Cardio isn't for "fat burning".
Options
Replies
-
I've been reading this thread since it started and I have learned more about diet, exercise, and fitness here than I have in (and I'm pretty sure about this) MY WHOLE LIFE. This...is either really bad or really good. But thanks to the MFP community for the knowledge dump.0
-
Me too!jillian909 wrote: »I've been reading this thread since it started and I have learned more about diet, exercise, and fitness here than I have in (and I'm pretty sure about this) MY WHOLE LIFE. This...is either really bad or really good. But thanks to the MFP community for the knowledge dump.
0 -
Cardio is done to improve cardio vascular fitness and burn calories. It will HELP with a calorie deficit and for some that do a lot of cardio, allow one to eat more versus someone at the same weight who does little or no cardio at all.
Like all other physical activity, GLYCOGEN will be the first thing burned before fat is even touched (ratio will vary more to fat if duration extended and/or intensity is lower) so the addage that one needs to do cardio to burn fat is a myth. You burn fat with a calorie deficit. Don't believe it? Do whatever cardio you want, but eat your TDEE. You'll more likely keep the same bodyfat percentage if you keep doing that.
...
Cardio burns calories. One could do 2 hours of cardio and burn 1000 calories. Let's now say their TDEE is 3000 calories. Now they eat 3000 calories. Guess what? No weight or fat loss. If they eat 2500 calories, they lose weight and fat. Where's the confusion?
CICO dictates whether you gain/lose/maintain weight. A CI<CO (regardless of how it's achieved) is a calorie deficit.
I hate going without and feeling hungry. This ^^^^ explaination - which is all over these forums thanks to ninerbuff and other dedicated posters - was a lightbulb moment for me a few weeks ago. When I started this round of cutting out the weight again, it felt like a roller coaster I could not get off of. Learning this simple equation was like getting the first breath of air after being underwater too long. This makes the food aspect of weight loss and health simple and understandable. It seems so obvious, but I hadn't ever really 'got it' before. Eat less than you burn. If you choose to work out in any way shape or form, you can eat a little more based on the additional calorie burn. Make sure a major portion of the calories you eat are nutrient dense. Enjoy what you have left over in the calorie budget in whatever way you want. What could possibly be simpler than that?
Reading certain parts of this thread is painful, and I commend ninerbuff and others for their patience.
Thanks for this thread - and the dozens like it.0 -
My clients are often stumped when I relay correct information to them because like many others, bad information was past on for couple of decades. Like many they thought "but I NEED to do cardio to burn fat". Giving them the right information is mainly why I have a good track record of successful clients.HappyCampr1 wrote: »
I remember when I decided I needed to lose weight. I was clueless. I joined a gym because everybody knows that working out is the way to lose weight, right? I hired a trainer for one day a week. Did resistance training followed by 30-40 min cardio 3x a week. In seven months, I lost a whopping 15 pounds.jessicarae0316 wrote: »Because this whole thread is making it sound like cardio won't make you lose fat, but in that case if the only thing that person changed was adding cardio, they would lose fat. It's misleading. Of course you can lose weight/fat without exercising at all.
The point that was made in the OP is that many people believe that regardless of what you eat, doing cardio makes your body burn fat. This is preached in women's magazines, in the advertising for workout programs, etc. But it's not true. Being in a deficit makes you lose fat over time, whether that deficit comes entirely from what you eat or from doing exercise or whatever.
I remember doing long cardio workouts and honestly believing the fat was literally melting from all that effort! Live and learn
Then I found MFP. Thank goodness.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Isn't there some knowledge floating around these forums that describes a maximum amount of fat that the oxidized per day?
If there is a maximum amount of fat that can be oxidized per day, and, one exceeds the oxidation maximum through calorie deficit, what happens when you exceed the maximum oxidation limit? Where does the energy come from if not fat?0 -
There AREN'T any "fat burning" exercises. Exercise is for fitness and health. How you lose fat is based more on CICO than how much or how one works out. You can improve muscle and muscle tone, but exercise doesn't directly burn off excess fat tissue the way people think it does. That's why "spot reduction" doesn't exist.AdorkableRegal wrote: »Okay, then if Cardio isn't for fat burning what exercise do you recommend?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Okay, I'll admit I thought this was a "cardio is useless - all you need to do is lift" post. Glad it's not. Great info.1 -
OMG! F***ING HILARIOUS!!!0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »This isn't strictly true by doing cardio at the right intensity you can essentially train your body to utilise it's fat stores and oxygen for fuel rather than burn off it's limited sugar stores. Also by improving your aerobic ability you can go faster/harder for longer using less energy
So if I do cardio to the right intensity and still consume energy at a maintenance level, I'm going to burn fat? Yes...certain activities will use fat for fuel vs glycogen...but that's completely irrelevant to actually losing fat and losing weight because if you consume a maintenance level of energy you are going to maintain your fat stores.
All of that is just noise and it was addressed earlier...the body is in constant flux between fat oxidation and storage...just because you do some activity at an intensity that utilizes more fat for fuel doesn't actually mean your net oxidation is going to exceed storage...it still is dependent on energy consumption.
And you are kinda missing the point. Yes you need to consume less calories than you expend otherwise the body will convert the calories consumed into fat stores. The thread title is cardio isn't for fat burning....this is not true cardio does 'burn fat' and you can make the body more efficient at doing so by training at the right levels
And an interesting aside....ever wonder where the fat actually goes?
Most of it you breathe out as CO2 it doesn't miraculously turn into muscle as some people think
0 -
There are threads here on recomp written by people I respect in the community:Cardio burns more calories that anaerobic exercise, but again without a calorie deficit (with the exception of recomp), the body will retain fat.If one's TDEE is say 2000 and they eat 2000, they would NOT lose fat. Reduce intake by 250 calories and fat loss will happen. The body usually has to be in deficit to lose fat.
@ninerbuff Yes, I understand how normal weight loss happens "Reduce intake...and fat loss will happen."
What I am confused by is your statement above: "(with the exception of recomp)". What exactly is the exception of recomp?
Why do you say "The body usually has to be in deficit to lose fat."
I was under the impression that the body always has to be in a deficit to lose fat. And yet, I was also under the (mistaken?) impression that when people are recomping, they eat at TDEE. Another poster indicated above that people who are recomping don't eat at TDEE, but instead eat 100 calories under or something like that. What I'm having trouble understanding is your statements, because they seem to contradict that. Am I being dense here?
Could you please explain what you understand recomposition to be exactly and how it works, because the way you have worded things has me confused.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1320139/12-weeks-with-sidesteel
The thing with recomp is that it's a LONG process. May take a year or more to see any results. IMO, one should only recomp if they are down to say 15% for a male/21% for a female and are still trying to put on muscle while losing fat. If one is well over those percentages, and want to get lean more than put on muscle, then lean out first and just retain the muscle you currently have.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Thanks. Actually, I was searching around on the internet to try to understand recomposition better and found this article:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html/
He seems to believe that recomposition is indeed possible, but contrary to your suggestion of recomping only at 15% bodyfat for males or 21% bodyfat for females, he says that recomposition is really only likely to be successful in two very specific populations:
1) the overfat beginner and
2) previously lean and muscular individuals who have gotten fat and are trying to get back into shape
He indicates that people who are already lean or well trained are very unlikely to experience recomposition.
Edited: I guess this was misreading on my part. I think that I am conflating "adding muscle while losing fat" (the title of this article) with "recomposition". Perhaps these are different things? I've clicked around his site now and it seems the whole thing is about achieving recomposition in the very population he says it won't work for in this article: already lean individuals. I guess the whole site is a pitch to sell his special diet which is aimed directly at the 15% bodyfat male and the 21% bodyfat female...
1) The context of this thread, as opposed to Lyle McDonald's site, is aimed more toward Joe/Jane Average, most of who are overfat and trying to lose fat (which is what this thread was originally about). When Lyle talks about lean people getting leaner, he's talking about bodybuilder types who are down near 10% (for men) and trying to break into single digit bodyfat levels. The game changes in many ways at that stage (as Lyle superficially explained in that article), it's nowhere near the same as a 30% BF man trying to get to 15% BF, or a 40% BF woman trying to get to 25% BF.
2) In that article you linked to, he said that the more likely outcome for advanced lifters/lean people is fat loss (which this thread was originally about), without much muscle gain. Again, you have to consider context in the audience Lyle is addressing - advanced trainers have already put on a lot of muscle mass and are nearing their genetic potential, which means it's difficult for them to put on muscle under any conditions. He's not talking about the fat girl who wants to fit back into her cocktail dress and "tone up" her arms or booty.
3) If you spent some time paging around Lyle's site and all you got was that it was a big pitch to sell his "special diet", sorry to say you missed the point entirely. Yes, he has written books (numerous books) on nutrition and training which are for sale on his site, but there is a wealth of entirely FREE, science/evidence-based information available on his site. It's one of the best, most accurate/reliable websites you can find on the internet about nutrition and training. He doesn't require that you provide your e-mail address, register on his site or anything else, and none of his information is hidden behind some special pay wall. He also operates free support forums, both for every book he's written as well as for general diet and training topics, as well as a Facebook group, both of which he regularly contributes/personally responds to. Yes, Lyle sells products, but he's offered up more free (and reliable) information, research reviews and experience than just about any other trainer you'll find out there.....But, in the end I think the take away that I've come away with isn't much different from my previous understanding: Stay in a deficit to lose fat/weight. Get into a surplus to gain muscle/weight. Doing both at the same time might not be impossible, but it ain't easy.
That's an entirely accurate statement.0 -
Deficit = weight loss is the pointcwolfman13 wrote: »This isn't strictly true by doing cardio at the right intensity you can essentially train your body to utilise it's fat stores and oxygen for fuel rather than burn off it's limited sugar stores. Also by improving your aerobic ability you can go faster/harder for longer using less energy
So if I do cardio to the right intensity and still consume energy at a maintenance level, I'm going to burn fat? Yes...certain activities will use fat for fuel vs glycogen...but that's completely irrelevant to actually losing fat and losing weight because if you consume a maintenance level of energy you are going to maintain your fat stores.
All of that is just noise and it was addressed earlier...the body is in constant flux between fat oxidation and storage...just because you do some activity at an intensity that utilizes more fat for fuel doesn't actually mean your net oxidation is going to exceed storage...it still is dependent on energy consumption.
And you are kinda missing the point. Yes you need to consume less calories than you expend otherwise the body will convert the calories consumed into fat stores. The thread title is cardio isn't for fat burning....this is not true cardio does 'burn fat' and you can make the body more efficient at doing so by training at the right levels
And an interesting aside....ever wonder where the fat actually goes?
Most of it you breathe out as CO2 it doesn't miraculously turn into muscle as some people think
0 -
Cardio is done to improve cardio vascular fitness and burn calories. It will HELP with a calorie deficit and for some that do a lot of cardio, allow one to eat more versus someone at the same weight who does little or no cardio at all.
Like all other physical activity, GLYCOGEN will be the first thing burned before fat is even touched (ratio will vary more to fat if duration extended and/or intensity is lower) so the addage that one needs to do cardio to burn fat is a myth. You burn fat with a calorie deficit. Don't believe it? Do whatever cardio you want, but eat your TDEE. You'll more likely keep the same bodyfat percentage if you keep doing that.
...
Cardio burns calories. One could do 2 hours of cardio and burn 1000 calories. Let's now say their TDEE is 3000 calories. Now they eat 3000 calories. Guess what? No weight or fat loss. If they eat 2500 calories, they lose weight and fat. Where's the confusion?
CICO dictates whether you gain/lose/maintain weight. A CI<CO (regardless of how it's achieved) is a calorie deficit.
I hate going without and feeling hungry. This ^^^^ explaination - which is all over these forums thanks to ninerbuff and other dedicated posters - was a lightbulb moment for me a few weeks ago. When I started this round of cutting out the weight again, it felt like a roller coaster I could not get off of. Learning this simple equation was like getting the first breath of air after being underwater too long. This makes the food aspect of weight loss and health simple and understandable. It seems so obvious, but I hadn't ever really 'got it' before. Eat less than you burn. If you choose to work out in any way shape or form, you can eat a little more based on the additional calorie burn. Make sure a major portion of the calories you eat are nutrient dense. Enjoy what you have left over in the calorie budget in whatever way you want. What could possibly be simpler than that?
Reading certain parts of this thread is painful, and I commend ninerbuff and others for their patience.
Thanks for this thread - and the dozens like it.
Yup. I understand how weight loss works, but I've found that I like to eat a lot of food. Some days if have no problem staying within goal without exercise, but is pretty rare. I can maintain a deficit much easier when I add cardio.
0 -
Yup. I understand how weight loss works, but I've found that I like to eat a lot of food. Some days if have no problem staying within goal without exercise, but is pretty rare. I can maintain a deficit much easier when I add cardio.
Same for me, but the moment when the CICO formula finally sunk into my thick skull was an eyeopener. Of course, if I didn't like steak and beer so much maybe I wouldn't need cardio to keep me in a deficit!
0 -
Cardio is done to improve cardio vascular fitness and burn calories. It will HELP with a calorie deficit and for some that do a lot of cardio, allow one to eat more versus someone at the same weight who does little or no cardio at all.
Like all other physical activity, GLYCOGEN will be the first thing burned before fat is even touched (ratio will vary more to fat if duration extended and/or intensity is lower) so the addage that one needs to do cardio to burn fat is a myth. You burn fat with a calorie deficit. Don't believe it? Do whatever cardio you want, but eat your TDEE. You'll more likely keep the same bodyfat percentage if you keep doing that.
...
Cardio burns calories. One could do 2 hours of cardio and burn 1000 calories. Let's now say their TDEE is 3000 calories. Now they eat 3000 calories. Guess what? No weight or fat loss. If they eat 2500 calories, they lose weight and fat. Where's the confusion?
CICO dictates whether you gain/lose/maintain weight. A CI<CO (regardless of how it's achieved) is a calorie deficit.
I hate going without and feeling hungry. This ^^^^ explaination - which is all over these forums thanks to ninerbuff and other dedicated posters - was a lightbulb moment for me a few weeks ago. When I started this round of cutting out the weight again, it felt like a roller coaster I could not get off of. Learning this simple equation was like getting the first breath of air after being underwater too long. This makes the food aspect of weight loss and health simple and understandable. It seems so obvious, but I hadn't ever really 'got it' before. Eat less than you burn. If you choose to work out in any way shape or form, you can eat a little more based on the additional calorie burn. Make sure a major portion of the calories you eat are nutrient dense. Enjoy what you have left over in the calorie budget in whatever way you want. What could possibly be simpler than that?
Reading certain parts of this thread is painful, and I commend ninerbuff and others for their patience.
Thanks for this thread - and the dozens like it.
Yup. I understand how weight loss works, but I've found that I like to eat a lot of food. Some days if have no problem staying within goal without exercise, but is pretty rare. I can maintain a deficit much easier when I add cardio.
Same here.
The main reason I exercise (cardio) is so I can comfortably stay in a deficit.
0 -
A calorie burned by exercise = a calorie not eaten.
True story.0 -
Protranser wrote: »Isn't there some knowledge floating around these forums that describes a maximum amount of fat that the oxidized per day?
If there is a maximum amount of fat that can be oxidized per day, and, one exceeds the oxidation maximum through calorie deficit, what happens when you exceed the maximum oxidation limit? Where does the energy come from if not fat?
The max is in the neighborhood of 30-32 calories per pound of fat, in a 24 hour period. This goes to show just how fat helps with long term energy, but not short term energy.
**Note** First easy to read chart I found, variance in crossover points for fuels used can be from 45-75% of VO2max
The above displays one of @Ninerbuff 's first points. At any level most of us would call "cardio" exercise, we are burning both fat and carbs as the fuel. Though some change can be made on RER through training, no matter where the crossover points are, as intensity goes up, so does carb use. Those glycogen stores are helping you get through a cardio session, even at lower intensities.
When you eat, the body will replenish glycogen, and if you eat in a deficit, not replenish all the fat stores you burned. If at maintenance, both would replenish fully. If in surplus, all glycogen plus greater fat stores.
Keep in mind that that is the theory, someone skewed in real life by diet composition, how you spread the intake out, muscle repair needs, etc. It's not as if the food you eat would automatically replenish all lost glycogen immediately, and then possibly restore the fat lost. If you exercised at a level of intensity high enough for a complete "bonk" type experience, it might take a couple days or more to fully recover glycogen stores, even if eating at TDEE.
0 -
Diet is the most important. If you are not burning more calories then you are consuming, then you will not loose weight. Diet has always been a weakness of mine. Now that I track everything, the weight is coming off. I only weight train, and I'm steadily loosing weight. In other words, you get out of your body, what you put into it.0
-
3) If you spent some time paging around Lyle's site and all you got was that it was a big pitch to sell his "special diet", sorry to say you missed the point entirely.
I found his site because I was trying to find an explanation of the physiology of recomposition. I've seen recomposition mentioned frequently, and it was clear to me that I was confused about the issue. I wanted to understand it better. It is a complex process and I'm probably still confused about it.
But, no, I didn't spend a lot of time paging around Lyle's site, because I quickly surmised that I am not the target audience. I am still well above the body fat percentage at which his techniques would prove useful. I suppose that I'm the "fat girl who wants to fit back into her cocktail dress", as you put it, so my focus remains with straight up fat loss. However, I am a curious person, which is why I sought out his explanation in the first place.
I'm sorry if I offended your sensibilities by describing his site as a pitch to sell his books. I'm sure that there is quite a lot of useful, free information there. But again, it's meant for a different audience than me, at this point.
0 -
Cardio is a physical activity. Regardless of the intensity one uses, the amount of fat oxidized for fuel pales in comparison to what one burns at rest. The OP was created due to misinformation that people have been told for years that just doing cardio will be better for burning fat than other forms of exercise. And it's just not true.cwolfman13 wrote: »This isn't strictly true by doing cardio at the right intensity you can essentially train your body to utilise it's fat stores and oxygen for fuel rather than burn off it's limited sugar stores. Also by improving your aerobic ability you can go faster/harder for longer using less energy
So if I do cardio to the right intensity and still consume energy at a maintenance level, I'm going to burn fat? Yes...certain activities will use fat for fuel vs glycogen...but that's completely irrelevant to actually losing fat and losing weight because if you consume a maintenance level of energy you are going to maintain your fat stores.
All of that is just noise and it was addressed earlier...the body is in constant flux between fat oxidation and storage...just because you do some activity at an intensity that utilizes more fat for fuel doesn't actually mean your net oxidation is going to exceed storage...it still is dependent on energy consumption.
And you are kinda missing the point. Yes you need to consume less calories than you expend otherwise the body will convert the calories consumed into fat stores. The thread title is cardio isn't for fat burning....this is not true cardio does 'burn fat' and you can make the body more efficient at doing so by training at the right levels.
Actually ALL of it is burned off as CO2 and the majority of fat burning happens at rest where fat is the primary fuel source.And an interesting aside....ever wonder where the fat actually goes?
Most of it you breathe out as CO2 it doesn't miraculously turn into muscle as some people think
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Living is a fat burning event in a calorie defecit
Cardio contributes to the calorie defecit.
Therefore
It is a fat burning exercise.
Making this very simple weight management equation unduly complex is a bit silly.
Eat at a calorie defecit and add some fun exercise you enjoy. The magic will happen. There is no rocket science.
0 -
True...Working2BLean wrote: »Cardio contributes to the calorie defecit.
Not true. It is a tool to expend energy, get fit and healthy. If you eat to maintenance you will not lose fat, regardless of exercise...Working2BLean wrote: »Therefore
It is a fat burning exercise.
The OP was not complicated at all...Working2BLean wrote: »Making this very simple weight management equation unduly complex is a bit silly.
100% Agree...Working2BLean wrote: »Eat at a calorie defecit and add some fun exercise you enjoy. The magic will happen. There is no rocket science.
0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxzdo8FfrW0
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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions