Cardio makes you fat: "Women: Running into Trouble"

Hello

I read through quickly and may have missed something but I believe the only logical answer is that the woman running is not eating properly. I have worked as a personal trainer and am a HE/ PE Teacher. I use to do the caliper tests on all my clients and get a log of their eating habitsfor a week prior to training. EVERYTHING goes i the log. For an accurate response on this blog we would need her weight, height , body fat, age, resting HR, and exercise HR. The lack of these variables will cause random statements about your friend and inacurate quesses about why she is not toning up.

Jonathan

I don't think we need all that when you can go to the gym and visually see the results. I can only go by what happens at my gym and others that I've been to. It looks like 85% of the people glued to cardio machines are all overweight or flabby. If all the running and elliptical-ing was working so well, they should look just as fit as anyone else who's getting a real work out in.

Correlation. Causation. Learn the difference. Obviously, overweight people use cardio machines because they are overweight, not the other way around.

In addition, there are some unfounded assumptions you're making: 1) Not everyone that does a lot of cardio does it on elliptical machines inside a gym (I could easily go look at those running outside or playing cardio-heavy sports and make an opposite claim) 2) Your gym isn't necessarily representative of every gym everywhere 3) You are the arbitrator of "real workouts."

I've been to plenty of other gyms and I also noted that I'm basing it on my gym and others that I've been to. I never said everyone but I do think its most people still. I'm referring to people using the cardio methods I mentioned as strictly a work out. You can't say that the average person is doing hill sprints and intervals. Many people who jog for just fitness just stick to the same formula.

Obviously there are exceptions when it comes to sports and what not. There are also exceptions when it comes to competitive runners or people who run as a sport (lets not forget that runners who actually run to get faster don't just run. I've never seen a decent track team that doesn't have a strict strength building program built into their running program). The article is basically talking about the herd of people in rows on the cardio machines at the gym who never step foot in the weight room. Those people are very often overfat. Its not because they're eating too much too. Its because steady state cardio is catabolic. When you only do steady state cardio your body will try to get better at just that. The best way to do this is to lose body mass, which includes fat and muscle.

And thanks I think being the arbitrator of real workouts fits me quite well.

Sure, many people "train like wimps," as Lyle McDonald has said. But many runners do gradually increase their distance and speed, do "speed work" (another word for sprinting), do circuits or intervals, and even do strength training (shocking I know). Obviously, people that never increase their speed or distance are not going to get the maximum benefit of their work out. Kinda like people who do weight training and never (or even rarely) adds weights to their bars. Compare apples to apples. Someone half-a**ing either of these workouts is not going to increase his/her level of fitness.

And I don't think anyone disagreeing with the premise of the article is saying runners or anyone else will not get benefits from weight lifting. That's a straw man argument. The point is not that you have to choose one or the other; the point is that running/cardio does not make you fat.

As for your statement that "running is catabolic." Being on a diet is catabolic. Moving around when you're not exercising is catabolic. Having sex is catabolic. It's kinda hard to lose weight (and do anything fun) when you avoid all things catabolic. For someone with a lot of excess fat, his/her primary goal is going to be ridding themselves of excess weight- s/he is not going to be overly concerned with preserving every bit of muscle. If you are already somewhat lean and trying to get leaner, then you would be focused on preserving the last of your muscle mass.

ETA: Another comment on your "catabolic statement." Low intensity cardio proportionally burns more fat than other exercises. So if I was only concerned with losing muscle, then that would be the best exercise.

That 'article', and I use the term loosely. Was full of bitter self important drivel.

Okay, the logic of the article was that running and cardio have no health effects in terms of losing weight. Okay, so burning calories doesn't help you lose weight? That's news to me.

Problem is, there is some truth inside of his ego rant. Unless you constantly up the intensity and challenge your body, it will get used to the activity. Hence, less calories are burned and you don't lose, and may even gain.

Even better for you is to work in strength training and other activities, to train your body in different ways to keep you losing and getting stronger. But as many have pointed out, you don't have to. It's all what works for you. Instead of telling her friend to stop running, she should have encouraged her to change it up, or run faster or longer. Maybe even help her change her diet. Something healthy. It isn't all in the number people, its in the attitude. I feel sorry for that friend, that she has to put up with that "person". (again I use that term loosely)

I don't even know why I bothered to comment on this except self important egomaniacs tick me off. Seriously.

Without the ego, bitterness and major bad attitude. The only thing to take from that 'article' is, Push your body, mix up your workouts. Oh and get rid of negative people in your life, they will only drag you down.

One day, I almost got knifed by a meth head at the park. I had been running in the neighborhood, just finished my cool down and was stretching in the shade when he approached me. He was convinced that I had just prank-called his lady friend and claimed that he recognized my voice. It turns out that he had seen me turn around right in front of his house at the same time as the phone call was happening. I explained to him that I was cooling down after my run and that I had just felt like turning around there and that I didn't even have a phone on me. He said, "you don't look like you run."

At that point, I actually had lost some weight and fat. I was only running (no strength training) and not paying close attention to my diet and I was losing fat. Of course, if you used me as an example of what running will make you look like, no one would want to run.

I would also like to say something about the sprinter/marathoner comparison: size does not equal strength. I've known a couple of masai and just because they look super thin doesn't mean that they aren't really strong.

And Jynus, running is a sport. Ultimate frisbee is a different sport, that includes some amount of running. Having experience in a sport like that does not also automatically give you experience in the sport of running.

And Jynus, running is a sport. Ultimate frisbee is a different sport, that includes some amount of running. Having experience in a sport like that does not also automatically give you experience in the sport of running.

For some reason I feel like Jynus was referring to some sort of running heavy sport. I thought more along the lines of soccer, football, etc. I don't think someone would claim to run then be talking about ultimate frisbee or table tennis lol

He did say that he played some soccer, but that his main sport was ultimate frisbee. It looks like he was competitive at it, and took it to a pretty high level. He also said that he had to take a walking break on a <2 mile run.

BTW, I'm impressed by your 5K time improvement. What do you feel like the ratio was between mental and physical improvement? I find that running faster has a large mental element to it.

BTW, I'm impressed by your 5K time improvement. What do you feel like the ratio was between mental and physical improvement? I find that running faster has a large mental element to it.

I'm not too sure if the mental part had much to do with it but its possible. I ran both times as a leisurely thing but I keep time to see how long my workouts are and just as a general benchmark for myself. I feel like I can run faster if I was really trying to also. For the past few years I've only been running for health and fitness since I don't have anything to compete for.

I think the physical improvement was probably a significant factor mainly. I found that my legs didn't tire as easily when i ran. I still get in other cardio conditioning and shorter runs of around 800m as a warm up regularly.

UNbump.

What? I can't UNbump a thread so it's so far down the queue that I never see the title again? That's a shame. My twitter app has a ZIP option where I can take certain hashtags or users and block their threads from my feed for a while. MFP needs a ZIP button. These threads go on and on with no one getting closer to understanding. The runners start accusing the lifters of saying something that they didn't say, and then the whole thing spirals downward.

ZIP

Well it's quite simple really, just DON'T click on this thread anymore, that way you don't have to try and shift the blame onto MFP for you not being able to control your own curiosity regarding this thread.

The article says that cardio trains the body to retain fat.

Quote from the article: "Training at a consistently plus-65 percent heart rate adapts the body to save as much body fat as possible. That’s right, after regular training, fat cells stop releasing fat during moderate-intensity activities like they once did."

That statement alone is so stupid that anyone reading it lowers their intelligence by a full standard deviation. The rest of the article is just as bad.

That's why experienced runners continue to comment on this thread.

If you want to lift that's great. But don't try and discourage people that like to run with articles by people that don't have a clue.

You're forgetting the contribution by the frisbee champion....

Right lets insult someones workout now. Maybe some ultimate frisbee would have helped deter some of your past weight gain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAyEti-_lR8

So are you going to insinuate it isn't real exercise compared to your leisurely jog again?

Oh dear, there we go with that logic issue again. I didn't diss his workout. I challenged his capacity to comment on running, when he doesn't, himself, run. do try to keep up, hun.

I'm going for a nice 13 mile 'jog' tomorrow. Fancy joining me, to test out your theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGt5H3_ygdQ

The article says that cardio trains the body to retain fat.

Quote from the article: "Training at a consistently plus-65 percent heart rate adapts the body to save as much body fat as possible. That’s right, after regular training, fat cells stop releasing fat during moderate-intensity activities like they once did."

That statement alone is so stupid that anyone reading it lowers their intelligence by a full standard deviation. The rest of the article is just as bad.

That's why experienced runners continue to comment on this thread.

If you want to lift that's great. But don't try and discourage people that like to run with articles by people that don't have a clue.

You're forgetting the contribution by the frisbee champion....

Still waiting sweetheart for a reply.

As for the person you replied to. Read up on layne norten, goes into this more than a few times. I don't know what else I can say on the subject. There has yet to be any study that I'm aware of that shows either cardio being beyond minimally effective than doing diet only, or cardio being at least equal to doing resistance training for fatloss. By all means, try and dig one up. But they don't exist. I've looked.

So you dismiss his theory, fine. But I don't see how you can't look at that and not recognize it every time you go to the gym. It's painfully obvious by looking at the regulars training there over time. Hell, look in the general help or this sub forum of all the people eating hardly any calories in capacity while doing cardio only that are all stalled after having some initial success. Eating 1200 calories a day or less. They are basically having to starve themselves to continue to see results. As the body has just adapted.

Right lets insult someones workout now. Maybe some ultimate frisbee would have helped deter some of your past weight gain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAyEti-_lR8

So are you going to insinuate it isn't real exercise compared to your leisurely jog again?

Oh dear, there we go with that logic issue again. I didn't diss his workout. I challenged his capacity to comment on running, when he doesn't, himself, run. do try to keep up, hun.

I'm going for a nice 13 mile 'jog' tomorrow. Fancy joining me, to test out your theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGt5H3_ygdQ

I'll pass. You probably wouldn't be able to keep up and I'd be left running alone, sadly.

How is running in another sport not running? You don't think soccer players run either?

I'm not quite getting the logic too. I guess the weekend tournys where I spend about 8 hours of field time don't count either... Even though I'm running for a good chunk of it. the elitist attitude from runners boggles the mind sometime.

bump for later

Cardio isn't the problem. It's the fork and the mouth that's the problem.

+1

How is running in another sport not running? You don't think soccer players run either?

I'm going to take a stab at this. I've played my fair share of sports that involve running. I've also spent some time running, which is also a sport. At the top levels of association football (soccer), distance covered is actually one of the stats that they keep track of. The players average about 10K per game, with the more hard-core midfielders (Park Ji-Sung) doing maybe 12K. Now, not all of this is running, obviously. Some of it is walking, some is jogging, some is jumping, some is sliding, some is sprinting, etc. Athletes that play football professionally also spend a lot of time training, during which they do a fair bit of running and also spend a lot of time in the gym. During a 90 minute game, though, they're only covering about 6 miles, which a lot of people could do at a brisk walk. On an "easy" run, I will cover half again that distance in the same time. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm better than a pro-footballer. What it does mean is that an individual that doesn't train for football, but just plays it on the weekends doesn't actually run as much as someone that spends time running throughout the week. They have less experience with it, because they're playing a different sport. Someone that only runs while playing soccer has about as much right to speak as an expert on running as someone that only plays frisbee for fun has to speak on the topic of ultimate frisbee.

It's painfully obvious by looking at the regulars training there over time. Hell, look in the general help or this sub forum of all the people eating hardly any calories in capacity while doing cardio only that are all stalled after having some initial success. Eating 1200 calories a day or less. They are basically having to starve themselves to continue to see results. As the body has just adapted.

I think this is the problem that people are having with your arguments. You're looking at a particular situation in which people are using a failed strategy. This strategy is a combination of nutrition and exercise. They might start getting results if they ate better or if they mixed up their cardio a little. But you're using them as a prime example of the evils of cardio, which is insulting to people that are eating correctly and doing cardio correctly. It'd be like looking at someone using the tiniest weights possible while talking to their friend and drinking some starbucks and concluding that weightlifting makes you weak and soft.

It's painfully obvious by looking at the regulars training there over time. Hell, look in the general help or this sub forum of all the people eating hardly any calories in capacity while doing cardio only that are all stalled after having some initial success. Eating 1200 calories a day or less. They are basically having to starve themselves to continue to see results. As the body has just adapted.

I think this is the problem that people are having with your arguments. You're looking at a particular situation in which people are using a failed strategy. This strategy is a combination of nutrition and exercise. They might start getting results if they ate better or if they mixed up their cardio a little. But you're using them as a prime example of the evils of cardio, which is insulting to people that are eating correctly and doing cardio correctly. It'd be like looking at someone using the tiniest weights possible while talking to their friend and drinking some starbucks and concluding that weightlifting makes you weak and soft.

Whats the difference between wrong cardio and proper mixed up cardio?

Whats the difference between a macro balanced 1200 calorie meal thats bad vs one thats correct?