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

Lol, so this article and many of the people on this forum are suggesting that I should not do cardio to lose weight? So if I burn 300 calories and don't eat these calories back in food, it won't result in weight loss? What is this crap all about? Surely it doesn't even make scientific sense...

Bump for later.

Jynus, you joined in June 2012 and have 152 posts. Ya gotta admit, it does seem like you prefer trolling to actually getting fit.

We get it. You're a lifter and you think everyone should do what you do. The problem is that everyone is different. Stop trying to "win" your side of the cardio/strength wars and just discuss fitness with folks and you won't look so trollish.

And for the record: Jynus is a he, not a she.

"Everyone is different" is the biggest fitness lie. None of us are magical unicorns that defy the laws of physics. Fat storage and metabolism mechanisms are the same for everyone.

Oh, really? We all have Hashimoto's Disease, heart disease, kidney disease, arthritis, and we're all the same age! I could go on and on about how different people are and what they can and can not do and what works for one person may not work for another person (or even the same person at a different point in her life) because the truth is: we *are* all different. We are not clones, we're individuals. Different genes, different metabolisms, different fat storage, different lifestyles (yes, that counts too). Not only that but what works for someone in their teens, won't work for them in their 40s. We change throughout our lives, our body changes and our fitness/diet needs to change with it. Go unicorns!

Did he REALLY need to add 'barring medical issues'?? Wasn't that just understood?

Jynus, you joined in June 2012 and have 152 posts. Ya gotta admit, it does seem like you prefer trolling to actually getting fit.

We get it. You're a lifter and you think everyone should do what you do. The problem is that everyone is different. Stop trying to "win" your side of the cardio/strength wars and just discuss fitness with folks and you won't look so trollish.

And for the record: Jynus is a he, not a she.

"Everyone is different" is the biggest fitness lie. None of us are magical unicorns that defy the laws of physics. Fat storage and metabolism mechanisms are the same for everyone.

Oh, really? We all have Hashimoto's Disease, heart disease, kidney disease, arthritis, and we're all the same age! I could go on and on about how different people are and what they can and can not do and what works for one person may not work for another person (or even the same person at a different point in her life) because the truth is: we *are* all different. We are not clones, we're individuals. Different genes, different metabolisms, different fat storage, different lifestyles (yes, that counts too). Not only that but what works for someone in their teens, won't work for them in their 40s. We change throughout our lives, our body changes and our fitness/diet needs to change with it. Go unicorns!

Did he REALLY need to add 'barring medical issues'?? Wasn't that just understood?

No and I don't think it was intended.

I know him rather well, the 'barring medical issues' is a given. Although...far too many 'medical issues' are simple excuses, or the EFFECT of a crappy lifestyle, rather than the cause of their current state...and of those, many are 'diagnosed' by a doctor.

Obviously I'm not talking about major things here.

I know him rather well, the 'barring medical issues' is a given. Although...far too many 'medical issues' are simple excuses, or the EFFECT of a crappy lifestyle, rather than the cause of their current state...and of those, many are 'diagnosed' by a doctor.

Obviously I'm not talking about major things here.

This is true, I forget the exact stat, but I think it was in the area of 5% of obese people have a valid medical condition that would be considered as a contributing factor to their weight. for everyone else, it's just straight up eating too much. tho granted, 5% of hundreds of millions is still a monster chunk of the population.

So I see an endocrinologist for my thyroid. I do cardio and weights. My thyroid is HYPER not HYPO. I call BS

"There is a reason elite strength athletes eat 10k calories a day on FAR less hours trained compared to their runner training counterparts. It's because strength training boosts metabolism into overdrive. Ask ANYONE who lifts heavy how much of a pain in the *kitten* it is actually trying to gain weight. "

You don't think some of the need for additional calories might be down to their greater body mass, rather than to do with fuel for *exercise* alone... ?

The poster you're deriding is quite correct though, the evidence you cite doesn't relate to the point you're trying to sustain. When building an argument using scientific sources, you really need to make sure that the evidence actually relates to the point. This is really the basic problem that BrianSharpe pointed out re the original article - dodgy interpretation of the data doesn't help anyone.

Who says elite strength athletes have to be large. There are weight classes you know.. Granted the smaller ones don't eat near as much. But still significantly more than your average exercising person.

Heres a great example....

http://nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

She double to tripled her caloric intake when she started lifting weights. End result, she had a low body fat % when she switched to strength training from cardio. (though granted, higher actual weight, but point still remained that body fat went down)

I was eating 3000+ calories when I first started lifting because I was starving and losing weight a little faster than I'd like. It tapered off now as I got into an easier routine but now I'm at 2000 calories trying to maintain. This was after I lost about 30lbs too so its not like I'm a hard gainer naturally. I never had the same result running miles or doing an hour of some other cardio.

Jynus, you joined in June 2012 and have 152 posts. Ya gotta admit, it does seem like you prefer trolling to actually getting fit.

We get it. You're a lifter and you think everyone should do what you do. The problem is that everyone is different. Stop trying to "win" your side of the cardio/strength wars and just discuss fitness with folks and you won't look so trollish.

And for the record: Jynus is a he, not a she.

"Everyone is different" is the biggest fitness lie. None of us are magical unicorns that defy the laws of physics. Fat storage and metabolism mechanisms are the same for everyone.

Oh, really? We all have Hashimoto's Disease, heart disease, kidney disease, arthritis, and we're all the same age! I could go on and on about how different people are and what they can and can not do and what works for one person may not work for another person (or even the same person at a different point in her life) because the truth is: we *are* all different. We are not clones, we're individuals. Different genes, different metabolisms, different fat storage, different lifestyles (yes, that counts too). Not only that but what works for someone in their teens, won't work for them in their 40s. We change throughout our lives, our body changes and our fitness/diet needs to change with it. Go unicorns!

Did he REALLY need to add 'barring medical issues'?? Wasn't that just understood?

Age is a 'medical issue'?

Bless.

But you must be able to see that this is not the same thing as saying 'cardio doesn't help with weightloss'. You have to grasp that this is not, in fact, what the study is saying? The study does not, in fact, demonstrate what you think it does.

I'm trying really hard here. A controlled diet (key word, controlled) compared to a controlled diet + cardio gives zero tangable results difference. What other conclusion can you possibly state other than it does not help?

Are you trying to state that doing cardio is easier than not eating? So thats why it does help?

Jynus, there's no point in replying to her. Some people are so stuck on their own perceived superiority, that convincing them of another point of view is nearly impossible. She said she's read many of my posts...great! It's nice to have fans. Until this thread...I had no clue of her existence.

But I've seen dozens on these forums just like her.

I mean...I could have replied to her commentary directed at me, quoted multiple posts where runners called the people that aren't runners 'meatheads'...and implied that runners are more intelligent. I could have quoted a dozen posts where every single person who says strength training is superior for losing bodyfat also indicated that cardio had other health benefits, and shouldn't be excluded from a balanced routine.

But what's the point? She missed it all the first time around. She missed it all when you pointed it out. She missed it again when I pointed it out. What the eff is the point in doing all the work myself, and shoving it under her nose? She's just going to argue anyhow, because the point she's arguing...isn't her point. Beating everyone down with condescending sarcasm until they finally give up and she can claim victory by default...is.

It's what self centered people with an inaccurate opinion of their own superiority...do.

/shrug...anyhow...I'm going back to spending time teaching my kids to throw a frisbee...it's 111F outside...and the AC and water was a welcome thing .

Yes. This must be it. I'm stupid, and you're both very, very clever.

There we go. Battle won. Well done boys!

Neither of you can actually explain how this study supports Jynus's view that cardio has no impact on weightloss. But obviously his view is regardless, and I'm a bit thick.

Yeah, you're right, Cris. I've got nothing...

ROFL.

Oh wow. You just totally validated my PhD with your view that I'm 'quite intelligent'. It's right up there with the moment you told me which of my posts you preferred.

I'm off to swoon now, Cris. Thanks. I feel uber special.

Jynus, you joined in June 2012 and have 152 posts. Ya gotta admit, it does seem like you prefer trolling to actually getting fit.

We get it. You're a lifter and you think everyone should do what you do. The problem is that everyone is different. Stop trying to "win" your side of the cardio/strength wars and just discuss fitness with folks and you won't look so trollish.

And for the record: Jynus is a he, not a she.

"Everyone is different" is the biggest fitness lie. None of us are magical unicorns that defy the laws of physics. Fat storage and metabolism mechanisms are the same for everyone.

Oh, really? We all have Hashimoto's Disease, heart disease, kidney disease, arthritis, and we're all the same age! I could go on and on about how different people are and what they can and can not do and what works for one person may not work for another person (or even the same person at a different point in her life) because the truth is: we *are* all different. We are not clones, we're individuals. Different genes, different metabolisms, different fat storage, different lifestyles (yes, that counts too). Not only that but what works for someone in their teens, won't work for them in their 40s. We change throughout our lives, our body changes and our fitness/diet needs to change with it. Go unicorns!

Did he REALLY need to add 'barring medical issues'?? Wasn't that just understood?

Shucks, you've been around here long enough to understand that nothing is "just understood." :happy:

I am seriously trying to understand this- I don't think its worth getting angry about.

I have an advanced degree (not in exercise physiology) and honestly I think there is a lot that is complicated about this, and the actual studies on PubMed (after reading many of the full studies, not just the abstracts) involve very few participants and are short in duration. There are facts in medicine, but there are also a lot of unanswered questions. Most doctors do not know the answers to many of the issues being discussed here, and I am not sure that definitive studies are even available.

The question that I have is that for non-elite athletes who want to maintain fitness as they age, what is the ideal balance of cardio and weight lifting? And, can a non-elite athlete who works out 30-60 min per day as a lifestyle actually build enough muscle to make a clinically significant difference in metabolism?

I think nutrition is much clearer-- higher protein than typically recommended, whole foods, less processed carbs makes sense, fat-free was a bad craze, omega-3's are very important.

I do not think it is very clear on what the long-term optimal work out regimen is for those who want to be in their best shape and have the best fitness and metabolism, and maintain their ideal weight. For example, how much aerobic exercise is enough but not overdoing it? And if limited time is a variable, how much should be dedicated to lifting?

If anyone has a scientific or professional opinion about this, without an agenda, I would love to hear it!

Thank you!

maybe running for such a long time isn't good, but i have been running everyday and i have seen a big difference. i think the HIIT training is a good way to boost metabolism, too. i just have to say this article is ridiculous and completely untrue. everyone has a different body type, and for most, running is a good way to burn calories.

I am seriously trying to understand this- I don't think its worth getting angry about.

I have an advanced degree (not in exercise physiology) and honestly I think there is a lot that is complicated about this, and the actual studies on PubMed (after reading many of the full studies, not just the abstracts) involve very few participants and are short in duration. There are facts in medicine, but there are also a lot of unanswered questions. Most doctors do not know the answers to many of the issues being discussed here, and I am not sure that definitive studies are even available.

The question that I have is that for non-elite athletes who want to maintain fitness as they age, what is the ideal balance of cardio and weight lifting? And, can a non-elite athlete who works out 30-60 min per day as a lifestyle actually build enough muscle to make a clinically significant difference in metabolism?

I think nutrition is much clearer-- higher protein than typically recommended, whole foods, less processed carbs makes sense, fat-free was a bad craze, omega-3's are very important.

I do not think it is very clear on what the long-term optimal work out regimen is for those who want to be in their best shape and have the best fitness and metabolism, and maintain their ideal weight. For example, how much aerobic exercise is enough but not overdoing it? And if limited time is a variable, how much should be dedicated to lifting?

If anyone has a scientific or professional opinion about this, without an agenda, I would love to hear it!

Thank you!

It's going to depend on what your fitness goals are. Just eating reasonably healthy and walking occasionally is honestly enough for most people to maintain the level of fitness they want.

If you want to look like a bodybuilder/fitness model, you only need 3 hours/week of weight training and a decent diet. This will also get you to a great blood pressure and resting heart rate. Personally, I don't see why anyone wouldn't do this.

If you want to have a sub-50 RHR, then you will probably need to do cardio. Lower-intensity endurance activities seem to be what our bodies are designed for, and with proper caloric supplementation do not cause you to lose much muscle mass (inadequate caloric supplementation will strip off muscle like a mofo). Run some marathons.

If you want to look like a stick but still be healthy, you can do exclusively high-intensity cardio. If you go that route, make sure to load up on anti-oxidants, as the oxidative stress this places on the body will cause a lot of negative effects over time (premature cellular aging, higher rate of cancers, etc.) if not mitigated. For most people, 500mg Acetyl L-Carnitine and 250mg Alpha Lipoic Acid is appropriate (the two have a synergistic effect).

Adequate protein intake is also important (1g/lb. LBM if eating at a deficit, 1.5g if eating at a deficit and resistance training, 0.6g should be adequate if not resistance training and eating at maintenance).

I think in general the goal of people on this site is to go from being overweight/obese to being a healthy weight, in which case the most efficient way is to eat a reasonable deficit (20 calories/day/lb. body fat is reasonable... if you want to eat crap then you don't want to go below 1200 without being under medical supervision), do 3 1/hr weight training sessions per week, and do as much LISS cardio as possible (if you don't have time for this, that's fine, just the deficit+weights will let you drop however much weight you want while preserving LBM). Personally, I am a fan of Intermittent Fasting as well, as it provides a ton of health benefits, better appetite control, and a free additional ~2 pounds of fat loss/month. And yes, this works for people with thyroid problems/hashimoto's as well (although typically the caloric intake needs to be a bit lower due to lower BMR). If you are willing to take on a bit more complexity, I don't know of anyone who has followed LeanGains and not lost at least 0.5% body fat/week (~1% is typical).

Hope this is helpful.

mpf1, I'm also not a physiologist of any kind, so this is only based on a reasonably intelligent reading of the literature I've encountered. as you note, the sample sizes for these kinds of studies are typically tiny, which as you know will increase the risk of the significance of differences between conditions being overstated. You've also likely noted that mature women are underrepresented in the literature, and that the balance of literature isn't concerned with 'ordinary people', but focused on boosting performance, managing obesity, or work with elite athletes. There aren't many detailed metareviews / systematic reviews either (I suspect because the questions asked and answered in these small scale studies vary too much to make a synthesis of the evidence easy to achieve.)

As a result, I think, unfortunately, there isn't a clear answer to the questions you pose. This really is why I get a little animated when people post stuff like the article here, which makes *very strong* claims, supposedly rooted in scientific base, but when you look at it carefully... well it suddenly all looks less certain than the author suggests. This isn't so much having an agenda as feeling irritated by the tendency in some quarters to post incredibly negative things, based on really quite minimal evidence, and representing it as certainty. As I mentioned earlier, this does bring out my inner grumpy git - something I'm actually not particularly bothered about, to be honest - nor do I feel I should be bothered by it.


In terms of cardio, for the outcomes you desire I haven't been able to find much to suggest *how much* is needed for the 'average' person (as opposed to "the athlete") to maintain good health. WHO guidelines are around 150 minutes a week, as I recall.

My best guess, based on the very limited evidence that *is* available is that you want about a 40-20 split of cardio and lifting, for the aims that you identify. And you want the cardio to include interval training. This is generally what I aim for myself to build fitness, cardiovascular health, lose weight and build strength - but hey, take my experience with a pinch of salt, for while I've made good gains in both fitness and weightloss, I'm hardly a model of ideal health and fitness - I'm still a fat, slow runner, and I can only bench 100lb. But I'm getting faster, thinner, and stronger, so I reckon I'm doing something right in relation to *my* aims. For good general health, I think this is a reasonable position, and one that could be defended from the limited evidence base. (And obviously, if you had different aims in mind, the answer would be different.)

obviously there's good and growing evidence for high intensity training (http://biologiemartinbolduc.mbolduc1.ep.profweb.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/SCHJERVE_etal_2008.pdf - explores the relative advantages of moderate, high intensity and strength training - again, tiny sample size) but the balance of evidence seems to me to suggest this shouldn't be your *only* cardio strategy - again the endurance stuff has clear general health benefits, in addition to supporting weightloss. If you're doing that alongside heavy lifting, you really should be good to go.

a key element in answering your question is also to consider *what lifting*. I fall on the 'lift heavy' side of the debate, myself, because it seems to give me the best fat loss outcomes. But again there is some evidence for the endurance building advantages of a lighter programme (I'm not talking two pound weights here, but higher reps than the usual 'lift to failure' model would suggest. And it's important to remember that the blanket 'stronglifts 5x5 advice isn't always the best, for everyone' - targetted and monitored programmes would be the ideal (http://www.portalsaudebrasil.com/artigospsb/ativfis025.pdf) - but of course that's not necessarily what the average pursuing seeking general health benefits would need.


You've also likely noticed that even the answer to questions like 'which order should I do resistance and cardio in' will deliver mixed results. For instance, if you're interested in post-exercise afterburn, you want to run first, then lift. (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2005/05000/Aerobic_and_Resistance_Exercise_Sequence_Affects.16.aspx - again, tiny little sample!), but this isn't the answer you'd generally get from lifters, whose focus is on building strength primarily (in which case, lift first).

Most studies on fitness topics are based on samples of young people, and more mature women are generally only represented in studies on obesity. (A few exceptions, obviously.) But there is some material out there if you look for it - for instance lifting has clear advantages for women moving towards menopause - there's evidence around its protective effects for problems like osteoporosis. http://journals.lww.com/ajpmr/Abstract/2001/01000/Resistance_Training_and_Bone_Mineral_Density_in.17.aspx



I'm not sure if this is the kind of response you were looking for though, and I'm not claiming any real expertise. Getting this right is, I think, a degree of trial and error, with a clear vision of what *you want to achieve* at the forefront of your mind. This isn't the same thing as suggesting 'everyone is different', in biological terms, but acknowledging that generally, people vary a great deal in terms of what they want to get out of their fitness routines - even with broadly stated aims like 'losing weight', or 'getting fit', that will mean different things for different people, so aims are key in thinking about the evidence base, and in interpreting forum based advice. That's what I think, anyway. But you know, take it with a pinch of salt, cause of my bad attitude and stuff. I do hope that's a little helpful - but my sense from your post is you likely have arrived at similar conclusions already. There is much to be read, only limited certainty - particularly for 'ordinary people'.

(If you want to read the opinions of people who have much more of a clue than a wannabe-fittee like me, I'd have a search for posts and blogs by Azdak - he tends to root his observations pretty well in solid science, and generally his aims seem to me to be in line with the kinds of things you mention. Ninerbuff is another good person to watch out for, in terms of being a solid fitness instructor, who is well read.)

(Also, I've included a few 'for instances' type links which I think illustrate some of the issues - but obviously these are just one tiny snapshot of the literature, and I'm not for a minute suggesting they are anything more.)