Too much cardio?
Options
shortone100
Posts: 4 Member
My current goal is fat loss while maintaining muscle. Right now I'm averaging about 5 days of cardio per week, and I mix it up between steady state and HIIT. Along with that I do 3-4 days of heavy weights per week.
My question is, am I doing too much cardio? I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts...but I can just keep upping the intensity, right? Any thoughts are appreciated!
My question is, am I doing too much cardio? I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts...but I can just keep upping the intensity, right? Any thoughts are appreciated!
0
Replies
-
I swim 6000 yards 5 to 7 days a week. So I have no idea what constitutes "too much cardio."
Some of the trainers I know do little to know cardio and just lift heavy. It would seem to me that it really depends on what works for you and your schedule.
Spinning class can be use to mix cardio with a heavy duty leg workout because one can do some pretty hard pushing. My quads feel an beat after a spin class as they do after a leg day in the weight room.0 -
You don't have to up the intensity; up the time.0
-
There is such a thing as too much cardio, and too much intensity, if your goal is health, not winning races. Generally speaking, an hour a day, 5 days a week, is the outside limit, at a moderate pace, and 20 minutes is good for intense cardio. Of course, there are many ways to mix that up.
I would love to do more cardio than that. The take-home, for me, is that I can be active for hours every day, as long as it doesn't reach the level of a cardio workout. But when I start taking long uphill hikes, I have to consider that in my cardio allowance, and back off the exercise I do at the gym.
Here's an expert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0 0 -
It really depends on your goal... your ticker says you have 2 lbs to lose and you're saying you want to lose fat and maintain muscle, so I would recommend minimal cardio and increase the weights. If you're really just looking to reduce body fat, you could do about 30 mins of cardio everyday, do HIIT maybe twice a week and go heavier on the weights.0
-
Guess I'm doing to much 5 hrs of vigorous cardio a week. But still trying to figure out what is too much.0
-
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »Guess I'm doing to much 5 hrs of vigorous cardio a week. But still trying to figure out what is too much.
Same here! I like my exercise high.
0 -
Good video. I sure like my elliptical and hopefully my intensity is such that I fall in the middle of the "U", because I like to use it everyday. I've been thinking about changing up my schedule to include lifting some. It seems many sources suggest that.0
-
IGood video. I sure like my elliptical and hopefully my intensity is such that I fall in the middle of the "U", because I like to use it everyday. I've been thinking about changing up my schedule to include lifting some. It seems many sources suggest that.
I started with this as a guideline when I got my HRM
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/adults/index.htm
0 -
shortone100 wrote: »My question is, am I doing too much cardio?
As long as you are fuelling your training it's very unlikely. Overtraining would involve several hours per day, no rest days an insufficient fuel to compensate for the expenditure.I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts
Calorie expenditure is a function of the distance you move your body mass through, whether running, rowing, cycling swimming or prancing around in front of a DVD. Your body doesn't get used to it and magically stop converting energy from one type to another. As you get lighter you will burn less for equivalent distance, hence a need to progressively overload, in the same way as you would with weights.
I'd ignore the advice above about limiting to five hours per week. There are plenty of people who do a lot more than that with no ill effects.0 -
I'd ignore the advice above about limiting to five hours per week. There are plenty of people who do a lot more than that with no ill effects.
I would look at the facts, and make your own informed decision.
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »I'd ignore the advice above about limiting to five hours per week. There are plenty of people who do a lot more than that with no ill effects.
I would look at the facts, and make your own informed decision.
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
Of course if ones objective is purely about weight gain the stick to lifting, eating at a surplus and doing minimal CV work. For most people somewhere between 3:30-7 hours is probably adequate though.
0 -
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
this isn't to your comment, but that slippery slope you're sliding down.
https://youtu.be/OWwOJlOI1nU
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
You do appreciate that research is discredited. A very small samle size that's not statistically significant.
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
You do appreciate that research is discredited. A very small samle size that's not statistically significant.
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
To the best of my knowledge, the findings are not discredited.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
You do appreciate that research is discredited. A very small samle size that's not statistically significant.
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
To the best of my knowledge, the research is not discredited.
I'll dig out a few links later, im on my mobile at the moment.
Essentially a small sample size and no corroboration of the reasons for the result means a big leap in analysis to get from running 60-80 miles per week to the conclusion above.
0 -
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »IGood video. I sure like my elliptical and hopefully my intensity is such that I fall in the middle of the "U", because I like to use it everyday. I've been thinking about changing up my schedule to include lifting some. It seems many sources suggest that.
I started with this as a guideline when I got my HRM
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/adults/index.htm
I just had to laugh at your screen name scubasteve
Edited...
Why does MFP keep dropping off my text after posting??? Anyways, we say scuba Steve all the time in our house because it's a line from big daddy. Know it? Anyways moving on!...0 -
shortone100 wrote: »My current goal is fat loss while maintaining muscle. Right now I'm averaging about 5 days of cardio per week, and I mix it up between steady state and HIIT. Along with that I do 3-4 days of heavy weights per week.
My question is, am I doing too much cardio? I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts...but I can just keep upping the intensity, right? Any thoughts are appreciated!
I don't know the correct answer but I would say you'd be fine as long as you're eating enough to maintain your muscle. Chris Powell believes in FITT when things plateau OR after 4 weeks of the same thing (I think he says 4 weeks...) change either your frequency, intensity,time or total (reps). Again, I don't know the "right" answer and there probably isn't 1 true answer...if you're seeing results...keep going or change things up.0 -
bmchenry02 wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »IGood video. I sure like my elliptical and hopefully my intensity is such that I fall in the middle of the "U", because I like to use it everyday. I've been thinking about changing up my schedule to include lifting some. It seems many sources suggest that.
I started with this as a guideline when I got my HRM
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/adults/index.htm
I just had to laugh at your screen name scubasteve
didn't know about the Movie, just what everyone was calling me when I started diving, so I embraced it
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »
Five hours is less than an easy week.
If one fuels the training, then there isn't an issue.
The issue is damage to the cardiovascular system seen with high levels of endurance exercise, such as increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms, fibrosis in the heart muscle, which makes the heart stiffer and less efficient, increased plaque in arteries, hardening of arteries. These were things seen in marathoners, not in dieters who weren't eating enough.
Are your views based on that O keefe lecture, care to link us up to some peer reviewed studies rather than one mans opinion?MeanderingMammal wrote: »
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
Diminishing returns in what sense?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions