Doing cardio with out gaining muscle...
Replies
-
What is wrong with muscle? Its crucial to your body movement. Muscle isnt evil.
As mentioned IF muscle gain means some weight gain then maybe it is best to avoid if you rely on scales for motivation, maybe just carry on with eating well, the question was asked wether intoducing 2-3 hours of cadio could creat a small gain of around 1lb a week wich might mean i do not see the 1lb loss a week i am currently experiencing, i have worked out that it would be hard to gain 1lb of muscle in a week
there is nothing wrong otherwise with gaining muscle but I already have some from horse riding 0 -
Obviously it is good to exercise to lose weight but if you really get on the cardio you surely must gain weight? From muscle build up? (not water weight, im not worried about that) I already have muscly legs and if i do lots of exercise and gain muscle I am likely to get annoyed because I cant track my weight on the scales, my weight loss is about dropping a dress size rather than getting fitter..... Thanks guys :happy:
You can't gain muscle from cardio. Where did you get the idea that you could?
You can get muscle from any movement in theory, just propbaly not alot. If you introduce running when you havnt done much before to are going to get stronger leg muscles- fiar enough not alot but i was not talking about alot0 -
Cardio BURNS muscle in the morning and BUILDS muscle in the evenings.
Just make sure you're doing it at the right time, and you'll be fine.
Your statement is inaccurate and downright silly. FYI - cardio doesnt burn muscle, it burns calories. Cardio does NOT hurt your ability to gain muscle at all and it might even HELP you to ADD muscle mass. It's drastic caloric reduction that is responsible for the muscle loss, not the cardio! If you don’t consume enough protein and enough calories, your body will cannibalize your muscles.0 -
Again, no. People don't do HIIT because it saves time.
I do HIIT to save time.
yes, that is a bonus, but that's not the real advantage.0 -
wow.0
-
People like scientific studies to support something so here...
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf
And don't take this as the only way or absolute truth.0 -
Cardio BURNS muscle in the morning and BUILDS muscle in the evenings.
Just make sure you're doing it at the right time, and you'll be fine.
Your statement is inaccurate and downright silly. FYI - cardio doesnt burn muscle, it burns calories. Cardio does NOT hurt your ability to gain muscle at all and it might even HELP you to ADD muscle mass. It's drastic caloric reduction that is responsible for the muscle loss, not the cardio! If you don’t consume enough protein and enough calories, your body will cannibalize your muscles.
What? No, Cardio will not help you add muscle. If you are working at a deficit you will lose both fat and lean mass. If you are working at a deficit and strength training you will still lose lean mass, but you will preserve more then if you are just strictly working cardio. The appearance of your muscles doesn't indicate the building of lean mass, only the lowering of your bf%.0 -
Crazy thread. I can't read through it all right now, so forgive me if someone's already said this stuff:
OP, what is the problem with you having muscles in your legs? We all do....surely you think it's better for those muscles to be strong than flabby and atrophied, yeah? You are not going to get huge thighs from doing whatever cardio machine you're doing. If that's you in your photo, I wouldn't say you have what I consider to be "muscular legs". They look rather skinny to me, which I'm guessing is the look you're going for.
I think rather than worrying about the scale so much (the scale is probably the WORST measure of progress, as it is very misleading and subject to all sorts of strange variables), get a measuring tape and go by that instead.
I've dropped a bunch of sizes by NOT doing cardio, watching my diet closely, and lifting heavy weights. Weight doesn't matter--what matters is size. I wear two sizes smaller than I did when I was at this same weight before. That is entirely down to fat loss and a bunch of muscle being more compact than a bunch of fat. Not the actual number on the scale.0 -
this is a joke, right? Muscle from cardio? Seriously?!?0
-
Again, no. People don't do HIIT because it saves time.
I do HIIT to save time.
yes, that is a bonus, but that's not the real advantage.
The real advantage is that you are in fat burning mode even after the workout for up to 2 hours, maybe more. It's all because of the EPOC (Excess Post-excercise Oxygen Consumption) phase being way more pronounce which also burn calories. But one thing that isn't mentioned is that HIIT training will also burn lean muscle mass energy because the body requires energy at a faster rate than what fat cells can provide with.0 -
Cardio and lifting with light weight / lots of reps will tone and reduce BF% (most people call it "toning up")
Heavy weight / small reps - gains mass (most call it "bulking up")
Negative. Heavy weight with lower reps increases muscle STRENGTH, not necessarily size... your diet dictates whether or not you gain size.
As a general rule, sticking within certain ranges produces the following results;
5-8 reps: strength
10-12 reps: hypertropy (AKA size)
15+ reps: endurance
I know of about a bazillion people who lift in the strength and hypertrophy ranges and eat at a deficit and cut weight, both from fat and muscle. Eating more and doing the exact same lifts would yeild the opposite results.0 -
this is a joke, right? Muscle from cardio? Seriously?!?
It depends on the cardio actually. HIIT cardio is actually extremely anabolic when done correctly, but I don't think that's the kind of cardio the OP was referring to.
Its the old "Olympic marathoner versus Olympic sprinter" comparison.0 -
I know of about a bazillion people who lift in the strength and hypertrophy ranges and eat at a deficit and cut weight, both from fat and muscle. Eating more and doing the exact same lifts would yeild the opposite results.
This is true. What people don't realize is that doing weights is effective to drop weight. Because adding mass or losing weight is mostly dependent upon your eating.0 -
Crazy thread. I can't read through it all right now, so forgive me if someone's already said this stuff:
OP, what is the problem with you having muscles in your legs? We all do....surely you think it's better for those muscles to be strong than flabby and atrophied, yeah? You are not going to get huge thighs from doing whatever cardio machine you're doing. If that's you in your photo, I wouldn't say you have what I consider to be "muscular legs". They look rather skinny to me, which I'm guessing is the look you're going for.
I think rather than worrying about the scale so much (the scale is probably the WORST measure of progress, as it is very misleading and subject to all sorts of strange variables), get a measuring tape and go by that instead.
I've dropped a bunch of sizes by NOT doing cardio, watching my diet closely, and lifting heavy weights. Weight doesn't matter--what matters is size. I wear two sizes smaller than I did when I was at this same weight before. That is entirely down to fat loss and a bunch of muscle being more compact than a bunch of fat. Not the actual number on the scale.
I have a horse so ride alot meaning i do have muscle in my leg and core muscle. U can shed fat by dieting surely. We dont all need to exercise??? Especially if already doing a bit? The profile pic is me at my lowest, I am 10lb heavier now and have been almost 20lb heavier...0 -
Alot of people mention using a tape measure, i tried this last night but find it difficult to measure from same place, ie trying to measure my hips but hips are not just one exact place, could be from widest part or more love handles part if that makes sense...does not feel as acurate and not sure if i would see a noticible change more months????0
-
this is a joke, right? Muscle from cardio? Seriously?!?
It depends on the cardio actually. HIIT cardio is actually extremely anabolic when done correctly, but I don't think that's the kind of cardio the OP was referring to.
Its the old "Olympic marathoner versus Olympic sprinter" comparison.
Your abs are amazing!0 -
A sample size of less than 30 does not a very compelling study make.People like scientific studies to support something so here...
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf
And don't take this as the only way or absolute truth.0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-interval-training-getting-to-the-point-part-1.html
Is hiit better than steady state in terms of fat loss ? I have read that it is more effective to do 20 minutes of hiit than an hour of steady state ? I do 20 minutes on the treadmill, 1 minute sprinting as fast as I can, then back to a walk or slow jog for 2 minutes, and so forth, as well as doing some high resistance work on the elliptical and bikes, and strong lifts. Not gotten bulky yet, in spite of doing interval training or rolling hills at level 10 resistance.
Again, no.
That's not something you read. That's a fact. This has been published in journals. Check biolayne.com for more information on this. People often think that burning 500 calories running like a zombie on the treadmill is the same as burning 500 calories doing HIIT. Newflash, it's not.
Well in all technicality, HIIT is not more effective at burning fat, but what it is more effective in is burning more calories in a shorter amount of time and more effective at preserving lean body mass. As tigersword states, burning 500 calories doing HIIT is the same at burning 500 calories at running, but the time required to do so is much less.
Again, no. People don't do HIIT because it saves time.
This article is one of several that Lyle McDonald has on his site where he has analyzed all the research regarding HIIT and Steady State. Bottom line is that, while there are some different adaptations from the 2, the primary benefit to HIIT over Steady State is time efficiency. That HIIT burn about the same amount of calories as a 45 to 50 minutes Steady State session and that HIIT doesn't have any magical properties. Also, the unique adaptations of HIIT are only meaningul for about 6 weeks from start up.
The guy who insisting that there is some magic to it can stomp his feet and say so all he wants but as John Wayne once said, "just because I'm shoutin' like a preacher at a revival meeting, that don't change the truth none!'0 -
Really? Do we all need to exercise... No. Do we become healthier from exercise... Yes.
You will not gain excessive weight from doing cardio exercise. Cardio is not a muscle building activity. Yes, you will increase but not to the point you gain weight. Honestly, it sounds more like a reason to talk yourself out of having to do it.
The scale is a terrible measure of progress. Way to many factors effect a persons daily weight. If you do not know where to measure chech the Internet. There are sights to help.0 -
A sample size of less than 30 does not a very compelling study make.People like scientific studies to support something so here...
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf
And don't take this as the only way or absolute truth.
And that is why I said don't take this as an absolute truth. Another thing is that you need to break down the findings to see which claims can be applied and what the study really means. I am not the expert on that area and that's why each individual should read and decide what they want or don't want to believe. I am just a reader and imo, HIIT is a better option if you can do it safely. I only use HIIT every couple of months to cut. Now, having said that, nothing wrong with steady state cardio.0 -
A sample size of less than 30 does not a very compelling study make.People like scientific studies to support something so here...
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf
And don't take this as the only way or absolute truth.
And that is why I said don't take this as an absolute truth. Another thing is that you need to break down the findings to see which claims can be applied and what the study really means. I am not the expert on that area and that's why each individual should read and decide what they want or don't want to believe. I am just a reader and imo, HIIT is a better option if you can do it. Now, having said that, nothing wrong with steady state cardio.
Lyle McDonald is an expert in exercise physiology though. I'd strongly recommend you read the various info on site regarding HIIT Vs. Steady State.0 -
A sample size of less than 30 does not a very compelling study make.People like scientific studies to support something so here...
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf
And don't take this as the only way or absolute truth.
And that is why I said don't take this as an absolute truth. Another thing is that you need to break down the findings to see which claims can be applied and what the study really means. I am not the expert on that area and that's why each individual should read and decide what they want or don't want to believe. I am just a reader and imo, HIIT is a better option if you can do it. Now, having said that, nothing wrong with steady state cardio.
Lyle McDonald is an expert in exercise physiology though. I'd strongly recommend you read the various info on site regarding HIIT Vs. Steady State.
You can read all you want. At the end of the day you decide what you want. I am not imposing my opinion on anyone here. And my opinion is based on what I read and what I see each type of cardio do to MY BODY. HIIT is very effective for me. Will it do the same for everyone? Probably not.0 -
Alot of people mention using a tape measure, i tried this last night but find it difficult to measure from same place, ie trying to measure my hips but hips are not just one exact place, could be from widest part or more love handles part if that makes sense...does not feel as acurate and not sure if i would see a noticible change more months????
Just measure at the same place each time and you will be fine.0 -
Crazy thread. I can't read through it all right now, so forgive me if someone's already said this stuff:
OP, what is the problem with you having muscles in your legs? We all do....surely you think it's better for those muscles to be strong than flabby and atrophied, yeah? You are not going to get huge thighs from doing whatever cardio machine you're doing. If that's you in your photo, I wouldn't say you have what I consider to be "muscular legs". They look rather skinny to me, which I'm guessing is the look you're going for.
I think rather than worrying about the scale so much (the scale is probably the WORST measure of progress, as it is very misleading and subject to all sorts of strange variables), get a measuring tape and go by that instead.
I've dropped a bunch of sizes by NOT doing cardio, watching my diet closely, and lifting heavy weights. Weight doesn't matter--what matters is size. I wear two sizes smaller than I did when I was at this same weight before. That is entirely down to fat loss and a bunch of muscle being more compact than a bunch of fat. Not the actual number on the scale.
I have a horse so ride alot meaning i do have muscle in my leg and core muscle. U can shed fat by dieting surely. We dont all need to exercise??? Especially if already doing a bit? The profile pic is me at my lowest, I am 10lb heavier now and have been almost 20lb heavier...
You aren't goping to gain uscle weight by doing cardio or by lifting unless you are trying to gain weight.0 -
A sample size of less than 30 does not a very compelling study make.People like scientific studies to support something so here...
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf
And don't take this as the only way or absolute truth.
And that is why I said don't take this as an absolute truth. Another thing is that you need to break down the findings to see which claims can be applied and what the study really means. I am not the expert on that area and that's why each individual should read and decide what they want or don't want to believe. I am just a reader and imo, HIIT is a better option if you can do it. Now, having said that, nothing wrong with steady state cardio.
Lyle McDonald is an expert in exercise physiology though. I'd strongly recommend you read the various info on site regarding HIIT Vs. Steady State.
You can read all you want. At the end of the day you decide what you want. I am not imposing my opinion on anyone here. And my opinion is based on what I read and what I see each type of cardio do to MY BODY. HIIT is very effective for me. Will it do the same for everyone? Probably not.
I think we can all agree that HIIT is a very effective tool, but a lot of it depends around diet. I didn't see much reference to the diet in the study you posted which an have huge effects on results. While what you posted was good, I don't think it supersedes some of the other studies I have seen.
BTW, I love HIIT, but even with it, I have not seen any greater increase to fat loss than when I did not have HIIT in my program.0 -
A sample size of less than 30 does not a very compelling study make.People like scientific studies to support something so here...
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf
And don't take this as the only way or absolute truth.
And that is why I said don't take this as an absolute truth. Another thing is that you need to break down the findings to see which claims can be applied and what the study really means. I am not the expert on that area and that's why each individual should read and decide what they want or don't want to believe. I am just a reader and imo, HIIT is a better option if you can do it. Now, having said that, nothing wrong with steady state cardio.
Lyle McDonald is an expert in exercise physiology though. I'd strongly recommend you read the various info on site regarding HIIT Vs. Steady State.
You can read all you want. At the end of the day you decide what you want. I am not imposing my opinion on anyone here. And my opinion is based on what I read and what I see each type of cardio do to MY BODY. HIIT is very effective for me. Will it do the same for everyone? Probably not.
I think we can all agree that HIIT is a very effective tool, but a lot of it depends around diet. I didn't see much reference to the diet in the study you posted which an have huge effects on results. While what you posted was good, I don't think it supersedes some of the other studies I have seen.
BTW, I love HIIT, but even with it, I have not seen any greater increase to fat loss than when I did not have HIIT in my program.
^^^ This! I like HIIT. Just came back from a HIIT session. But is hasn't worked any magic other than it's time efficient and gives some hormonal and other adaptation that are beneficial when you begin doing it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions