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

meerkat70

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.

ironanimal

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.

Both are fine in moderation.

kiminikimkim

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.

RuthieCass

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.

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)

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.

mmapags

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.

MireyGal76

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!

Sabine_Stroehm

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!

THIS TIMES 3.

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.

scottb81

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?

MireyGal76

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!

THIS TIMES 3.

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!)

Laubowie

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:

Sabine_Stroehm

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!

THIS TIMES 3.

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!)

LOL. Am I the only one who wants smaller boobs??? I've always wanted them to be smaller. I'm thrilled!

meerkat70

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.

MireyGal76

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? )

Sabine_Stroehm

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 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!

MoreBean13

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 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!

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.

kristinacottle

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.

crisanderson27

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 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!

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.

Jynus

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 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.

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.

mmapags

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.

mommajolynn

bump to read later after work