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

pamina1

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, happier

crisanderson27

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.JPG

scottb81

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.

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.

wackyfunster

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.

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.

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.

Edit: Also, heavy bag is awesome.

BrianSharpe

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.

Jynus

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.

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.

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.

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.

scottb81

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.

crisanderson27

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.

Jynus

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.

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.

crisanderson27

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.

TyFit08

I was in the best shape of my life when I ran a lot. I ran 4 to 5 times a week, 2 to 4 miles a day. I did uphill lunges and abs after every run and that was it and I would kill to look like that again. I actually loved the way I looked then better on an all cardio routine than when I did heavy weights with a trainer. I guess I love a runner's body. I'm 5'10 and the idea of looking long and lean appeals to me. I do both strength and cardio now, but still have yet to get those results. But I guess I just have to keep pushing.

meghanner

Calories in vs calories out....that's the only way to get fat. If you're running lots you just need to take care of yourself, eat healthy food, rest and keep stress at a minimal. Cardio isn't bad and I've never seen a fat marathon or ultra-marathon runner in my life.

mmapags

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.

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.

Be careful Scott! You might become a voice of reason! lol I agress with Whacky. It's the combination of deficit and cardio only that can be concerning. In a surplus or at maintenance, I have seen my leg muscles appear visibly larger from running but in a deficit, I have hit my lowest weights but, physique wise, look about the same but a little thinner. I think you are smart to inlclude some body weight stuff and heavy bag. You and I have posted enough on the same threads in the last year that I know you manage the nutrition piece well. You are doing great.

mmapags

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.

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.

You keep posting info like your last couple of threads and you are going to ruin your reputation as a jerk!

tappae

I sure wish I knew how to bold like some do in a post. Maybe some will be kind enough to tell me

It might be bold? (let's see if that works)

tappae

I sure wish I knew how to bold like some do in a post. Maybe some will be kind enough to tell me

It might be bold? (let's see if that works)

If you quote me, you can see what I did. It's like the way the quotes show up, but with just the letter "b."

RuthieCass

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?

Exactly. I think someone on here tried to claim that body builders eat 6000 calories per day. Even if you are trying to gain muscle, you would only need ~16-18 calories per pound of body weight (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/the-baseline-diet-part-1.html). So even if you were a body builder on the heavier side, say 200 lbs, still tying to bulk, you'd be eating max ~3600. However, the same body builder would eat 2000-2400 during his cutting stage.

tappae

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 ?

Do you think the cats comment is necessary? I have 2 cats. How many dogs do you have?

mmapags

I sure wish I knew how to bold like some do in a post. Maybe some will be kind enough to tell me

It might be bold? (let's see if that works)

If you quote me, you can see what I did. It's like the way the quotes show up, but with just the letter "b."

Cool! thanks

tappae

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?

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, Jynus. I was out running.

Two things: the study you shared demonstrates that weight loss comes from caloric deficit, whether that deficit is produced by diet alone or a combination of diet and "cardio" exercise. If the diet was identical and one group did cardio, I would expect to see them lose more weight than the group that didn't (through reasoning: they would have a larger deficit). I don't have a study to back that up. I'm not good at finding them.

Secondly, yes. For some people (like me) doing cardio is easier than not eating. A lot of overweight people (like me) have a problem where they eat too much food. I like to eat. I like to eat a lot. It's easier for me to go run for an hour or two than it is to eat less food. Not only do I get to eat more food that way, I also have less time in which to eat it, since I don't eat while running or right beforehand. Also (for me) vigorous exercise seems to be an appetite suppressant, so I don't really feel like eating right afterwards. I have started taking in a fair bit of calories through gatorade and nesquick, though.