Does Cardio build muscle?

13»

Replies

  • AlongCame_Molly
    AlongCame_Molly Posts: 2,835 Member
    Am I too close to my natural weight to lose anymore weight through cardio?

    Most likely, yes. I strongly recommend strength training to lose that last bit of bf%.
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    It's like nobody pays attention to what I am saying.
    I do not care what type of muscle it is. I do not care if it is made by sprinting. All I am saying is this: A person can build muscle by running alone.
    And, if cardio is so bad for muscle, then why do marathoners run so much and continue to get faster, better, and stronger as they do? Why doesn't their performance erode?
    That's all. You seem to want it to be too simple.

    Have you ever noticed that elite marathoners tend to be tall and sleek? They are not heavily muscled. Of course, having that build probably advantages them in their sport, but with all the running they do, surely they'd be bigger if running packed on the muscle. Sprinters tend to have more muscle development in the thighs, but they aren't what you'd call big in the muscle department, either.

    Cardio isn't bad for muscle; it merely doesn't do much for building it.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    It's like nobody pays attention to what I am saying.
    I do not care what type of muscle it is. I do not care if it is made by sprinting. All I am saying is this: A person can build muscle by running alone.
    And, if cardio is so bad for muscle, then why do marathoners run so much and continue to get faster, better, and stronger as they do? Why doesn't their performance erode?
    That's all. You seem to want it to be too simple.

    I think that what is going on is that there is a misunderstanding of what building muscle means to different people.

    The person focused on bodybuilding likely does not look at a runner or cyclist as having a lot of muscle because it isn't volume/strength focused but functional. Of course, any activity that puts load stress on muscle results in an anabolic response and "builds muscle".

    However, part of that is actually glycogen and water storage. My big legs are great for cycling but I still suck at squats.
    And, yes, cardio activities will also erode muscle to some extent. It isn't that cardio is bad for muscle, it's bad for what might be cosidered as "extra muscle" for that activity. Muscle that isn't used or necessary is just a (poor) energy source.

    It's a balancing act for the body to adapt and provide the best bio mechanical system to do the task it is asked to do, repeatedly. This is why carrying out some cross functional activities always helps provide balance for people that are focused on one sport.

    If one wants to build up for esthetic and for pure strength reasons lifting weight is the most efficient path.
    If one wants functional strength, endurance and power then activity focused training is the most efficient path.
    Usually, balancing a mix is a good way to excel but certainly not a requirement.
  • phjorg
    phjorg Posts: 252 Member
    It's like nobody pays attention to what I am saying.
    I do not care what type of muscle it is. I do not care if it is made by sprinting. All I am saying is this: A person can build muscle by running alone.
    And, if cardio is so bad for muscle, then why do marathoners run so much and continue to get faster, better, and stronger as they do? Why doesn't their performance erode?
    That's all. You seem to want it to be too simple.
    you do understand the difference between type I and type II muscle fibre, and how different training methodology stimuli them?

    you don't get big legs without Type II fibre being trained and recruited. this can ONLY be done with high exertion based exercises. ie: NOT cardio.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    This will shed some insight on cardio and it's affect on muscle.
    http://rxmuscle.com/2013-01-11-01-57-36/muscle-college/7694-muscle-college-3-12-13.html

    In a nutshell long duration cardio negatively affects protein synthesis. Marathon and other long distance runners have skin legs compared to their sprinter counter parts. Running causes the most muscle damage and cycling causes the least..

    It's important to keep this in perspective. While long duration cardio might *inhibit* muscle gain, muscle gain (via resistance exercise) can still occur for people who engage in long duration cardio.

    You will not maximize muscle gains, but that is only significant for someone whose #1 priority is maximizing muscle gain--which is only a tiny fraction of the population.

    The problem with this discussion is that it too often is argued from the extreme positions--elite marathoners vs bodybuilders--which are relevant to almost nobody.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    It's like nobody pays attention to what I am saying.
    I do not care what type of muscle it is. I do not care if it is made by sprinting. All I am saying is this: A person can build muscle by running alone.
    And, if cardio is so bad for muscle, then why do marathoners run so much and continue to get faster, better, and stronger as they do? Why doesn't their performance erode?
    That's all. You seem to want it to be too simple.
    Well let's be honest. As we age, performance does decrease. If it didn't then ALL the records of running (or any Olympic physical event) would belong to 80 year olds.

    But to the question, again you're addressing building muscle endurance which is a different muscle fiber. So if you're speaking in terms of muscle endurance, then yeah you can build it up doing long endurance cardio.
    But that doesn't seem to be what the OP is looking for.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    You are not going to be building any measurable muscle while on a calorie deficit regardless of which type of exercise you do. BUT multiple studies show a LOSS of lean body mass with deficit and cardio alone.

    Cardio is just not going to build much, if any, muscle even in a calorie surplus. Endurance? Yes. Cardio health? Yes.

    Talking about body builder VS marathon runners is two extreme ends of the spectrum. A marathon runner is not going to be as efficient packing around muscle that does not contribute to running. Most body builders are not going to devote the time, energy, and eating to train for muscle growth and long distance running even if the running did not inhibit muscle growth.

    The resistance from sprints or hill climbing or calisthenics should be enough to stress the muscles enough to convince the body to keep them while dieting. Or you could just lift weights.
  • GiddyupTim
    GiddyupTim Posts: 2,819 Member
    This will shed some insight on cardio and it's affect on muscle.
    http://rxmuscle.com/2013-01-11-01-57-36/muscle-college/7694-muscle-college-3-12-13.html

    In a nutshell long duration cardio negatively affects protein synthesis. Marathon and other long distance runners have skin legs compared to their sprinter counter parts. Running causes the most muscle damage and cycling causes the least..

    If running causes muscle damage, why don't runners get slower and weaker? This contention is what I object to.
    It defies common sense, people.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    This will shed some insight on cardio and it's affect on muscle.
    http://rxmuscle.com/2013-01-11-01-57-36/muscle-college/7694-muscle-college-3-12-13.html

    In a nutshell long duration cardio negatively affects protein synthesis. Marathon and other long distance runners have skin legs compared to their sprinter counter parts. Running causes the most muscle damage and cycling causes the least..

    If running causes muscle damage, why don't runners get slower and weaker? This contention is what I object to.
    It defies common sense, people.

    If you don't understand how the body works, it would indeed seems counter intuitive. But that doesn't make it wrong, just hard to understand.

    Again, in the context of the discussion and the OP's question - your marathoners are NOT eating at a deficit. And in fact eating at a surplus when needed.

    And they know exactly how to train their body to utilize fat stores for the biggest % of energy source. Well, talking about pro's here, not the weekend warrior that hit's the wall in mile 20 and slows way down as they have total protein breakdown because they used up their glucose stores.

    The pro's do break down muscle even with their better good training - studies have clearly shown the remains of muscle breakdown in the blood and urine of long distance runners.

    And they eat enough and the body will build right back up whatever muscle is actually being used and needed. But they ain't get more than needed.

    Unless they do specific interval training (HIIT) while eating at surplus, which they do during specific periods of training.

    There is a reason performance on the top end is very hard to come by. It's a delicate balancing act of enough muscle to power you faster, but not so much weight to slow you down, and not so much you can't maintain it anyway. And it's the latter that is the problem.

    There were several marathoners years ago that went through much shorter distance training and racing for I think couple years, got more muscle and faster pace, hoping it would translate to marathon records when they want back to that distance.

    Guess what happened when they started their long distance training again? Lost the extra muscle useful for the shorter distance, and pace could not be sustained at higher distance.

    How did they get the extra muscle for shorter distance, same HIIT routines they had always used, there just wasn't the long distance training to burn off what they could now use for short races.
  • phjorg
    phjorg Posts: 252 Member
    This will shed some insight on cardio and it's affect on muscle.
    http://rxmuscle.com/2013-01-11-01-57-36/muscle-college/7694-muscle-college-3-12-13.html

    In a nutshell long duration cardio negatively affects protein synthesis. Marathon and other long distance runners have skin legs compared to their sprinter counter parts. Running causes the most muscle damage and cycling causes the least..

    If running causes muscle damage, why don't runners get slower and weaker? This contention is what I object to.
    It defies common sense, people.
    if lifting weights causes muscle damage, then why don't body builders get smaller and weaker from lifting?

    Any activity will be detrimental to muscle tissue to a certain degree. thats what eating and rest is for. repair of that damage.
  • GiddyupTim
    GiddyupTim Posts: 2,819 Member
    I must continue to disagree. I wish you people would quit telling me I am wrong and that my grasp of the makeup of muscle tissue is inadequate, because I am telling you I have SEEN people get big doing activities normally referred to as "cardio."
    If you think about it you have seen it too.
    I have seen it with fellow soccer players when I was in high school and I have seen it with the boys who play high school rugby with my sons. I have seen it with serious, male bicyclists. They get big muscles with little or no weight lifting.
    Now, you will tell me that these people aren't really "jogging," rather they are doing high intensity, resistance exercise. And, then you will tell me that distance runners are skinny because they never push hard enough.
    But, I have seen world class marathoners racing, and they move down the road faster than most people sprint ! They push. Their strides are long and strong ! Their legs may be lean. But they are not thin and wispy.
    Eugenio, in a post up above, says he rides his bike like the wind, but he cannot squat. But he is comparing himself to the weight lifters here. No, he cannot compete with weight lifters. But, I will guarantee you he generates much more force in his squats because he bikes, than he would if he did not bike.
    Male gymnasts have muscular physiques almost as big and defined as body builders. They get that way doing primarily body weight exercises. What is running but a very highly demanding body weight exercise?
    Don't get me wrong. I cannot argue that weight lifting is not the best way to build a muscular physique. It is quite clear that weight lifting is more efficient for building strength. Weight lifting also seems to be better at promoting muscle toning and definition.
    What I object to is people overstating the case. I object to people denigrating running in their enthusiasm for weight lifting.
    I use the young, male, soccer player example because I think that really is more where the truth lies. A young, testosterone-fueled male can develop a lot of muscle doing almost anything demanding. A 30-year-old guy, not so much, no matter what he does.
    A 30-year-old guy who begins weight lifting is probably not going to pack on 20 pounds of muscle for a very long time, if ever. A 30-year-old male who begins running is not going to lose 5 pounds of muscle, if he keeps his calories up enough given how much he is burning.
    If you run, you will get stronger than if you did not run. You will develop a bigger heart too. Will you be able to squat 300 pounds? No. But, neither will a person who squats 300 pounds every other day necessarily be able to run a half marathon in two hours or less. All that is saying is, analogously, that you don't practice tennis to get better at basketball.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    I must continue to disagree. I wish you people would quit telling me I am wrong and that my grasp of the makeup of muscle tissue is inadequate, because I am telling you I have SEEN people get big doing activities normally referred to as "cardio."
    If you think about it you have seen it too.
    I have seen it with fellow soccer players when I was in high school and I have seen it with the boys who play high school rugby with my sons. I have seen it with serious, male bicyclists. They get big muscles with little or no weight lifting.
    Now, you will tell me that these people aren't really "jogging," rather they are doing high intensity, resistance exercise. And, then you will tell me that distance runners are skinny because they never push hard enough.
    But, I have seen world class marathoners racing, and they move down the road faster than most people sprint ! They push. Their strides are long and strong ! Their legs may be lean. But they are not thin and wispy.
    Eugenio, in a post up above, says he rides his bike like the wind, but he cannot squat. But he is comparing himself to the weight lifters here. No, he cannot compete with weight lifters. But, I will guarantee you he generates much more force in his squats because he bikes, than he would if he did not bike.
    Male gymnasts have muscular physiques almost as big and defined as body builders. They get that way doing primarily body weight exercises. What is running but a very highly demanding body weight exercise?
    Don't get me wrong. I cannot argue that weight lifting is not the best way to build a muscular physique. It is quite clear that weight lifting is more efficient for building strength. Weight lifting also seems to be better at promoting muscle toning and definition.
    What I object to is people overstating the case. I object to people denigrating running in their enthusiasm for weight lifting.
    I use the young, male, soccer player example because I think that really is more where the truth lies. A young, testosterone-fueled male can develop a lot of muscle doing almost anything demanding. A 30-year-old guy, not so much, no matter what he does.
    A 30-year-old guy who begins weight lifting is probably not going to pack on 20 pounds of muscle for a very long time, if ever. A 30-year-old male who begins running is not going to lose 5 pounds of muscle, if he keeps his calories up enough given how much he is burning.
    If you run, you will get stronger than if you did not run. You will develop a bigger heart too. Will you be able to squat 300 pounds? No. But, neither will a person who squats 300 pounds every other day necessarily be able to run a half marathon in two hours or less. All that is saying is, analogously, that you don't practice tennis to get better at basketball.
    You are welcome to disagree, but unless you can convince journals of medicine and study (Journal of Strength and Conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association, Journal of Athletic training, American Journal of Sports Medicine, American Journal of Physiology, etc.) to change the information and studies we get from them, then what you state is anecdotal.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    You are welcome to disagree, but unless you can convince journals of medicine and study (Journal of Strength and Conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association, Journal of Athletic training, American Journal of Sports Medicine, American Journal of Physiology, etc.) to change the information and studies we get from them, then what you state is anecdotal.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    Well, I have seen some pretty hard kicking soccer players, who I think are getting more benefit from the kicking than others. And when the kicking is against more immovable objects than a soccer ball, you will get more strength gains.
  • aysar11
    aysar11 Posts: 2 Member
    On the topic of losing fat while building muscle, our bodies are not designed to do both at the same time.

    http://muscleevo.net/lose-fat-gain-muscle/

    Also read about anabolic and catabolic states (building vs breaking down tissue).

    http://straighthealth.com/pages/qna/catabolic-anabolic.html
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    On the topic of losing fat while building muscle, our bodies are not designed to do both at the same time.

    http://muscleevo.net/lose-fat-gain-muscle/

    Also read about anabolic and catabolic states (building vs breaking down tissue).

    http://straighthealth.com/pages/qna/catabolic-anabolic.html

    What is your range of time for "at the same time".

    Can you be ana and cata in the same day? Same half-day?

    Can it appear on weekly weigh-in you are doing both, when you take "at the same time" to be a weeks worth of time?

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/778012-potential-muscle-gain-lifting-and-metabolism-improvement
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    On the topic of losing fat while building muscle, our bodies are not designed to do both at the same time.

    http://muscleevo.net/lose-fat-gain-muscle/

    Also read about anabolic and catabolic states (building vs breaking down tissue).

    http://straighthealth.com/pages/qna/catabolic-anabolic.html

    What is your range of time for "at the same time".

    Can you be ana and cata in the same day? Same half-day?

    Can it appear on weekly weigh-in you are doing both, when you take "at the same time" to be a weeks worth of time?

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/778012-potential-muscle-gain-lifting-and-metabolism-improvement

    Like most physiologic processes, there is no "on/off" switch for either anabolism or catabolism. Both processes are constantly ongoing in the body. Training, lifestyle, eating, etc can push the equation in one direction or the other and if one set of conditions predominates over a period of time, then there will be a cumulative effect.

    It's another reason why people should not overreact to isolated and transient physical effects.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    You are welcome to disagree, but unless you can convince journals of medicine and study (Journal of Strength and Conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association, Journal of Athletic training, American Journal of Sports Medicine, American Journal of Physiology, etc.) to change the information and studies we get from them, then what you state is anecdotal.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    Well, I have seen some pretty hard kicking soccer players, who I think are getting more benefit from the kicking than others. And when the kicking is against more immovable objects than a soccer ball, you will get more strength gains.
    That's not defying what's being said about overload principle though. You can kick without a ball or kick with the ball. Obviously the ball will offer much more resistance.
    I have a female client who was a superb soccer player. Legs are slammin'. Kicks the ball at almost 50mph. She works out though. Then I saw her sister who doesn't work out. Though the legs weren't as "tight", still slammin'. And now their mother takes my k-box class. Guess what? Slammin' legs! Genetics does wonders.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Categories