Cardio makes you fat: "Women: Running into Trouble"

tappae

Here's the thing I'm not understanding. I never claimed to be an expert on running, but I do claim to have done it enough to have an opinion on it. Am I wrong? Is there some set distance I need to run weekly in order to be able to talk about running? And if so, what is it? What number of miles would I need to log, before I am considered runner enough to be a runner.

I don't think it's a certain number of miles that you have to log so much as simply pursuing it for its own sake. Training to run is different than running in the course of doing other things. It's a different mentality and it leads to different experiences and knowledge. At my job, I sometimes have to pick heavy things up and then put them down again. I have to crouch down, pick up 100 pounds and then carry it somewhere and put it down. I use some of the same muscles that I might use if I lifted weights at the gym. I don't lift weights, though, so I'm not going to talk about it. In other words, think of it like one of those analogies on the SAT: picking up heavy things in the course of my life is to weight training the same way that running in the course of the games you play is to endurance training.

MoreBean13

This thread has really degraded in to a lot of name calling and chest puffing- and in reality I think most of you actually AGREE on the basic ideas here-

1) Running doesn't make you fat. Eating too much makes you fat.
2) A combined strength and cardio program is better than either one alone.

Right?!

On the side conversation of who is qualified to comment on running- I have done both- when I was younger and in college I was a soccer midfielder and I ran to maintain my conditioning in the off season. This for me meant a 4 mile run in the AM (before school in HS even!) and then practice in the PM, which included running, but we were expected to do our distance work on our own time, so practice was more sprint drills and torturous indian runs. When I couldn't play competitive soccer anymore, I switched to running as a sport. They are different, as the goals are certainly different, but they're also the same. People who participate in running sports like soccer inherently practice High Intensity speedwork as well as LISS/MISS running, so it's not exactly the same as JUST doing long distance runs- so yes, you're qualified to talk about running, but your experience won't really be applicable to people who do LISS/MISS runs ONLY.

Now, after thyroid and some other medical issues I'm a fat runner. I plod out 11 miles once a week slowly, a midlength run and shorter speedwork runs. I also lift heavy. I am not training for anything, I'm not competitive, I just love running. And I am a runner. I don't care if elite runners wouldn't consider my cardio-running "real running", that is as asinine as saying that because I never competed with Brandi Chastain that I wasn't a soccer player- it's insulting and not true. I am a runner because I run.

meerkat70

This thread has really degraded in to a lot of name calling and chest puffing- and in reality I think most of you actually AGREE on the basic ideas here-

1) Running doesn't make you fat. Eating too much makes you fat.
2) A combined strength and cardio program is better than either one alone.

Right?!

On the side conversation of who is qualified to comment on running- I have done both- when I was younger and in college I was a soccer midfielder and I ran to maintain my conditioning in the off season. This for me meant a 4 mile run in the AM (before school in HS even!) and then practice in the PM, which included running, but we were expected to do our distance work on our own time, so practice was more sprint drills and torturous indian runs. When I couldn't play competitive soccer anymore, I switched to running as a sport. They are different, as the goals are certainly different, but they're also the same. People who participate in running sports like soccer inherently practice High Intensity speedwork as well as LISS/MISS running, so it's not exactly the same as JUST doing long distance runs- so yes, you're qualified to talk about running, but your experience won't really be applicable to people who do LISS/MISS runs ONLY.

Now, after thyroid and some other medical issues I'm a fat runner. I plod out 11 miles once a week slowly, a midlength run and shorter speedwork runs. I also lift heavy. I am not training for anything, I'm not competitive, I just love running. And I am a runner. I don't care if elite runners wouldn't consider my cardio-running "real running", that is as asinine as saying that because I never competed with Brandi Chastain that I wasn't a soccer player- it's insulting and not true. I am a runner because I run.

A sensible person enters the arena....




(Watch out, they'll have you posting Sheldon videos before you can say 'endurance'.)

Jynus

1) Running doesn't make you fat. Eating too much makes you fat.
2) A combined strength and cardio program is better than either one alone.

Right?!

Agreed on both, and I nor any of the 'anti cardio' types claimed otherwise.

edit: on a whim, I decided to dig up studies backing my claim. Found a gem. Cardio+diet vs diet only. End result, NO DIFFERENCE between the 2 groups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17200169

THIS IS ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. Do cardio because you like to do it and because of it's health benefits. DO NOT do cardio because you think it will help in any way speed or improve your fat loss results. IT WILL NOT. For that, you need to add resistance training. I don't think I can make this any more clearly.

meerkat70

That's not an entirely accurate summary of that report, is it though? To produce 'zero difference' caloric restriction is doubled in the CR only group.

"Participants were randomized to either control (healthy weight maintenance diet, n = 11), caloric restriction (CR; 25% reduction in energy intake, n = 12), or caloric restriction plus exercise (CR+EX; 12.5% reduction in energy intake + 12.5% increase in exercise energy expenditure, n = 12) for 6 months"

So it's really disingenous to suggest this demonstrates that CR alone and CR +Cardio is equivalent, isn't it... ?

I suspect the entire 'cardio has no effect on weight loss' myth is fuelled by this kind of failure to accurately read scientific reports.


(Another little tip on reading scientific reports. N= 11 is a *very* small sample... And it does matter in this kind of study.)

RuthieCass

As for the person you replied to. Read up on layne norten, goes into this more than a few times. I don't know what else I can say on the subject. There has yet to be any study that I'm aware of that shows either cardio being beyond minimally effective than doing diet only, or cardio being at least equal to doing resistance training for fatloss. By all means, try and dig one up. But they don't exist. I've looked.

So you dismiss his theory, fine. But I don't see how you can't look at that and not recognize it every time you go to the gym. It's painfully obvious by looking at the regulars training there over time. Hell, look in the general help or this sub forum of all the people eating hardly any calories in capacity while doing cardio only that are all stalled after having some initial success. Eating 1200 calories a day or less. They are basically having to starve themselves to continue to see results. As the body has just adapted.

Wow, this logic is so amazing. There's a difference between saying "Exercise X makes you fat" vs "Doing Exercise X alone will not help you significantly lose weight without eating at a deficit." See the difference? And why don't you compare apples to apples? It seems you're comparing *cardio with no diet* to *resistance training with diet*, which doesn't make much sense. Why not compare how much fat a person can lose doing weight training alone vs cardio alone (it's not going to be much either).

Serious question: Suppose you have Dieter A and B with identical stats and, say, are 250 lbs. Both go on an identical, reasonable diet with adequate protein: TDEE-500. A does cardio for 1/2 hour 3X per week, B does resistance training for 1/2 hour 3X per week, both at moderate intensity. Who do you think will lose more fat at the end of a year? Show your work. Here's a hint: general weight training would burn about 170 calories per 1/2 hour while general aerobics would burn about 369 calories per 1/2 hour for a 250 lb person (according to MFP estimates). Show me how resistance training would burn more fat.

RuthieCass

1) Running doesn't make you fat. Eating too much makes you fat.
2) A combined strength and cardio program is better than either one alone.

Right?!

Agreed on both, and I nor any of the 'anti cardio' types claimed otherwise.

edit: on a whim, I decided to dig up studies backing my claim. Found a gem. Cardio+diet vs diet only. End result, NO DIFFERENCE between the 2 groups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17200169

THIS IS ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. Do cardio because you like to do it and because of it's health benefits. DO NOT do cardio because you think it will help in any way speed or improve your fat loss results. IT WILL NOT. For that, you need to add resistance training. I don't think I can make this any more clearly.

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.

Jynus

That's not an entirely accurate summary of that report, is it though? To produce 'zero difference' caloric restriction is doubled in the CR only group.

"Participants were randomized to either control (healthy weight maintenance diet, n = 11), caloric restriction (CR; 25% reduction in energy intake, n = 12), or caloric restriction plus exercise (CR+EX; 12.5% reduction in energy intake + 12.5% increase in exercise energy expenditure, n = 12) for 6 months"

So it's really disingenous to suggest this demonstrates that CR alone and CR +Cardio is equivalent, isn't it... ?

I suspect the entire 'cardio has no effect on weight loss' myth is fuelled by this kind of failure to accurately read scientific reports.


(Another little tip on reading scientific reports. N= 11 is a *very* small sample... And it does matter in this kind of study.)

yes, thats the point. you can do 400 calories worth of cardio, or you can eat 400 calories less per day. in the end, same results. Now if only there was a calorie and exercising tracking website that people could do these sorts of calculations with...

And yes, that is a small sample. it was also a fast google. But it's representative of pretty much every study I've ever read on the subject. You're more than welcome to find a different study showing otherwise.

Jynus

As for the person you replied to. Read up on layne norten, goes into this more than a few times. I don't know what else I can say on the subject. There has yet to be any study that I'm aware of that shows either cardio being beyond minimally effective than doing diet only, or cardio being at least equal to doing resistance training for fatloss. By all means, try and dig one up. But they don't exist. I've looked.

So you dismiss his theory, fine. But I don't see how you can't look at that and not recognize it every time you go to the gym. It's painfully obvious by looking at the regulars training there over time. Hell, look in the general help or this sub forum of all the people eating hardly any calories in capacity while doing cardio only that are all stalled after having some initial success. Eating 1200 calories a day or less. They are basically having to starve themselves to continue to see results. As the body has just adapted.

Wow, this logic is so amazing. There's a difference between saying "Exercise X makes you fat" vs "Doing Exercise X alone will not help you significantly lose weight without eating at a deficit." See the difference? And why don't you compare apples to apples? It seems you're comparing *cardio with no diet* to *resistance training with diet*, which doesn't make much sense. Why not compare how much fat a person can lose doing weight training alone vs cardio alone (it's not going to be much either).

Serious question: Suppose you have Dieter A and B with identical stats and, say, are 250 lbs. Both go on an identical, reasonable diet with adequate protein: TDEE-500. A does cardio for 1/2 hour 3X per week, B does resistance training for 1/2 hour 3X per week, both at moderate intensity. Who do you think will lose more fat at the end of a year? Show your work. Here's a hint: general weight training would burn about 170 calories per 1/2 hour while general aerobics would burn about 369 calories per 1/2 hour for a 250 lb person (according to MFP estimates). Show me how resistance training would burn more fat.

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.

Jynus

1) Running doesn't make you fat. Eating too much makes you fat.
2) A combined strength and cardio program is better than either one alone.

Right?!

Agreed on both, and I nor any of the 'anti cardio' types claimed otherwise.

edit: on a whim, I decided to dig up studies backing my claim. Found a gem. Cardio+diet vs diet only. End result, NO DIFFERENCE between the 2 groups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17200169

THIS IS ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. Do cardio because you like to do it and because of it's health benefits. DO NOT do cardio because you think it will help in any way speed or improve your fat loss results. IT WILL NOT. For that, you need to add resistance training. I don't think I can make this any more clearly.

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.

I'll explain why with 2 simple assertations.

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)

cubizzle

1. No hypothesis
2 No test subject-S. Notice how I add on the "s."
3. No longevity testing
4. No statistical data
5. Findings have not been replicated elsewhere by different researchers

#thisargumentisinvalid

LOOOOOOVE :blushing:

Twiztedbeing

But you're actually 100% stupid if you think cardio does not assist in the weight loss process.

Actually, you're 100% stupid if you think that your opinion makes ANYONE that doesn't agree with it, 100% stupid.

For the record...in the past every ounce of fat I've lost...usually in record time once I start...was lost with heavy lifting and diet. Cardio is 100% unnecessary for fat loss. The only cardio I do is a bit of warmup (and lately raquetball...I finally found cardio I enjoy!). There's plenty of evidence that all cardio provides in terms of fat loss is a higher net deficit.

So...whether that makes me 100% stupid or not...I'll let you decide. Not that your decisions makes an ounce of difference to me...but I'm sure you'll feel better for having made it.

I agree!

meerkat70

That's not an entirely accurate summary of that report, is it though? To produce 'zero difference' caloric restriction is doubled in the CR only group.

"Participants were randomized to either control (healthy weight maintenance diet, n = 11), caloric restriction (CR; 25% reduction in energy intake, n = 12), or caloric restriction plus exercise (CR+EX; 12.5% reduction in energy intake + 12.5% increase in exercise energy expenditure, n = 12) for 6 months"

So it's really disingenous to suggest this demonstrates that CR alone and CR +Cardio is equivalent, isn't it... ?

I suspect the entire 'cardio has no effect on weight loss' myth is fuelled by this kind of failure to accurately read scientific reports.


(Another little tip on reading scientific reports. N= 11 is a *very* small sample... And it does matter in this kind of study.)

yes, thats the point. you can do 400 calories worth of cardio, or you can eat 400 calories less per day. in the end, same results. Now if only there was a calorie and exercising tracking website that people could do these sorts of calculations with...

And yes, that is a small sample. it was also a fast google. But it's representative of pretty much every study I've ever read on the subject. You're more than welcome to find a different study showing otherwise.

But you must be able to see that this is not the same thing as saying 'cardio doesn't help with weightloss'. You have to grasp that this is not, in fact, what the study is saying? The study does not, in fact, demonstrate what you think it does.

Yes, I know that most studies suggest you can either create a deficit by eating less, or by exercise. I have four degrees and I *write* scientific papers. That's why I know how to read an abstract.... Unfortunately, that doesn't equate to the claim you were trying to sustain.

cubizzle

I would like to agree with one thing from the article, and this goes for men as well as women....GET OFF THE TREDMILL!

GO OUTSIDE!!!!! It's much nicer out there. Plus you get the added benifit of actually having to push your weight off of the ground in order to move forward as opposed to just lifting your feet so the ground can move itself.

That is all

Jynus

But you must be able to see that this is not the same thing as saying 'cardio doesn't help with weightloss'. You have to grasp that this is not, in fact, what the study is saying? The study does not, in fact, demonstrate what you think it does.

I'm trying really hard here. A controlled diet (key word, controlled) compared to a controlled diet + cardio gives zero tangable results difference. What other conclusion can you possibly state other than it does not help?

Are you trying to state that doing cardio is easier than not eating? So thats why it does help?

meerkat70

"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. "

You don't think some of the need for additional calories might be down to their greater body mass, rather than to do with fuel for *exercise* alone... ?

The poster you're deriding is quite correct though, the evidence you cite doesn't relate to the point you're trying to sustain. When building an argument using scientific sources, you really need to make sure that the evidence actually relates to the point. This is really the basic problem that BrianSharpe pointed out re the original article - dodgy interpretation of the data doesn't help anyone.

Twiztedbeing

1) Running doesn't make you fat. Eating too much makes you fat.
2) A combined strength and cardio program is better than either one alone.

Right?!

Agreed on both, and I nor any of the 'anti cardio' types claimed otherwise.

edit: on a whim, I decided to dig up studies backing my claim. Found a gem. Cardio+diet vs diet only. End result, NO DIFFERENCE between the 2 groups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17200169

THIS IS ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. Do cardio because you like to do it and because of it's health benefits. DO NOT do cardio because you think it will help in any way speed or improve your fat loss results. IT WILL NOT. For that, you need to add resistance training. I don't think I can make this any more clearly.

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.

I'll explain why with 2 simple assertations.

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)

agree as well.

I would also like to state that if you look at enough sites. You will see that weight training burns more calories than cardio. It is also said to have a longer and better after burn than cardio.

Edit* if done correctly

meerkat70

But you must be able to see that this is not the same thing as saying 'cardio doesn't help with weightloss'. You have to grasp that this is not, in fact, what the study is saying? The study does not, in fact, demonstrate what you think it does.

I'm trying really hard here. A controlled diet (key word, controlled) compared to a controlled diet + cardio gives zero tangable results difference. What other conclusion can you possibly state other than it does not help?

Are you trying to state that doing cardio is easier than not eating? So thats why it does help?

Try harder.

You claimed that cardio has no impact on weightloss.

You then cited an article that very clearly demonstrates that cardio *does* impact on weightloss.

You then claimed it suggests cardio *doesn't* impact on weightloss.

Is this very, very hard for you to get?

jenilla1

Have you ever seen a fat marathon runner? (Man or woman that has been doing this for years) I call BS.

I'm a runner and it hasn't made me fat. I'm just as trim as I always am while running. I also have some nice definition in my abs from it. I think if you do a lot of cardio and DON'T watch your calories you could have a problem, though. I will say that when training for my first marathon years ago I gained 2 pounds because I wasn't watching my calories and I ate everything back and then some. But since paying attention to what I eat, it's easy to lose and maintain with cardio. It's a good idea to make sure you get enough protein and maybe do a little weight training (doesn't need to be hardcore) on off days. There is a guy at the gym who is always on the treadmill, year after year, and seems to be making no progress (except for cardiovascular fitness - he doesn't huff and puff anymore). I think it's probably just because he isn't watching what he puts in his mouth, not because cardio is evil... :laugh:

ETA: I don't do cardio to lose weight or fat. I do it because it kills stress, gives me tons of energy, tones my body, and keeps my blood pressure in check. I admit that I sometimes use it to earn extra calories for ice cream, though...

meerkat70

I would like to agree with one thing from the article, and this goes for men as well as women....GET OFF THE TREDMILL!

GO OUTSIDE!!!!! It's much nicer out there. Plus you get the added benifit of actually having to push your weight off of the ground in order to move forward as opposed to just lifting your feet so the ground can move itself.

That is all

Good point cubizzle.

Plenty of resistance in pushing off the ground, after all. The peeps who think that cardio mysteriously devours muscles should probably have a feel of my legs... :-)