Cardio isn't for "fat burning".
Options
Replies
-
This all seems like a philosophical discussion about fat loss. Do you need exercise to burn fat? No. Does exercise alone burn fat? No. However, doesn't exercise burn energy which must be replaced or supplemented by stored fat, which causes fat loss? Isn't saying exercise doesn't burn fat kind of misleading as it does in a roundabout way, if the person doing the exercise doesn't replace that energy with food?
Not really, as exercise would only end up burning fat, if you were in a deficit (ate below TDEE). If you ate 3200 cals, have a TDEE (including exercise) of 3000 you would not burn fat, unless you did even more exercise and didn't eat more to compensate. TDEE of 3500 and still eating 3200.
But isn't that what I was saying. The only thing done by itself that's going to burn fat is eating below your TDEE. However, doing that along with cardio will speed the process along because you're not replacing the energy stores depleted by cardio. The title of the board should read, cardio on it's own will not burn fat instead of what it does say, so it's a little misleading.
And the first two sentences say: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.
It's why there are threads and not just titles. Unlike twitter, there's actually some substance to posts (well, unless you're in the chat/fun and games sections).0 -
This all seems like a philosophical discussion about fat loss. Do you need exercise to burn fat? No. Does exercise alone burn fat? No. However, doesn't exercise burn energy which must be replaced or supplemented by stored fat, which causes fat loss? Isn't saying exercise doesn't burn fat kind of misleading as it does in a roundabout way, if the person doing the exercise doesn't replace that energy with food?
Not really, as exercise would only end up burning fat, if you were in a deficit (ate below TDEE). If you ate 3200 cals, have a TDEE (including exercise) of 3000 you would not burn fat, unless you did even more exercise and didn't eat more to compensate. TDEE of 3500 and still eating 3200.
But isn't that what I was saying. The only thing done by itself that's going to burn fat is eating below your TDEE. However, doing that along with cardio will speed the process along because you're not replacing the energy stores depleted by cardio. The title of the board should read, cardio on it's own will not burn fat instead of what it does say, so it's a little misleading.
And the first two sentences say: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.
It's why there are threads and not just titles. Unlike twitter, there's actually some substance to posts (well, unless you're in the chat/fun and games sections).
But also, like most things on the internet, people mostly read the title and don't go into much depth with the actual text of the written posts or article. The title is kind of written like click bait. Additionally, the first sentence implies that cardio is only done to improve cardiovascular health while the second sentence implies that it's only helpful for those that want to actually eat more to not go over their TDEE. These two sentences in themselves kind of support what the title implies. Cardio can be done to burn fat (in an indirect way), just like anything you do to burn energy, as long as you replenish below your TDEE.0 -
This all seems like a philosophical discussion about fat loss. Do you need exercise to burn fat? No. Does exercise alone burn fat? No. However, doesn't exercise burn energy which must be replaced or supplemented by stored fat, which causes fat loss? Isn't saying exercise doesn't burn fat kind of misleading as it does in a roundabout way, if the person doing the exercise doesn't replace that energy with food?
Not really, as exercise would only end up burning fat, if you were in a deficit (ate below TDEE). If you ate 3200 cals, have a TDEE (including exercise) of 3000 you would not burn fat, unless you did even more exercise and didn't eat more to compensate. TDEE of 3500 and still eating 3200.
But isn't that what I was saying. The only thing done by itself that's going to burn fat is eating below your TDEE. However, doing that along with cardio will speed the process along because you're not replacing the energy stores depleted by cardio. The title of the board should read, cardio on it's own will not burn fat instead of what it does say, so it's a little misleading.
And the first two sentences say: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.
It's why there are threads and not just titles. Unlike twitter, there's actually some substance to posts (well, unless you're in the chat/fun and games sections).
I get what you're saying but even after reading the OP fully, it can still confuse the average dieter. Allowing you to eat more does not equal losing more fat. IMO, it should read "allow you to eat more or allow you to lose more weight". That would satisfy the dieter who wants to lose weight. Instead it kind of makes them feel like they are "spinning their wheels". I know I rarely eat back my exercise calories which allows me to reach my goals quicker.
I understand, creating a larger calorie deficit does not always lead to favorable results. Especially if the dieter is not incorporating resistance training and enough macros to retain lbm, but more often than not, someone who is not doing that is probably morbidly obese or couldn't care less about looking like a fitness model. They may just want to get to a healthy weight.
Now, if you do include resistance training, as my profile picture shows, even with a lot of cardio and a large deficit I achieved my best shape since I started training.
This thread is 15 pages for a reason.
2 -
This all seems like a philosophical discussion about fat loss. Do you need exercise to burn fat? No. Does exercise alone burn fat? No. However, doesn't exercise burn energy which must be replaced or supplemented by stored fat, which causes fat loss? Isn't saying exercise doesn't burn fat kind of misleading as it does in a roundabout way, if the person doing the exercise doesn't replace that energy with food?
Not really, as exercise would only end up burning fat, if you were in a deficit (ate below TDEE). If you ate 3200 cals, have a TDEE (including exercise) of 3000 you would not burn fat, unless you did even more exercise and didn't eat more to compensate. TDEE of 3500 and still eating 3200.
But isn't that what I was saying. The only thing done by itself that's going to burn fat is eating below your TDEE. However, doing that along with cardio will speed the process along because you're not replacing the energy stores depleted by cardio. The title of the board should read, cardio on it's own will not burn fat instead of what it does say, so it's a little misleading.
And the first two sentences say: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.
It's why there are threads and not just titles. Unlike twitter, there's actually some substance to posts (well, unless you're in the chat/fun and games sections).
But also, like most things on the internet, people mostly read the title and don't go into much depth with the actual text of the written posts or article. The title is kind of written like click bait. Additionally, the first sentence implies that cardio is only done to improve cardiovascular health while the second sentence implies that it's only helpful for those that want to actually eat more to not go over their TDEE. These two sentences in themselves kind of support what the title implies. Cardio can be done to burn fat (in an indirect way), just like anything you do to burn energy, as long as you replenish below your TDEE.
I get what you are saying and I imagine there are a lot of people who don't pay much attention but to be fair that's the problem with the reader being lazy and not on the poster. Is it click bait? Perhaps, but it's also good food for thought and fodder for discussion.0 -
If supplemented by the total calories burned from exercise and there is no calorie deficit, then fat loss isn't happening. I'm sure we all agree on that.This all seems like a philosophical discussion about fat loss. Do you need exercise to burn fat? No. Does exercise alone burn fat? No. However, doesn't exercise burn energy which must be replaced or supplemented by stored fat, which causes fat loss? Isn't saying exercise doesn't burn fat kind of misleading as it does in a roundabout way, if the person doing the exercise doesn't replace that energy with food?
The inciting by the fitness industry is that one NEEDS to do cardio to burn fat. I would bet 9/10 trainers would say that. Of course they'll refer to diet too, but if you argued with them that cardio isn't needed for successful weight loss, the 9 will argue it is. Why? Because they really don't know any better. And of course the DVD's by fitness guru's also echo the same.
You read it over and over again on the forums...................."How much cardio should I do to lose weight", "What's the best exercise to lose weight?", "When doing cardio, what's the fat burning zone?". Addressing these questions, is hopefully what I did.
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 -
Yes, you need a calorie deficit for any weight loss, but when you create that deficit through diet alone (and are sedentary) you will lose less fat and more lean body tissue (proportionally) than if you create a calorie deficit with diet + exercise. I'm not saying you NEED to do cardio to burn fat, but if you're losing weight (via a calorie deficit) you SHOULD do some exercise to preserve muscle and burn more fat (proportionally speaking). I would prefer strength training personally but really cardio is better than nothing.
Just some food for thought on this topic. Unfortunately I didn't have time for anything more extensive…..this is all I had time for….obviously nothing is properly cited. It should be noted that some of these studies used a combination of strength and cardio for the exercise intervention and some used only cardio.
“Diet + aerobic exercise resulted in significantly greater weight loss than diet alone in 50% of trials. However, weight regain (∼55% of loss) was similar in diet and diet+aerobic exercise groups. Fat-free mass tended to be preserved when interventions included exercise.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198137/
“Weight loss induced mainly by exercise additionally resulted in maintenance of lean mass, greater fitness, greater fat loss and a larger effect on (some) sex hormones.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557857/
“ Research to date suggests that the addition of exercise programmes to dietary restriction can promote more favourable changes in body composition than diet or physical activity on its own.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16526835
“Supervised exercise {without energy restriction}…… results in clinically significant weight loss.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3630467/
"Diet associated with exercise produced a 20% greater initial weight loss. The combined intervention also resulted in a 20% greater sustained weight loss after 1 year than diet alone"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15925949
"We found that exercise had an important effect of maintaining lean body mass that did not occur with diet alone"......."Among postmenopausal women, lifestyle change involving diet, exercise, or both combined over 1 year improves body weight and adiposity, with the greatest change arising from the combined intervention"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406229/
0 -
Agreed. I would say half of my clients (mostly male) lost their weight with calorie deficit and a full body workout (usually in a session) 2-3 times a week.nicolemarie999 wrote: »Yes, you need a calorie deficit for any weight loss, but when you create that deficit through diet alone (and are sedentary) you will lose less fat and more lean body tissue (proportionally) than if you create a calorie deficit with diet + exercise. I'm not saying you NEED to do cardio to burn fat, but if you're losing weight (via a calorie deficit) you SHOULD do some exercise to preserve muscle and burn more fat (proportionally speaking). I would prefer strength training personally but really cardio is better than nothing.
Just some food for thought on this topic. Unfortunately I didn't have time for anything more extensive…..this is all I had time for….obviously nothing is properly cited. It should be noted that some of these studies used a combination of strength and cardio for the exercise intervention and some used only cardio.
“Diet + aerobic exercise resulted in significantly greater weight loss than diet alone in 50% of trials. However, weight regain (∼55% of loss) was similar in diet and diet+aerobic exercise groups. Fat-free mass tended to be preserved when interventions included exercise.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198137/
“Weight loss induced mainly by exercise additionally resulted in maintenance of lean mass, greater fitness, greater fat loss and a larger effect on (some) sex hormones.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557857/
“ Research to date suggests that the addition of exercise programmes to dietary restriction can promote more favourable changes in body composition than diet or physical activity on its own.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16526835
“Supervised exercise {without energy restriction}…… results in clinically significant weight loss.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3630467/
"Diet associated with exercise produced a 20% greater initial weight loss. The combined intervention also resulted in a 20% greater sustained weight loss after 1 year than diet alone"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15925949
"We found that exercise had an important effect of maintaining lean body mass that did not occur with diet alone"......."Among postmenopausal women, lifestyle change involving diet, exercise, or both combined over 1 year improves body weight and adiposity, with the greatest change arising from the combined intervention"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406229/
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 -
Was it ever mentioned that the "study" that came up with the 31 cal/lb of fat was merely a math exercise looking at another study and it's results, seeing if they could find a formula that fit the results seen?
I'm glad several have mentioned the math either doesn't work out in some cases, or you can risk LBM and probably muscle mass (different things, right?) even if not nearing that max.
@heybales Somehow, I didn't see this post before I replied again to @ninerbuff just above.
THANK YOU, yes, my whole problem with the 31 kcal/lb of body fat was that the math just did not seem to work at all, especially in the example of the woman that I gave.
I do not have access to the original study (Alpert SS. A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13.) because you have to pay to get a copy of the full report. I skimmed the abstract, but did not originally pick up on the key word "deduced" and therefore I glossed over that it was "merely a math exercise" as you put it.
It may work as a math exercise, but I don't think that there is any way that it works in the real world. Again, thanks for understanding where I was coming from.
Was the study of men? I would assume do to higher testosterone levels that men could oxidize more fat prior to eating into muscle as testosterone itself if muscle sparing/building.
If I'm recalling correctly - it was the often labeled MN starvation study.
It's been awhile, but I believe it was that, though it could be another - I just recall thinking while reading what they did - the study they used wasn't even about attempting to preserve LBM or muscle mass - the men lost a lot of both.
Obviously they still lost weight too despite BMR lowering more than expected for lost muscle mass.
And the deficit was hardly starvation, though not great with amount of activity they did.
But it just screamed why it was a math exercise, since the study info was no where near what the math was attempting to show.
Somewhere out there the study was free to view - I rarely pay unless a really great abstract and on something I really want.0 -
It is clear that negative energy balance is all that is required for weight loss.
But, adding to the list that @nicolemarie999 started, here's more support for the inclusion of exercise along with calorie restriction during a weight loss effort.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014 Feb;22(2):363-70. doi: 10.1002/oby.20525. Epub 2013 Aug 23.
Effect of physical activity on weight loss, energy expenditure, and energy intake during diet induced weight loss.
From the abstract:"A strong recommendation needs to be made to improve interventions that promote PA [Physical Activity] within the context of behavioral weight loss interventions."
From the full paper:"Increased PA was also associated with lower intake, greater adherence to caloric restriction and greater weight loss. In addition, increased PA during the second 6 months of intervention was associated with maintenance of, or increased weight loss. Finally, greater reductions in liver fat were observed with increased PA. Therefore, the addition of PA to a weight loss intervention leads to beneficial effects on both sides of the energy balance equation, resulting in greater weight loss, and potentially to greater weight loss maintenance."0 -
Was it ever mentioned that the "study" that came up with the 31 cal/lb of fat was merely a math exercise looking at another study and it's results, seeing if they could find a formula that fit the results seen?
I'm glad several have mentioned the math either doesn't work out in some cases, or you can risk LBM and probably muscle mass (different things, right?) even if not nearing that max.
@heybales Somehow, I didn't see this post before I replied again to @ninerbuff just above.
THANK YOU, yes, my whole problem with the 31 kcal/lb of body fat was that the math just did not seem to work at all, especially in the example of the woman that I gave.
I do not have access to the original study (Alpert SS. A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13.) because you have to pay to get a copy of the full report. I skimmed the abstract, but did not originally pick up on the key word "deduced" and therefore I glossed over that it was "merely a math exercise" as you put it.
It may work as a math exercise, but I don't think that there is any way that it works in the real world. Again, thanks for understanding where I was coming from.
Was the study of men? I would assume do to higher testosterone levels that men could oxidize more fat prior to eating into muscle as testosterone itself if muscle sparing/building.
If I'm recalling correctly - it was the often labeled MN starvation study.
It's been awhile, but I believe it was that, though it could be another - I just recall thinking while reading what they did - the study they used wasn't even about attempting to preserve LBM or muscle mass - the men lost a lot of both.
Obviously they still lost weight too despite BMR lowering more than expected for lost muscle mass.
And the deficit was hardly starvation, though not great with amount of activity they did.
But it just screamed why it was a math exercise, since the study info was no where near what the math was attempting to show.
Somewhere out there the study was free to view - I rarely pay unless a really great abstract and on something I really want.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25782294
0 -
To be fair...the poster wasn't saying "stop exercising". I believe the intended message was, "don't kill yourself doing cardio when what you really need is more 'activity'."
IMHO.0 -
faithsstaircase wrote: »To be fair...the poster wasn't saying "stop exercising". I believe the intended message was, "don't kill yourself doing cardio when what you really need is more 'activity'."
IMHO.
The OP's original point has been twisted and misconstrued so badly that we're not even talking about the same topic anymore. Many people would do well to go re-read the original post before commenting.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »I don't do cardio for fat loss, I do it so I can eat more, lol.
I do it so I can drink wine on the weekends!
0 -
Was it ever mentioned that the "study" that came up with the 31 cal/lb of fat was merely a math exercise looking at another study and it's results, seeing if they could find a formula that fit the results seen?
I'm glad several have mentioned the math either doesn't work out in some cases, or you can risk LBM and probably muscle mass (different things, right?) even if not nearing that max.
@heybales Somehow, I didn't see this post before I replied again to @ninerbuff just above.
THANK YOU, yes, my whole problem with the 31 kcal/lb of body fat was that the math just did not seem to work at all, especially in the example of the woman that I gave.
I do not have access to the original study (Alpert SS. A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13.) because you have to pay to get a copy of the full report. I skimmed the abstract, but did not originally pick up on the key word "deduced" and therefore I glossed over that it was "merely a math exercise" as you put it.
It may work as a math exercise, but I don't think that there is any way that it works in the real world. Again, thanks for understanding where I was coming from.
Was the study of men? I would assume do to higher testosterone levels that men could oxidize more fat prior to eating into muscle as testosterone itself if muscle sparing/building.
If I'm recalling correctly - it was the often labeled MN starvation study.
It's been awhile, but I believe it was that, though it could be another - I just recall thinking while reading what they did - the study they used wasn't even about attempting to preserve LBM or muscle mass - the men lost a lot of both.
Obviously they still lost weight too despite BMR lowering more than expected for lost muscle mass.
And the deficit was hardly starvation, though not great with amount of activity they did.
But it just screamed why it was a math exercise, since the study info was no where near what the math was attempting to show.
Somewhere out there the study was free to view - I rarely pay unless a really great abstract and on something I really want.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25782294
Wow, that's a whole better write up than just the study report. I mean, as far as really getting a feel for what they were going through. The study with stats is rather bland on most of that, if even mentioned.
I've tried finding the other study about max fat oxidation to confirm if it was indeed based on these stats.0 -
Hey! It's MFP!faithsstaircase wrote: »To be fair...the poster wasn't saying "stop exercising". I believe the intended message was, "don't kill yourself doing cardio when what you really need is more 'activity'."
IMHO.
The OP's original point has been twisted and misconstrued so badly that we're not even talking about the same topic anymore. Many people would do well to go re-read the original post before commenting.
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 an increase in a person's metabolic rate from consistent/daily/weekly exercising? This is a huge plus in my book just to exercise (but I am a bit old) LOL
As the above poster said above, I have lost weight, maintained and gained weight whilst exercising.
IMHO I think TV shows, magazines, internet jargon, make it out to believe that you must "exercise to loose weight", or at least that is the way it comes across. So people jump on MFP setup a calorie deficit and jump right on the forums and always ask "how many calories do I need to burn a day to loose weight", or "what type of cardio do I need to do to loose XXX pounds by XXX date?"
Who actually asks how can I improve my cardiovascular health to compliment my weight loss? Not very many.
*raises hand*
In fact I cared more about this than the actual weight but they're both side-kicks and fixing one helps the other. That is I first cared about getting less winded at 11k+ feet and that triggered my desire to fix other things. Generally however..... "Wedding in 6 weeks! ZOMG!"
OMGHRD.
Wedding- in 6 months!!!!
Can't wait till I'm six weeks out.. I'm just getting unfat from my bulk.
least it's not "OMG GUYS MY WEDDING IS IN 2 WEEKS HELP ME LOOSE 20 POUNDS.0 -
ALSO- omg I'm so behind on this thread.0
-
faithsstaircase wrote: »To be fair...the poster wasn't saying "stop exercising". I believe the intended message was, "don't kill yourself doing cardio when what you really need is more 'activity'."
IMHO.
The OP's original point has been twisted and misconstrued so badly that we're not even talking about the same topic anymore. Many people would do well to go re-read the original post before commenting.
I think that new people start these threads with the expectation that they will get helpful answers, and all they really get is people grandstanding, arguing, and imposing their fitness manifesto upon anyone with a different opinion.0 -
Wasn't there a time that it was on 8mm?Wheelhouse15 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »What about aerobic cardio like this Jane Fonda DVDs? I honestly thought if you exercize you burn calories.. And that leads to losing fat.. Guess times have changed lol!
Jane Fonda is on DVD now? Wow, that stuff was tired and old when it was on Beta and VHS.
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
Fitness from anyone but Richard Simmonds and Jack LaLanne wasn't a thing that far back. 0 -
bump0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions