Cardio make you fat???

It won't put on fat...

But cardio isn't a great fat burner. When the body is in a caloric deficit, it will prioritize tissue lost. So you'll lose some fat, some muscle, etc. Since cardio doesn't use a lot of your bodies muscles, your body will over time shed a lot of this unused muscle tissue to try and save fat energy. It's where the term skinny fat comes from. People you do tons of cardio, but still look flabby at their goal weight because of all the non fat mass that was also lost.

It's why we say to do resistance training. If the body is using the fast twitch muscles, then priority will be seen to conserve it as well. And that caloric deficit will be used moreso for fat loss.

No, it's not going to make you fat. If you are eating at a calorie deficit where is this fat going to come from? And unless you were lifting weights a lot and then stop, it's not going to make you lose muscle either unless you are starving yourself.

Your body will preserve the muscle it needs to meet its demands, given proper diet. If all else remains the same, why would it suddenly start shedding muscle? And why would it suddenly start burning through muscle when the body is specifically designed to store fat and then to use that fat as an energy source when in a calorie deficit?

Common misconception. The body actually generally prefers getting rid of muscle to fat in the context of cardiovascular exercise (unless you are someone who won the genetic lotto, or are taking performance enhancing drugs, in which case what are you doing on this site?!). Think about it... a pound of muscle yields at most 600 calories of usable energy. A pound of fat yields 3500. The body say "OMG I have to run to survive, and I have to lose a pound of something"... guess which one it's going to pick? Lean muscle mass that is not related to the task at hand. This is why cyclists/marathoners who don't resistance train are so scrawny in the upper body (I have a friend who can cycle over 100 miles in one go, and rides several hundred miles/week, but can't do 1 body-weight push-up). The muscle:fat ratio is going to be determined heavily by genetics and current body composition (someone who is morbidly obese and insulin resistant will probably not lose a significant amount of muscle mass, someone who is at 'athletic' body fat levels will lose almost exclusively muscle). Once you add resistance training in, muscle preservation is greatly improved, as it causes the body to prioritize muscle sparing over fat sparing.

In the past 12 months I have run around 2500 miles. That is roughly 275,000 calories. I have also lost weight in this time. If the body preferred to burn muscle for this cardio at 600 calories per pound it would have burned through 458 pounds of muscle. I would have died long ago.

So, either I am a genetic frieak or the body does not prefer muscle tissue over fat as fuel.

In the past 12 months I have run around 2500 miles. That is roughly 275,000 calories. I have also lost weight in this time. If the body preferred to burn muscle for this cardio at 600 calories per pound it would have burned through 458 pounds of muscle. I would have died long ago.

So, either I am a genetic frieak or the body does not prefer muscle tissue over fat as fuel.

Ah no. Don't be confusing us with your pesky logic and basic arithmetic!

Sounds like its time to get a new trainer....


OK, maybe I'm being harsh - but if (s)he had said 'the most effective way to loose fat is to do a combination of strength and cardo training with an emphasis on strength' I would have respected (but disagreed) with their view. But gain fat? utter nonsense!

I have never heard of cardio making you fat, I do cardio 5-6 times a week for a minimum of a half hour and all i am doing is burning fat not gaining any

Two word review: Total. Crap. :-)

I do not typically see very overweight runners. I do see many overweight guys at my gym who are really strong, although you can't see their muscle (although they obviously have lots of it) because of their excess body fat.

There's an expression which I think is really true "Six pack abs aren't made in the gym, they're made in the kitchen." In other words, if you want to control your weight and body fat so people can see your muscle definition, you need to do that through diet.

While cardio without weights won't make you fat, adding some weight lifting to your routine is a really great idea. It's too bad your trainer doesn't have a more balanced approach!

Deflict diet + cardio + weight training = fat loss and no muscle loss

Your trainer has most likely half heard, not understood and completely misquoted a study concerning stress hormones brought on by 'chronic cardio'.

In the past 12 months I have run around 2500 miles. That is roughly 275,000 calories. I have also lost weight in this time. If the body preferred to burn muscle for this cardio at 600 calories per pound it would have burned through 458 pounds of muscle. I would have died long ago.

So, either I am a genetic frieak or the body does not prefer muscle tissue over fat as fuel.

Or you will soon self-combust like a drummer for Spinal Tap.

Inconvenient facts are always ignored.

If this were true the Biggest Loser and other shows like it would not have their contestants doing 2 to 4 hours of cardio 6 days a week. True these shows are extreme but it still is testimony that cardio is not making anyone fat who is eating cleanly also.

No, it's not going to make you fat. If you are eating at a calorie deficit where is this fat going to come from? And unless you were lifting weights a lot and then stop, it's not going to make you lose muscle either unless you are starving yourself.

Your body will preserve the muscle it needs to meet its demands, given proper diet. If all else remains the same, why would it suddenly start shedding muscle? And why would it suddenly start burning through muscle when the body is specifically designed to store fat and then to use that fat as an energy source when in a calorie deficit?

Common misconception. The body actually generally prefers getting rid of muscle to fat in the context of cardiovascular exercise (unless you are someone who won the genetic lotto, or are taking performance enhancing drugs, in which case what are you doing on this site?!). Think about it... a pound of muscle yields at most 600 calories of usable energy. A pound of fat yields 3500. The body say "OMG I have to run to survive, and I have to lose a pound of something"... guess which one it's going to pick? Lean muscle mass that is not related to the task at hand. This is why cyclists/marathoners who don't resistance train are so scrawny in the upper body (I have a friend who can cycle over 100 miles in one go, and rides several hundred miles/week, but can't do 1 body-weight push-up). The muscle:fat ratio is going to be determined heavily by genetics and current body composition (someone who is morbidly obese and insulin resistant will probably not lose a significant amount of muscle mass, someone who is at 'athletic' body fat levels will lose almost exclusively muscle). Once you add resistance training in, muscle preservation is greatly improved, as it causes the body to prioritize muscle sparing over fat sparing.

Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT MUSCLE MASS. In a race like the Tour de France, they throw away 6 oz empty water bottles at the beginning of a climb so they aren't carrying extra weight. 2 lbs of extra weight from any source can make a 30-40 sec difference on the final climb of a tour stage. Any muscle that is not absolutely necessary for forward motion is not wanted. The same with marathoners. It's sport-specific training for elite performance that has almost no relevance to the average exerciser.

Triathletes do as much aerobic training if not more than either marathoners or cyclists. For them, a few extra pounds of muscle is beneficial. They seem to be able to do hours and hours of cardiovascular training without losing any of the muscle they want.

In the past 12 months I have run around 2500 miles. That is roughly 275,000 calories. I have also lost weight in this time. If the body preferred to burn muscle for this cardio at 600 calories per pound it would have burned through 458 pounds of muscle. I would have died long ago.

So, either I am a genetic frieak or the body does not prefer muscle tissue over fat as fuel.

And your bench press numbers have increased by how much over this time period? And your biceps have grown how many inches? Sorry, but it's an accepted fact that steady state cardio burns thru both muscular size and strength.

That said, both the OP and the excellent article by the second poster are a weeee bit on the alarmist side. Cardio will burn off your muscle, but it WILL NOT make you fat. It's just that if your version of "being fit" includes a greater than average amount of muscle (either "bulky" or "toned", your choice), then running alone doesn't really get the job done.

The Olympics start soon. Who looks more fit: The Marathoners or the Sprinters? That sort of comes down to personal opinion. But to me the distance runners just look like a bunch of guys and gals in serious need of a sandwich. With extra mayo.

Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT MUSCLE MASS. In a race like the Tour de France, they throw away 6 oz empty water bottles at the beginning of a climb so they aren't carrying extra weight. 2 lbs of extra weight from any source can make a 30-40 sec difference on the final climb of a tour stage. Any muscle that is not absolutely necessary for forward motion is not wanted. The same with marathoners. It's sport-specific training for elite performance that has almost no relevance to the average exerciser.

Triathletes do as much aerobic training if not more than either marathoners or cyclists. For them, a few extra pounds of muscle is beneficial. They seem to be able to do hours and hours of cardiovascular training without losing any of the muscle they want.

I'm going to fix the typo in your post: "Cyclists and marathon runners who are at an elite level don't have muscle mass BECAUSE THEY DON'T CAN'T *SUSTAIN* MUSCLE MASS".

There, that's better. Glad to help out.

Once again, a serious discussion turns into a Broscience kegger.

Hint: if you have to use the "marathoner vs sprinter" example, then you have already lost the argument.

Two types of people here. First are those training to excell at sport and second are those training to admire themselves in the mirror.

We don't speak the same language.

All this ^^^ makes might be of interest to someone who is trying to achieve a particular look or compete in a particular event - but we are all in basic agreement:

Exercise in any shape or form does not make you fat. Period.


That said, my 2 cents is that all the athletes I know don't really give a monkeys how they look in terms of muscle mass or toning - they want to go faster, further and harder than before. if that means building muscle, then that's what they will do: For distance runners the most useful type of weight training is for core strength, then legs, then definitely not much advantage in upper body - have a look at these 'puny' long distance runners: they have stomachs, thighs and calves of steal!

"And your bench press numbers have increased by how much over this time period? And your biceps have grown how many inches?"

I can't decide whether this question is more sad or hilarious? I'm leaning towards tragedy. The man is a marathon runner. He might as well as you how far you've managed to hobble.... Different aims, and your value system (hey man, mine is SO MUCH bigger) doesn't apply.

Your answer also doesn't apply to the question. The question was 'does cardio make you fat'. The answer, for anyone whose brain hasn't been addled by too much testosterone, is 'no, don't be silly, of course it doesn't'.

meerkat, I'm sorry if I made you sad but happy if I made you laugh. Either way, you completely misunderstand me and my point. Scott made a sarcastically ridiculous response to a post and I replied to him in a sarcastically ridiculous manner. I'm not comparing arm sizes and I'm damn sure not denigrating his progress or the hard work he has put into himself. I have no doubt he is a far better runner than I am a lifter.

Scott and I (along with pretty much everyone else here) agree that cardio does not make people fat. I implicitly said that, but perhaps you were too busy laughing/crying to get that far into my post. I was, however, taking a dig at Scott for "proving" that cardio didn't hinder muscular performance because he RUNS BUT HAS NOT TURNED INTO A SKELETON AND DIED. He was being facetious and I enjoyed it, but someone inexperienced may not realize that and keep doing too much cardio even tho their goal is to get bigger and stronger.

Apologies to any I've offended....well, except for that guy that "broscience guy". I'm going to sign off so I can do a kegstand while further addling my brain with testosterone.