Running and burning muscle question!

Fat burning zone and fitness zone are basically myths.. Any type of cardio is going to burn muscle and fat no matter what you do, how long you do it, etc.

This can't be true for me at least! I've build muscle doing only cardio like the stair climber etc. without doing weights before!

Your not building muscle.. It takes a calorie surplus and heavy weights to build muscle.

You may be burning off the fat so the muscle shows more, but you are not building muscle by any means..

Do a fourm search for building muscle.. you'll see what i mean.

Yay, more misinformation.

Building muscle does NOT require a surplus, it requires proper nutrition, which can be achieved on a a deficit.

And heavy weights, do you know what a stair climber is? Every time you step up you're lifting the majority of your body weight, I would call that a significant weight.

A lot of the disputes are due to semantics and lack of common terms.

First of all, increases in "lean body mass" do not always involve an increase in actual muscle mass. Someone using a body comp scale or skinfolds can measure a decrease in fat which suggests an increase in lean body mass, but you don't know how much of that is actual muscle.

Obese beginners can increase muscle mass while on a deficit, at least initially. It's not going to be a huge amount and it will taper off. Sustained and substantial increases in actual muscle mass do require a calorie surplus. That's not really a hypothesis.

Aerobic exercise, even a stairmaster, does not have enough resistance to significantly increased muscle mass. Exercise principles cannot be selectively applied. If standard resistance training protocols call for the lifter to achieve muscle "failure" in fewer than 20 repetitions, it is physiologically impossible to see the same significant increases performing muscle activities for hundreds or thousands of repetitions.

Again, when taking up a new exercise, adaptation will occur to meet the demands of the activity (principle of training specificity). For an untrained person, that adaptation may result in noticeable strength improvement compared to when they were sedentary. So, technically, that cardio exercise will "increase strength". However, the increase will only continue until the body has adapted to the activity--normally a transient effect. You will not, cannot, see sustained increases in either muscle strength or muscle mass doing only traditional cardio exercises.

These science people are dogmatic fascists. Why would your body consume your fat or muscle. A: fuel source. What is your bodies first eaten food source. A: glucose what food turn into glucose. Meat. A:amino acids. Building blocks of muscle. Fat. A: fatty acids. Carbs. A: Glucose. Glucose turn into glycogen or fat. Glucose fuels your brain and muscle function. Hence the right combinations of protein, Ccarbs and fat before a workout fuels your muscles and brain to perform and grow.

Hey dogmatic scientist. Blah, blah and blah.

I agree with azdak

No studies, just experience. But as someone who runs and lifts for size I don't think you have anything to worry about as long as you continue to lift heavy, eat enough protein, get enough rest, aren't in a major calorie deficit and aren't doing enormous amounts of running.

I can't see any problems with running for 60 minutes or more 3-4 times a week as long as the above factors are borne in mind. Now maybe if you were training for a marathon, things may be different. But sometimes I think we can all get too wrapped up in the minutiae of research studies and start worrying about factors that are really insignificant to our progress as non-athletes. Let's face it, 99% of the people on this site are "keep-fitters." What applies to us is very different to what applies to pro-athletes. If you were running ten + miles a time at 6 minute mile pace or something, then yes - maybe you'd be losing muscle. But for those of us who just hit the weights hard then venture out for a 5 mile run a few times a week, I really don't think it's an issue.

You are correct in principle, but even your last example is not really relevant (I am saying this to further support your point).

First of all, why would anyone who was trying to "build muscle" ever run 10+ miles at a time? And, to use weight loss as a reference, I don't know of anyone who was serious ever recommending that someone run 10+ miles as part of a weight loss program. So, IMO, even using that as an example (again, I understand why you did it) is irrelevant.

Someone who is running mega distances is going to adapt to improve performance in that area. Extra bulk doesn't enhance performance, so someone doing those kinds of distances would likely want to decrease overall mass anyhow. It's not like they are sitting home saying "damn, I really want to look like Arnold--what am I doing wrong??". Elite marathoners look scrawny because THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN. So do competitive rock climbers. I have never seen anyone claim that excessive rock climbing 'burns muscle".

If you look at different athletes --eg triathletes--you will see a different adaptation. There, muscle strength plays a more important role. Professional triathletes do as much if not more aerobic endurance training as marathoners--if large volumes of endurance training "burns muscle", they should look like scarecrows also--but they don't.

Sometimes people get all caught up in disputing the minutiae of these subjects hypothetically, when the basic research, physiological concepts, and reality are right there in front of them.

A lot of the disputes are due to semantics and lack of common terms.

First of all, increases in "lean body mass" do not always involve an increase in actual muscle mass. Someone using a body comp scale or skinfolds can measure a decrease in fat which suggests an increase in lean body mass, but you don't know how much of that is actual muscle.

Obese beginners can increase muscle mass while on a deficit, at least initially. It's not going to be a huge amount and it will taper off. Sustained and substantial increases in actual muscle mass do require a calorie surplus. That's not really a hypothesis.

Aerobic exercise, even a stairmaster, does not have enough resistance to significantly increased muscle mass. Exercise principles cannot be selectively applied. If standard resistance training protocols call for the lifter to achieve muscle "failure" in fewer than 20 repetitions, it is physiologically impossible to see the same significant increases performing muscle activities for hundreds or thousands of repetitions.

Again, when taking up a new exercise, adaptation will occur to meet the demands of the activity (principle of training specificity). For an untrained person, that adaptation may result in noticeable strength improvement compared to when they were sedentary. So, technically, that cardio exercise will "increase strength". However, the increase will only continue until the body has adapted to the activity--normally a transient effect. You will not, cannot, see sustained increases in either muscle strength or muscle mass doing only traditional cardio exercises.

I won't argue that, my issue is with absolutes and over generalizations. Saying it's impossible is simply wrong. Extremely difficult, but not impossible.

As you mentioned, obese (very unfit) individuals will likely see largest increase in muscle mass while in a deficit because they have the room to build, the body likely contains the bulk of the nutrients needed, and they have more time before their body becomes acclimated to the exercise.

What I don't necessarily agree with is the lack of sustainability. Muscle growth can be sustained, albeit at a very diminished rate, while maintaining a deficit. Although it requires an extremely strict diet and a minimal deficit, and enough stores still on the body for the body to utilize those stores as needed. Not likely without professional supervision, but still possible.

As far as strength building from cardio, you're correct, it's not going to happen. However, there is a point at the beginning of an exercise program where the muscle has to increase to a point that it can sustain the activity. In those initial stages, "building muscle" is not only possible, but likely, albeit for a very short time.

My comment about the stair climber was directed towards the individual initially beginning a stair climber routine, and the overall weight of the human body being used as resistance. While the stair climber is a cardio exercise by design, it does require a significant level of strength to sustain.

A lot of the disputes are due to semantics and lack of common terms.

First of all, increases in "lean body mass" do not always involve an increase in actual muscle mass. Someone using a body comp scale or skinfolds can measure a decrease in fat which suggests an increase in lean body mass, but you don't know how much of that is actual muscle.

Obese beginners can increase muscle mass while on a deficit, at least initially. It's not going to be a huge amount and it will taper off. Sustained and substantial increases in actual muscle mass do require a calorie surplus. That's not really a hypothesis.

Aerobic exercise, even a stairmaster, does not have enough resistance to significantly increased muscle mass. Exercise principles cannot be selectively applied. If standard resistance training protocols call for the lifter to achieve muscle "failure" in fewer than 20 repetitions, it is physiologically impossible to see the same significant increases performing muscle activities for hundreds or thousands of repetitions.

Again, when taking up a new exercise, adaptation will occur to meet the demands of the activity (principle of training specificity). For an untrained person, that adaptation may result in noticeable strength improvement compared to when they were sedentary. So, technically, that cardio exercise will "increase strength". However, the increase will only continue until the body has adapted to the activity--normally a transient effect. You will not, cannot, see sustained increases in either muscle strength or muscle mass doing only traditional cardio exercises.

I won't argue that, my issue is with absolutes and over generalizations. Saying it's impossible is simply wrong. Extremely difficult, but not impossible.

As you mentioned, obese (very unfit) individuals will likely see largest increase in muscle mass while in a deficit because they have the room to build, the body likely contains the bulk of the nutrients needed, and they have more time before their body becomes acclimated to the exercise.

What I don't necessarily agree with is the lack of sustainability. Muscle growth can be sustained, albeit at a very diminished rate, while maintaining a deficit. Although it requires an extremely strict diet and a minimal deficit, and enough stores still on the body for the body to utilize those stores as needed. Not likely without professional supervision, but still possible.

As far as strength building from cardio, you're correct, it's not going to happen. However, there is a point at the beginning of an exercise program where the muscle has to increase to a point that it can sustain the activity. In those initial stages, "building muscle" is not only possible, but likely, albeit for a very short time.

My comment about the stair climber was directed towards the individual initially beginning a stair climber routine, and the overall weight of the human body being used as resistance. While the stair climber is a cardio exercise by design, it does require a significant level of strength to sustain.

Well, the National Strength and Conditioning Association would disagree with a number of your assertions, but they are just a bunch of "dogmatic scientists", so what do they know........

Without explaining the larger meaning, using a term such as "building muscle" in the context of the initial adaptation to a new cardio exercise is misleading. I explained pretty clearly the issues involved with cardio exercise building "strength". It seem like you are using the phrase "building muscle" as though it is applicable to the same degree in all situations.

While, by strict definition, it is technically possible for an untrained person starting a cardio program to "build muscle", that does not compare, nor is it equivalent in any way to what is commonly accepted as "building muscle" through a resistance training program.

And, again, while there is an initial adaptation to the demands of doing a stairclimber, that exercise, like any exercise that primarily aerobic in nature, does not require "a significant level of strength". It requires an "adequate" level of strength that may or may not represent a significant improvement to a specific individual, based on their initial level of conditioning.

And, finally, increasing strength is not the same as increasing muscle. People can realize substantial increases in muscular strength with only modest increases in muscle mass. Someone in a calorie deficit can still continue to significantly increase strength, even if there is little or not increase in mass--at least for awhile.

Well, the National Strength and Conditioning Association would disagree with a number of your assertions, but they are just a bunch of "dogmatic scientists", so what do they know........

Without explaining the larger meaning, using a term such as "building muscle" in the context of the initial adaptation to a new cardio exercise is misleading. I explained pretty clearly the issues involved with cardio exercise building "strength". It seem like you are using the phrase "building muscle" as though it is applicable to the same degree in all situations.

While, by strict definition, it is technically possible for an untrained person starting a cardio program to "build muscle", that does not compare, nor is it equivalent in any way to what is commonly accepted as "building muscle" through a resistance training program.

And, again, while there is an initial adaptation to the demands of doing a stairclimber, that exercise, like any exercise that primarily aerobic in nature, does not require "a significant level of strength". It requires an "adequate" level of strength that may or may not represent a significant improvement to a specific individual, based on their initial level of conditioning.

And, finally, increasing strength is not the same as increasing muscle. People can realize substantial increases in muscular strength with only modest increases in muscle mass. Someone in a calorie deficit can still continue to significantly increase strength, even if there is little or not increase in mass--at least for awhile.

I'm not in the industry so I'm sure I'm not using terms to their scientific definition, only how they were taught to me. However, I think we're arguing mostly semantics.

And the "dogmatic scientists' quip came from someone else.

what was the question??? lol

im no expert but will give ya my oppinion from results im seeing. i do 45 min stength training then 15 mins cascades on the treadmill, a run of between 1-3 miles a day (always 1 mile but longer every other day as a rule), 12 mins on crosstrainer (30 secs slow, 30 secs all out repeated) at a level that has now increased from 4 to 10. basically ive found that as the months have gone on, the cardio has gotten easier so i up the intensity.... the results ive seen is 40odd pounds lost, lost loads of inches from most areas but now my legs are biggining to grow... but while they look slimmer ive obviously gained sommin there. i have a PT instructor who said as the legs are biggesr muscle group its hardly a bad thing at this stage as it'll be burning more cals at rest. food wise i eat very high clean protein most meals. cheat meal every other week. feel free to add me as a friend x

edit - forgot to add my daily intake varies from 1400-1900 cals most days

I'm an ultra runner. I run a bit more than most. According to teh internetz I should have disappeared into thin air by now. I'm still waiting.