Cardio fails to produce fatloss - interesting studies

Options
135

Replies

  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options

    So that's your line for fitness? If you can't run 5K you aren't fit?

    I think that's a pretty fair baseline. Even if you're slow as a bloke you should be able to knock out 5k in 25mins. If you can't run for 25mins that's pretty poor.

    I can't do a 5k in 25 minutes, my best time is 30 minutes. But I've completed 3 half marathons so far this year. So although I can run non-stop for over 2.5 hours does that mean that based on your statement I am unfit because I can't do a 5k in 25 minutes?

    Seems so
  • ElizaRoche
    ElizaRoche Posts: 2,005 Member
    Options
    well then.. i really dont know how I lost 80 pounds :noway: :happy:
  • ElizaRoche
    ElizaRoche Posts: 2,005 Member
    Options
    Look, calories are calories. It doesn't matter how you exercise. Calorie deficit is going to make you lose weight. These studies are bs.

    :drinker: cheers!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    In my experience, strength training can also help with endurance gains so again...I doubt those who focus mainly on strength training would just keel over from short cardio.

    I don't doubt it at all. The gyms are filled with people lifting weights who flat out cannot complete a 5km run.

    If someone can't bang out 5km, they are plainly and simply not fit. And "six minutes of sprinting" will not fix that.

    So that's your line for fitness? If you can't run 5K you aren't fit?

    I think that's a pretty fair baseline. Even if you're slow as a bloke you should be able to knock out 5k in 25mins. If you can't run for 25mins that's pretty poor.

    wow. I'm in pretty good shape, and I'm lucky do do a 5k in 25 mins. That's an 8 minute mile, which most people can't just "struggle through".
  • Mr_Starr
    Mr_Starr Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    interesting ....

    but i eat the same ( I am NOT dieting... although I may be snacking a little less ) and I went from sedentary to doing cardio and I am seeing weight loss of 2-3 lbs a week.

    48403347.png
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I'm intentionally splitting hairs here, just because I want clarity...

    A calorie deficit in and of itself will results in weight loss. How much of that weight comes from fat loss varies, correct? Genetics, exercise, macros, etc...

    So to say a calorie deficit = fat loss could be misleading for some people, no?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    wow. I'm in pretty good shape, and I'm lucky do do a 5k in 25 mins. That's an 8 minute mile, which most people can't just "struggle through".

    Let's put it another way - forget the distance - if someone can't run for 30 minutes without puking their guts out or having to recover for three days, then I don't consider them fit. That should be around 3 miles/5 km, plus or minus.

    And for the record, I myself do not quite yet met that standard, so I'm talking about myself here, too.
  • sanndandi
    sanndandi Posts: 300 Member
    Options

    So that's your line for fitness? If you can't run 5K you aren't fit?

    I think that's a pretty fair baseline. Even if you're slow as a bloke you should be able to knock out 5k in 25mins. If you can't run for 25mins that's pretty poor.

    I can't do a 5k in 25 minutes, my best time is 30 minutes. But I've completed 3 half marathons so far this year. So although I can run non-stop for over 2.5 hours does that mean that based on your statement I am unfit because I can't do a 5k in 25 minutes?

    Seems so

    yeah I'm with you guys. I don't much care for that part that was quoted in bold above. By whose standards am I considered un-fit If I can't run x distance in x amount of time? :grumble:
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    "But you can get those same health benefits (and more) with much shorter, much more exciting, and invigorating workouts. More on that in a minute... "

    I'm not sure that this entirely takes into account that what some people find 'exciting' and 'invigorating' would bore someone else senseless.

    The most effective exercise is the one you love.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    wow. I'm in pretty good shape, and I'm lucky do do a 5k in 25 mins. That's an 8 minute mile, which most people can't just "struggle through".

    Let's put it another way - forget the distance - if someone can't run for 30 minutes without puking their guts out or having to recover for three days, then I don't consider them fit. That should be around 3 miles/5 km, plus or minus.

    And for the record, I myself do not quite yet met that standard, so I'm talking about myself here, too.

    What about people that don't/can't run but can powerwalk? are they unfit because they can't run? what if you can do 30-60min on the elliptical at a high-ish resistance but don't run? still unfit? How about if they swim a certain distance or time but still can't run?

    What about those with disabilities? Will they never be able to be fit?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    "But you can get those same health benefits (and more) with much shorter, much more exciting, and invigorating workouts. More on that in a minute... "

    I'm not sure that this entirely takes into account that what some people find 'exciting' and 'invigorating' would bore someone else senseless.

    The most effective exercise is the one you love.
    I understand your point, and generally agree with it. But technically that's not true.

    From a fat loss standpoint, the most effective exercise is the one your are worst at, i.e. least adapted to.
  • _EndGame_
    _EndGame_ Posts: 770 Member
    Options
    What a load of BS

    This article basically makes out cardio is useless, and it's not essential.

    As someone said, cardio burns calories. To lose weight, one needs to eat a deficit in calories. The people who did cardio, but only lost the same amount as the people who dieted, clearly ate more than those who didn't do exercise.

    I just did 15 minutes of HIIT training on my treadmill, and I burned 171 calories, but according to this shoddy study, them 171 calories must be imaginary.

    Simple mathematics and the ability to work simple equations out can debunk that theory.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    "But you can get those same health benefits (and more) with much shorter, much more exciting, and invigorating workouts. More on that in a minute... "

    I'm not sure that this entirely takes into account that what some people find 'exciting' and 'invigorating' would bore someone else senseless.

    The most effective exercise is the one you love.
    I understand your point, and generally agree with it. But technically that's not true.

    From a fat loss standpoint, the most effective exercise is the one your are worst at, i.e. least adapted to.

    If by 'fat loss standpoint' you mean 'how to shed it fastest', well maybe. If you mean 'the way I build and maintain a healthy lifestyle for the foreseeable future' then I'm afraid my view holds more water.

    Loving a particular form of exercise also doesn't make you good at it for what it's worth.
    I'm a good weight lifter - I'm physically very strong, and built (under the blubber) for strength. I'm a slow runner. But I love running, and merely like lifting.

    I'm 'worst' at running, but I get a huge amount out of it, and it will always be the cornerstone of a sustainable healthy lifestyle for me.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    "But you can get those same health benefits (and more) with much shorter, much more exciting, and invigorating workouts. More on that in a minute... "

    I'm not sure that this entirely takes into account that what some people find 'exciting' and 'invigorating' would bore someone else senseless.

    The most effective exercise is the one you love.
    I understand your point, and generally agree with it. But technically that's not true.

    From a fat loss standpoint, the most effective exercise is the one your are worst at, i.e. least adapted to.

    If by 'fat loss standpoint' you mean 'how to shed it fastest', well maybe. If you mean 'the way I build and maintain a healthy lifestyle for the foreseeable future' then I'm afraid my view holds more water.

    True. But this thread isn't about long term sustainability. It's about fat loss.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    Sure. And I find it bizarre that people wish to separate the two. Which is MY point.
  • RAFValentina
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    Options
    That's one reason that Americans are overweight and out of shape. Everyone is looking for the six minute shortcut and nobody wants to do the work whether that work be on the road or in the weight room.

    This and a whole other myriad of other stuff...

    i do cardio to pass my fitness, test, make me feel good, make my job easier, boost my circulation, and it still burns calories so lets me eat more generously!!!
  • bonjour24
    bonjour24 Posts: 1,119 Member
    Options

    So that's your line for fitness? If you can't run 5K you aren't fit?

    I think that's a pretty fair baseline. Even if you're slow as a bloke you should be able to knock out 5k in 25mins. If you can't run for 25mins that's pretty poor.

    I can't do a 5k in 25 minutes, my best time is 30 minutes. But I've completed 3 half marathons so far this year. So although I can run non-stop for over 2.5 hours does that mean that based on your statement I am unfit because I can't do a 5k in 25 minutes?

    Seems so

    yeah I'm with you guys. I don't much care for that part that was quoted in bold above. By whose standards am I considered un-fit If I can't run x distance in x amount of time? :grumble:

    well, 25mins is a pretty elite speed to 'knock out' a 5k. i'm a slow runner. we are not all nimble and spritely. some of us are not natural athletes and have to work hard to achieve our goals. i'm a proud plodder. i've ran 8 halves and 2 fulls in the last 18 months. so, am i not fit then?

    and fwiw OP, on the actual article, fat loss vs weight loss are 2 very different things. and to say you don't lose weight doing cardio just doesn't make sense. interval training is also good, as is weight training. generally, if you move more and eat within your caloric goals then you are likely to 1- get fitter and 2- lose weight.
  • MommyisFit
    MommyisFit Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    Cardio has so many more benefits than just burning calories. If I don't get in enough cardio in a week, I am miserable to be around (ask my husband!). I am a recovering cardio addict. It wasn't until a couple of weeks ago that I reduced the amount of cardio from 6+ hours a week to 3-3.5 hrs a week and increased my heavy weight training that I really saw results. I have been stuck in my size 4 since I had kids. Got rid of some cardio and replace it with weights and BAM - size 2 - in 2 weeks!
  • Spartan_1_1_7
    Spartan_1_1_7 Posts: 132 Member
    Options
    bump
  • junlex123
    junlex123 Posts: 81 Member
    Options
    From the conclusion of the second paper cited (couldn't find the first one produced in full online):

    Conclusion: Exercise plays an equivalent role to CR (calorie restriction) in terms of energy balance; however, it can also improve aerobic fitness, which has other important cardiovascular and metabolic implications.

    ie it doesn't matter if the calorie deficit comes from exercise or from diet alone as far as fat loss. What ground-breaking new information :| This doesn't make cardio useless or ineffective.

Categories