Cardio & Fat Loss, what is optimal?

Rayman79

I was explaining the concepts of caloric deficit, TDEE etc etc to a friend today, which started a discussion. It got to the point where I was scratching my chin and not sure exactly what advice to give, so I thought I'd ask you guys.

So here's the scenario:

The Goal:
Lose bodyfat and maintain LBM (no big surprise there), a secondary goal of strength gains (once I told him hypertrophy was not going to happen to any significant degree in a deficit).

The Current strategy:
Weight training and long cardio

So assuming he takes on board my advice about a moderate caloric deficit, the basis for fat loss is sound. The question is whether cardio is optimal (I know it is not 'necessary'). The most important factor here is of course the balance of energy, but will adding cardio (either steady state as in this case, or HIIT) to the routine help or hinder under the assumption that the NET calorie intake is the same.

As I see it, the benefits of cardio (aside from health & CV benefits) are an increased metabolic rate and the ability to eat more food (there may be a small TEF benefit here too). The potential downside being muscle fatigue and a drop off in strength gains.

I might be missing something fundamental here, but most of the fast fat loss protocols (ie RFL & PSMF) have only NEAT activity as part of their program, which made me wonder why this would lead to faster fat loss than adding another 500 cals of food and 500 cals worth of exercise.

Can anyone offer a perspective on this?

mustgetmuscles1

Bump for info.

lizzardsm

bump

NBSfit

At the IDEA conference back in June, Dr. Kravitz gave a talk comparing the research on continuous cardio vs HIIT. Though both are good forms of exercise for myriads of reasons, HIIT wins for greater EPOC and therefore, greater fat loss in a shorter time. The real-life example he used was to look at the body comps of marathoners compared to sprinters. Sprinters have a lower percentage of body fat than marathoners on the whole.

Here is a link to the article he based his talk on: http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-library/hiit-vs-continuous-endurance-training-battle-of-the-aerobic-titans#

I am not sure that I completely understand your question, but i think it is whether or not this person should be doing some cardio? Yes? If that is the case, then I think HIIT is the way to go.

mustgetmuscles1

This video is about metabolic damage but around 10 minutes in he starts talking about ways to maintain a higher metabolism. He does not provide the study but I think he is referring to the one NBSfit mentioned about what kind of cardio to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk

Sarauk2sf

How long is the long cardio?

Hendrix7

At the IDEA conference back in June, Dr. Kravitz gave a talk comparing the research on continuous cardio vs HIIT. Though both are good forms of exercise for myriads of reasons, HIIT wins for greater EPOC and therefore, greater fat loss in a shorter time. The real-life example he used was to look at the body comps of marathoners compared to sprinters. Sprinters have a lower percentage of body fat than marathoners on the whole.

Here is a link to the article he based his talk on: http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-library/hiit-vs-continuous-endurance-training-battle-of-the-aerobic-titans#

I am not sure that I completely understand your question, but i think it is whether or not this person should be doing some cardio? Yes? If that is the case, then I think HIIT is the way to go.

the EPOC effects of HIT have been overrated my most people, studies show this to be anywhere from 5-15% which is pretty much irrelevant IMO. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101527

while it is true that HIIT is more time efficient you have to consider have to consider what else is going in the persons routine and what their main goal is.

Im currently running a program which has me squatting heavy 4 times per week. There is absolutely no way i could incorporate HIIT in without destroying my recovery and damaging my lifting sessions, whereas some steady state cardio here and there is no issue. so for me, LISS is better now....if I went back to my old upper/lower split I could do some HIIT no issue.

as above I don't really understand the question

but will adding cardio (either steady state as in this case, or HIIT) to the routine help or hinder

Help of hinder what exactly?

IMO if you main goal is lean mass retention, bodybuilding or powerlifting then your routine will focus around lifting weights. Do whatever form of cardio is least detrimental to your lifting sessions.

Rayman79

Sara, I'm not sure exactly how much cardio he does, he rides into work and back each day (a little over an hour in total), not sure if theres any work on top of that.

I understand my post covered a lot of points, sorry if it was confusing. The main thing I was curious about was the fact that it is almost universally recommended to do some form of cardio to assist with weightloss, yet the protocols that promote rapid fat loss are deliberately devoid of cardio. I'm just trying to rationalise why this is the case.

Rayman79

MGM, thanks for the link to that vid too. Metabolic adaptation is certainly something to consider with ss cardio. Not something that seems quantifiable or very well understood, but it makes sense intuitively.

KBSwinger

But the MFP protocol suggests we do cardio to eat more... I still think that regardless of how much we eat we should not go crazy with any type of exercise.

I do tabata and find thats more than enough to stimulate fat loss in ways that normal cardio can't.

RachelX04

bump to read later

heybales

Too much long cardio can have bad side effects too, which means it is a stress on the body also.

Limit it to 60 min in the Active Recovery or lower Aerobic HR zones. Shorter you can go higher probably.

And as Hendrix mentioned, biggest reason if you plan on lifting - you can't put a heavy enough load on tired muscles for the lifting to get any or the max benefit you could get from it.
Sure it'll feel tired doing it, but not because of proper load, just plain old tired.

Since it's a guy and probably won't believe you, have him test himself after he's been lifting for a bit and know how it feels at the end of the sets and reps to failure.

One week, or one day that week, do really fast clip as he can 30-45 run day before lifting. Type of run he really feels like he got something out of it.
Do the leg work the next day, and see if he feels like he got as much out of it now.

Then another week, or later that week, run only in the lower Aerobic zone day before.
Now do leg work and notice the difference.

If you aren't eating at a deficit, this may not show up as strongly. But if you are, I've always found that people notice the difference. Usually they started out doing it wrong awhile back, so going to failure was going to failure. Nothing to compare to having fresh muscles to really discover what they could really do.

geekyjock76

If one wishes to do cardio, I tell them them 30 minutes is all that's needed as some research shows no significant increase in fat loss is noticed compared to doing 60 minutes at the same intensity.

I'm at work so I do not have the study on my laptop but I did give one to Sara a few weeks ago.

Sarauk2sf

If one wishes to do cardio, I tell them them 30 minutes is all that's needed as some research shows no significant increase in fat loss is noticed compared to doing 60 minutes at the same intensity.

I'm at work so I do not have the study on my laptop but I did give one to Sara a few weeks ago.

Here it is:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277

chrisdavey

I understand my post covered a lot of points, sorry if it was confusing. The main thing I was curious about was the fact that it is almost universally recommended to do some form of cardio to assist with weightloss, yet the protocols that promote rapid fat loss are deliberately devoid of cardio. I'm just trying to rationalise why this is the case.

In regards to Lyle's RFL, the reason is that your calories are set so low that you will definitely be in a VERY large deficit if you do additional cardio. As well as that Lyle has said that the added stress on the body increases cortisol and can slow fat loss.

However this is a RAPID fat loss plan. Very different to being in a typical moderate deficit. The main determining factors IMO and ability to recovery for strength training and hunger levels. And some people just don't like doing cardio

Does that answer anything?

a_vettestingray

BUMP

victoriannsays

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277

wow, that is so interesting.. I wonder why that is?

chrisdavey

Here it is:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277

Does the full study show anything about the nutrition? Obviously the difference between 30 and 60mins exercise can easily be out done with slightly different food intakes.

heybales

Here it is:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277

Does the full study show anything about the nutrition? Obviously the difference between 30 and 60mins exercise can easily be out done with slightly different food intakes.

You always wonder about this type of claim without seeing how they accounted for it.

"No statistically significant changes were found in energy intake or nonexercise physical activity"

But then another study, where again diet not closely examined except for "don't eat different".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14718319

"There was a significant (P<.05) dose-response relationship between amount of exercise and amount of weight loss and fat mass loss. The high-amount/vigorous-intensity group lost significantly more body mass (in mean [SD] kilograms) and fat mass (in mean [SD] kilograms) (-2.9 [2.8] and -4.8 [3.0], respectively) than the low-amount/moderate-intensity group (-0.9 [1.8] and -2.0 [2.6], respectively), the low-amount/vigorous-intensity group (-0.6 [2.0] and -2.5 [3.4], respectively), and the controls (+1.0 [2.1] and +0.4 [3.0], respectively). Both low-amount groups had significantly greater improvements than controls but were not different from each other. Compared with controls, all exercise groups significantly decreased abdominal, minimal waist, and hip circumference measurements. There were no significant changes in dietary intake for any group."

Sarauk2sf

Here it is:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277

Does the full study show anything about the nutrition? Obviously the difference between 30 and 60mins exercise can easily be out done with slightly different food intakes.

I have not looked at the full study as my cardio usually adds up to about 30 minutes for the whole week - I will look at it in more detail as well as the one heybales provided.

AnvilHead

...The main thing I was curious about was the fact that it is almost universally recommended to do some form of cardio to assist with weightloss, yet the protocols that promote rapid fat loss are deliberately devoid of cardio. I'm just trying to rationalise why this is the case.

Most people doing such a diet are trying to get lean and retain as much LBM as possible - my understanding is that cardio isn't beneficial to preservation of LBM. HIIT, while touted as a means of getting lean, also places a high level of stress on the CNS which could hinder recovery for strength training sessions. I'm guessing that it also has the potential to elevate cortisol levels for the same reason. Most of the advice I've read recommends no more than one HIIT session per week if one is determined to incorporate cardio, with the rest being low-intensity and relatively short duration (30-45 min. max).