Cardio fails to produce fatloss - interesting studies

Options
124

Replies

  • celadontea
    celadontea Posts: 335 Member
    Options
    Not buying the studies. I was at my fittest, lowest body fat and weight when I exercised everyday.
  • Mguilmot
    Mguilmot Posts: 232 Member
    Options
    What if I told you you can prove anything with a study ;-)
  • junlex123
    junlex123 Posts: 81 Member
    Options
    What if I told you you can prove anything with a study ;-)

    It's not the studies at fault here, it's the idiotic and sensationalist interpretation of them by the "trainer".
  • xRiverX
    xRiverX Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    This is a BS thread period studies this studies that,just do it instead of studying it lol

    any excuse not to work out lol
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,538 Member
    Options
    Josh Marion is just trying to sell you stuff.
    There's lots of BS that Marion touts, but it's true about cardio being projected as a "fat burning" exercise.

    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
  • anaconda469
    anaconda469 Posts: 3,461 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.

    I eat at a deficit and I bike 7 days a week. Does that mean that the 300 to 400 calories I burn a day are useless to burn off fat? I can't lift or run. Depressing that I am wasting my time. :cry: :cry: :cry:
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,538 Member
    Options
    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.
    Yeah, that's not a good measuring stick for fitness. Fitness is more than just running a 5k. Ever wrestle? You think an elite 5ker could withstand 5 minutes (don't know anyone who can run a 5K in 5 minutes) non stop wrestling or grappling?
    There are many more people who torch others in 5K's, but wimp out when it comes to other fitness challenges.

    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
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,538 Member
    Options
    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 run a 5.3 40 yard dash. Not super fast, but by no means "slow as a bloke". I run a 9:15 mile, so obviously I must be pretty poor.:laugh: My weight doesn't do my ankles and knees any favors.
    But I can HIIT train for 45 minutes with weights and still have good conditioning.

    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
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,538 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?
    Yes it varies from person to person. Some that don't exercise will lose muscle along with fat and thereby decreasing their metabolic rate faster than one who does resistance training to keep muscle and help keep metabolic rate up.

    But is a fine fine line to not believe that calorie deficit isn't needed for fat loss.

    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
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,538 Member
    Options
    Best fat loss regimen
    SLEEP. When one sleeps well, the energy used is 99.9% body fat.

    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
  • east2west14
    east2west14 Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    People find ways to suck the fun out of things!
  • _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.

    I eat at a deficit and I bike 7 days a week. Does that mean that the 300 to 400 calories I burn a day are useless to burn off fat? I can't lift or run. Depressing that I am wasting my time. :cry: :cry: :cry:

    I'm no expert. But I assume that as long as you have a caloric deficit, you're going to lose weight.

    If someone does something that increases the heart rate, they're going to burn calories. Those calories go towards ones daily calorie deficit.

    Cardio is one of the best ways to burn calories. So, I fail to see how it doesn't help with weight loss.

    Some studies just shouldn't be published, as they do nothing but confuse people.
  • veg_jen
    veg_jen Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    Josh Marion starts the email with "Cardio fails to produce fatloss RESULTS." Then cites studies that either have nothing to do with that claim or disprove that statement.

    The European Journal study looked at 8 overweight college males and an elevated Josh Marion is disingenuous in how he represents the results of the study, You can't take a study of 8 overweight college males and apply it across the entire population.

    He is claiming that 4 minutes will burn more fat than an hour of cardio. He doesn't even say high intensity vs low intensity cardio.

    He makes sweeping generalizations that are misleading.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Yeah, that's not a good measuring stick for fitness. Fitness is more than just running a 5k. Ever wrestle? You think an elite 5ker could withstand 5 minutes (don't know anyone who can run a 5K in 5 minutes) non stop wrestling or grappling?
    There are many more people who torch others in 5K's, but wimp out when it comes to other fitness challenges.

    You're reading too much into it. If A then B doesn't imply If B then A - being able to run for 30 minutes is a necessary component to being fit - but it is not a sufficient component.

    Just as the gyms are filled with lifters who are cardiac basket cases, the streets and trails are filled with runners who couldn't do a pushup to save their own lives - I don't consider either group fit.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    Yeah, that's not a good measuring stick for fitness. Fitness is more than just running a 5k. Ever wrestle? You think an elite 5ker could withstand 5 minutes (don't know anyone who can run a 5K in 5 minutes) non stop wrestling or grappling?
    There are many more people who torch others in 5K's, but wimp out when it comes to other fitness challenges.

    You're reading too much into it. If A then B doesn't imply If B then A - being able to run for 30 minutes is a necessary component to being fit - but it is not a sufficient component.

    Just as the gyms are filled with lifters who are cardiac basket cases, the streets and trails are filled with runners who couldn't do a pushup to save their own lives - I don't consider either group fit.
    If someone can't bang out 5km, they are plainly and simply not fit. And "six minutes of sprinting" will not fix that.

    You say we are reading to much into what you say even though what you say seems pretty straightforward....so, which is it? If someone can't run 5K are they or are they not fit? (even if they are physically able in many other regards strength or/and cardio wise)
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Options
    Yeah, that's not a good measuring stick for fitness. Fitness is more than just running a 5k. Ever wrestle? You think an elite 5ker could withstand 5 minutes (don't know anyone who can run a 5K in 5 minutes) non stop wrestling or grappling?
    There are many more people who torch others in 5K's, but wimp out when it comes to other fitness challenges.

    You're reading too much into it. If A then B doesn't imply If B then A - being able to run for 30 minutes is a necessary component to being fit - but it is not a sufficient component.

    Just as the gyms are filled with lifters who are cardiac basket cases, the streets and trails are filled with runners who couldn't do a pushup to save their own lives - I don't consider either group fit.
    If someone can't bang out 5km, they are plainly and simply not fit. And "six minutes of sprinting" will not fix that.

    You say we are reading to much into what you say even though what you say seems pretty straightforward....so, which is it? If someone can't run 5K are they or are they not fit? (even if they are physically able in many other regards strength or/and cardio wise)

    We better get this worked out stat, because I may have to revise my entire training regime to keep up with this very important standard . . .

    And next up, in our daily online game of "I'm a Bigger Bro than You," chalk vs. gloves . . .

    tumblr_m1gn8oeNmt1qfj8gwo1_400_zps03c56691.gif
  • paulperryman
    paulperryman Posts: 839 Member
    Options
    i do 4-5 hrs of cardio a week and i've lost considerable body fat and gained muscle too so thats bull****. you can't do cardio and nothing else, i'd agree with that there has to be something to use resistance on the muscles, cardio promotes an increase in blood flow and fitness and any calories burned is going to include a percentage of fat and water and protein strains now how that isn't burning fat i dunno.. If you go moderate for longer as opposed to intense levels for the whole time it's a no brainer that you'd be putting less strain on the muscles and thus more likely to be burning fat then muscle.

    but studies are subjective to the person releasing then to prove his or her point. Anyone remember the studies that stated eggs are bad colesterol, but they are also essential fats and contain no bad cholesterol at all, potatoes are bad for you but they are good aswell, coffee is evil yet drinking it promotes a temporary motabolism increase, eat no carbs yet your body needs it.
    eat high protein diets despite the body not being designed to process it in those levels.

    next month there'll be a study that proves exercise is actually killing you. Ignore the studies and listen to your own body, only you know what your body thrives in.
  • paulperryman
    paulperryman Posts: 839 Member
    Options
    This is interesting to me because I recently cut out the strength training and have focused more so on cardio. I've been doing this for about a month now and have seen some great results. More so than when I was doing a mixture of everything during a 1 hour workout. Hmmm..

    you could be burning more muscle tho if you cut out any resistance. muscle is more dense then fat, any gain or loss in muscle is going to be more noticeable on the scales then the associated loss or gain of fat.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 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.

    bull.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 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.

    lolNO

Categories