resistance training in these studies if from people lifting like 60lbs pounds for 15 reps kinda deal, as in not very strong. So no shock the afterburn is minimal. When you're benching 300+ pounds, squatting 300+ lbs, etc etc, ya you better believe your metabolism is in godlike territory. And unless you're eating just stupid amount of food, you'll feel like lethargic *kitten* and start losing weight.
Also, cardio does have a decent afterburn too. But only once you hit the 'cardio zone' and above. Anything in the 'fat loss' zone and below produces no measurable afterburn. The one metabolic chamber study I read say I think is was a 30% additional calorie burn from epoc from a 45min run at 70% VO2MAX, so it can be quite significant.0 -
How does an EPOC of between 51 and 127 calories allow one to eat 10000 calories a day? The math does not follow.
Also aerobic exercise also has an EPOC albeit a lower one. So, your total extra EPOC from weights over cardio is somewhere between 20 and 80 calories. 80 =/= 10000.
Unless someone is doing a daily workout of around 6000 calories they are not going to eat 10000 calories a day without gaining a lot of weight. How many hours of daily weightlifting does it take to burn 6000 calories? And how does that relate to anyone reading this thread that is interested in losing weight?
Even if all that extra burn can be attributed to extra muscle mass on a 3% fat body the person would have to weigh around 800 lbs and work out for an hour or two per day to eat that much without gaining weight. How many people reading this fit that profile?
Totllay agree Scott! It is hair splitting. Both have EPOC, both burn calories, one preserves more muscle mass, good idea to do both. Individual preference. Kinda of make the "no brainer" comment look as dumb as some of the others that have been posted though.0 -
bump to read later after work0
-
Running is great, especially for the heart. I run and my doctor said I have a strong heart...healthy is important.
Running is great for you but what you put in your body is 80 percent of why people are fat.
What you eat makes you fat, runnning makes you healthy, leaner, happier0 -
Resistance training can only be seen if you do cardio to burn fat, so you can see the muscle resistance training gives you! Weights are awesome, but cardio is definitely one of the big factors to burn fat.
Really? Tell that to this gentleman:
Cardio is NOT part of his routine. 3 days a week heavy strength training...and intermittent fasting...is.
Picture is here:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/SuMlTBIBAZI/AAAAAAAAAfI/2q8FdTPNy0k/s1600-h/DSC00316.JPG0 -
Although from personal experience going back to the weights one day to see if I had gotten weak, I do not agree that cardio only causes your muscles to be eaten away, you guys have convinced me to at least add back in pushups and heavy bag boxing to my routine which I started a week ago. It's a nice change of pace and feels good.Totllay agree Scott! It is hair splitting. Both have EPOC, both burn calories, one preserves more muscle mass, good idea to do both. Individual preference. Kinda of make the "no brainer" comment look as dumb as some of the others that have been posted though.0 -
Cardio itself doesn't cause loss of muscle mass. Cardio on a caloric deficit is where the problem is. That's why marathoners etc. weight themselves before and after training runs/marathons and calibrate caloric intake (and ingest obscene quantities of refined sugars via gels or whatever, which is why I lol at the 'carbs make you fat omg' people)... it would suck to run a marathon and then lose enough muscle mass that your next time is worse.
Although from personal experience going back to the weights one day to see if I had gotten weak, I do not agree that cardio only causes your muscles to be eaten away, you guys have convinced me to at least add back in pushups and heavy bag boxing to my routine which I started a week ago. It's a nice change of pace and feels good.Totllay agree Scott! It is hair splitting. Both have EPOC, both burn calories, one preserves more muscle mass, good idea to do both. Individual preference. Kinda of make the "no brainer" comment look as dumb as some of the others that have been posted though.
Edit: Also, heavy bag is awesome.0 -
Oh wow. You just totally validated my PhD with your view that I'm 'quite intelligent'. It's right up there with the moment you told me which of my posts you preferred.
I'm off to swoon now, Cris. Thanks. I feel uber special.
You seem to have a bad attitude and a bit of a chip on your shoulder, I don't really think its necessary and it comes off like you are bitter and twisted. How many cats do you have ?
Stick around a while and you'll get to understand that some people on this site have senses of humour.0 -
I will explain why muscle may be lost. firstly a few things. They don't get 'eaten away'. Your muscle fibre count is genetic, and doesn't change really. When you count the fibres in big body builders, and compare to the fibre counts to sedentary people, they are virtually the same. That said, there can be a huge massive spread difference. To use generic numbers, some people will have say a 100 fibres, some will have 300. And in between. Now the training and diet you do can make those fibres bigger, smaller, stay the same, more efficient, etc. But you're for the most part stuck with that genetic number.
Although from personal experience going back to the weights one day to see if I had gotten weak, I do not agree that cardio only causes your muscles to be eaten away, you guys have convinced me to at least add back in pushups and heavy bag boxing to my routine which I started a week ago. It's a nice change of pace and feels good.Totllay agree Scott! It is hair splitting. Both have EPOC, both burn calories, one preserves more muscle mass, good idea to do both. Individual preference. Kinda of make the "no brainer" comment look as dumb as some of the others that have been posted though.
Now, here comes the second part. The muscles you have don't all work for everything you do. some are specialized for lower intensities, some for higher. Here's a good wiki read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_striated_muscle
When you do cardio, you're only using the cardiovascular energy system to power the Type I muscle fibres to move your body. Meaning all those Type IIa, Type IIb and Type IIx fibres are completely being unused. THIS is why we say do resistance training. Because when you're in caloric deficit, and you have the vast majority of your muscle fibres being utterly unused, the body will basically allow them to atrophy. You don't use it, you lose it.
Now the caveats. Resistance training is a catch all word. It's does NOT mean you have to lift weights. What it really means is use your bodies Lactic Acid and ATP-CP energy systems to power your Type II muscles. You can do this through running if you like. Sprinting for example. Or even medium distance running for time. You can do this with bodyweight training doing pull ups for example. Basically doing ANYTHING where at the very min, you're hitting lactic acid threshold. Or for optimal effect, do training where you're varying intensities soo all energy systems and muscle fibre types are being utilized. Then the body will do it's best to preserve all fibres types while in deficit allowing for maximal fat loss, should that be your goal.
One of the ironies though is just cause you're lifting weights, it does NOT mean you're doing resistance training. The standing on a bosuball lifting 5lbs dumbells you see far to many people doing? Congratulations, you're doing cardio....
But ya, this has always been a pet peeve of mine when I hear about people saying they are 'fit' because they run. And lifting is not fitness. How can you possibly say you're fit when 75% of your muscle fibres are being ignored in your body by your training... ugn. but I digress. Congrats on adding some resistance training to your routine. And I hope this chart and explanation makes some sense.
edit: the fit comment came out wrong. I don't mean to imply that say distance runners are unfit. I ment it moreso that fitness is a subjective term. And I don't like the elitist attitude that just because an athlete decides his sport of choice requires Type II muscle fibre development instead of Type I that they are somehow lower on the totem pole. Set goals, then do whats best to achieve them. Don't need to make it more complicated than that, and applaud anyone for hitting those goals, regardless of what discipline.0 -
I agree with your edit. From the other side of the room some of the weight lifting threads display that same elitist attitude against runners which always rubs me the wrong way.
Also, I agree that a proper running program included weekly running above LT and at LT as well as at lower intensity in volume. However, in order to do those at and above LT workouts at the intensity and volume necessary to evoke the desired training adaptations a person needs to spend some time doing lower intensity work to build up enough fitness to even be able to do the harder work. That's the point that's usually either missed or ignored.0 -
Oh wow. You just totally validated my PhD with your view that I'm 'quite intelligent'. It's right up there with the moment you told me which of my posts you preferred.
I'm off to swoon now, Cris. Thanks. I feel uber special.
You seem to have a bad attitude and a bit of a chip on your shoulder, I don't really think its necessary and it comes off like you are bitter and twisted. How many cats do you have ?
Stick around a while and you'll get to understand that some people on this site have senses of humour.
Only until the same type of humor is turned back at them, of course.0 -
The same with weights. Goes without saying I'm a fan of resistance training as I think it's best for people with fat loss specific goals. However, from my experiences with training, the extreme vast majority of sedentary people are just utterly unable to lift at an intensity to do really measurable good for at least a few months. That why any starter template I have has a LOT of straight up cardio type activities and just cardio in general. Until they can get the technical and CNS adaptations to really push the muscles, they will burn far greater amounts of calories have have faster early results doing lower impact things. So any easy non technical things that try to hammer that lactic acid threshhold as much as possible. One of my favourite is actually going for a jog on a treadmill........with it turned off. The belt still spins, but has a crapton of resistance so you're hitting a lactic acid wall VERY fast. And as time goes on, spend more and more time switching over to the freeweight compound template. Again though with the caveat that this is for someone wanting a fat loss template only, and not if their goals are sport specific or health specific. In which case obviously things would be adjusted to meet those goals as well.Also, I agree that a proper running program included weekly running above LT and at LT as well as at lower intensity in volume. However, in order to do those at and above LT workouts at the intensity and volume necessary to evoke the desired training adaptations a person needs to spend some time doing lower intensity work to build up enough fitness to even be able to do the harder work. That's the point that's usually either missed or ignored.0 -
Resistance training can only be seen if you do cardio to burn fat, so you can see the muscle resistance training gives you! Weights are awesome, but cardio is definitely one of the big factors to burn fat.
Really? Tell that to this gentleman:
Cardio is NOT part of his routine. 3 days a week heavy strength training...and intermittent fasting...is.
Quoted in order to add a better link. You have pictures of his various stages of fitness.
Zero cardio...and I don't think he's having and issue showing the results of his resistance training.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions