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

Calories in vs calories out....that's the only way to get fat. If you're running lots you just need to take care of yourself, eat healthy food, rest and keep stress at a minimal. Cardio isn't bad and I've never seen a fat marathon or ultra-marathon runner in my life.

Also, I agree that a proper running program included weekly running above LT and at LT as well as at lower intensity in volume. However, in order to do those at and above LT workouts at the intensity and volume necessary to evoke the desired training adaptations a person needs to spend some time doing lower intensity work to build up enough fitness to even be able to do the harder work. That's the point that's usually either missed or ignored.

The same with weights. Goes without saying I'm a fan of resistance training as I think it's best for people with fat loss specific goals. However, from my experiences with training, the extreme vast majority of sedentary people are just utterly unable to lift at an intensity to do really measurable good for at least a few months. That why any starter template I have has a LOT of straight up cardio type activities and just cardio in general. Until they can get the technical and CNS adaptations to really push the muscles, they will burn far greater amounts of calories have have faster early results doing lower impact things. So any easy non technical things that try to hammer that lactic acid threshhold as much as possible. One of my favourite is actually going for a jog on a treadmill........with it turned off. The belt still spins, but has a crapton of resistance so you're hitting a lactic acid wall VERY fast. And as time goes on, spend more and more time switching over to the freeweight compound template. Again though with the caveat that this is for someone wanting a fat loss template only, and not if their goals are sport specific or health specific. In which case obviously things would be adjusted to meet those goals as well.

You keep posting info like your last couple of threads and you are going to ruin your reputation as a jerk!

I sure wish I knew how to bold like some do in a post. Maybe some will be kind enough to tell me

It might be bold? (let's see if that works)

If you quote me, you can see what I did. It's like the way the quotes show up, but with just the letter "b."

You seem to have a bad attitude and a bit of a chip on your shoulder, I don't really think its necessary and it comes off like you are bitter and twisted. How many cats do you have ?

Do you think the cats comment is necessary? I have 2 cats. How many dogs do you have?

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?

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, Jynus. I was out running.

Two things: the study you shared demonstrates that weight loss comes from caloric deficit, whether that deficit is produced by diet alone or a combination of diet and "cardio" exercise. If the diet was identical and one group did cardio, I would expect to see them lose more weight than the group that didn't (through reasoning: they would have a larger deficit). I don't have a study to back that up. I'm not good at finding them.

Secondly, yes. For some people (like me) doing cardio is easier than not eating. A lot of overweight people (like me) have a problem where they eat too much food. I like to eat. I like to eat a lot. It's easier for me to go run for an hour or two than it is to eat less food. Not only do I get to eat more food that way, I also have less time in which to eat it, since I don't eat while running or right beforehand. Also (for me) vigorous exercise seems to be an appetite suppressant, so I don't really feel like eating right afterwards. I have started taking in a fair bit of calories through gatorade and nesquick, though.

How does an EPOC of between 51 and 127 calories allow one to eat 10000 calories a day? The math does not follow.

Also aerobic exercise also has an EPOC albeit a lower one. So, your total extra EPOC from weights over cardio is somewhere between 20 and 80 calories. 80 =/= 10000.

Unless someone is doing a daily workout of around 6000 calories they are not going to eat 10000 calories a day without gaining a lot of weight. How many hours of daily weightlifting does it take to burn 6000 calories? And how does that relate to anyone reading this thread that is interested in losing weight?

Even if all that extra burn can be attributed to extra muscle mass on a 3% fat body the person would have to weigh around 800 lbs and work out for an hour or two per day to eat that much without gaining weight. How many people reading this fit that profile?

Exactly. I think someone on here tried to claim that body builders eat 6000 calories per day. Even if you are trying to gain muscle, you would only need ~16-18 calories per pound of body weight (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/the-baseline-diet-part-1.html). So even if you were a body builder on the heavier side, say 200 lbs, still tying to bulk, you'd be eating max ~3600. However, the same body builder would eat 2000-2400 during his cutting stage.

Except this is not reflective of reality. I dare you to find ANY serious bodybuilder out there gaining on 3600 a day. They simply do NOT exist...

quick google on the subject, but dig deeper, you'll find it's reflective of pretty much everyone.

http://www.boxingscene.com/build-muscle/52755.php

The top pros were eating 7,000 to 10,000 calories a day to support 270 to 320 pounds of "off-season" muscle mass. Dorian Yates told me he would whittle from 300-pounds to a contest ripped 260-pounds by imperceptibly reducing his calories from 6,000 a day to 3,500. He reduced gradually, taking 12-weeks to peak. If he dipped below 3,500 calories, hard-earned muscle would evaporate.

so 12 weeks to drop 40+ lbs on 3500 calories a day for this particular body builder. Do the math on what maintainence is aprox. (well they list it in the article, 6k) Meaning to gain, he's over 6k a day.

Again,. I can't make this clearer. Lifting takes a CRAZY amount of calories to maintain when you are able to lift heavy. Just what the body has to do to repair tissue, it takes calories. Same principle as why burn victims need >10k calories a day. When tissue is damaged, it needs energy to repair. And it's a very energy intensive process.. the reason lifters lift is to damage tissue, it then grows bigger during rest repairing itself. The energy to do this doesn't come from thin air....

edit: Read the article again. It says 16-18cal/lbs as a STARTING POINT. Key word there. And i AGREE with this. That is a good starting point. The reason being is that beginners are NOT able to push themselves hard enough to really need all those extra calories. However, the better someone gets at lifting, the more calories they will need, even with the same hours trained per week. The more you're able to push, the more you're able to stress muscles, the more energy required to repair it. So ya, joe average just starting out only needs 3-4k calories a day to really gain. But joe intermediate will prob need 1k more than that. And joe advanced another 1-2k on top of that, and so on and so forth. Getting to elite levels is tough, no question. so very few people will hit the level where 10k a day will be needed. But being serious about lifting means intermediate to advanced to doable by pretty much anyone dedicated to it, so expect to have to pack back a ton of calories.

Here is a girl btw who eats 3-4k a day to maintain. and she's just a regular girl training for fun, not elite.

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

Exactly. I think someone on here tried to claim that body builders eat 6000 calories per day. Even if you are trying to gain muscle, you would only need ~16-18 calories per pound of body weight (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/the-baseline-diet-part-1.html). So even if you were a body builder on the heavier side, say 200 lbs, still tying to bulk, you'd be eating max ~3600. However, the same body builder would eat 2000-2400 during his cutting stage.

Except this is not reflective of reality. I dare you to find ANY serious bodybuilder out there gaining on 3600 a day. They simply do NOT exist...

quick google on the subject, but dig deeper, you'll find it's reflective of pretty much everyone.

http://www.boxingscene.com/build-muscle/52755.php

The top pros were eating 7,000 to 10,000 calories a day to support 270 to 320 pounds of "off-season" muscle mass. Dorian Yates told me he would whittle from 300-pounds to a contest ripped 260-pounds by imperceptibly reducing his calories from 6,000 a day to 3,500. He reduced gradually, taking 12-weeks to peak. If he dipped below 3,500 calories, hard-earned muscle would evaporate.

so 12 weeks to drop 40+ lbs on 3500 calories a day for this particular body builder. Do the math on what maintainence is aprox. (well they list it in the article, 6k) Meaning to gain, he's over 6k a day.

Again,. I can't make this clearer. Lifting takes a CRAZY amount of calories to maintain when you are able to lift heavy. Just what the body has to do to repair tissue, it takes calories. Same principle as why burn victims need >10k calories a day. When tissue is damaged, it needs energy to repair. And it's a very energy intensive process.. the reason lifters lift is to damage tissue, it then grows bigger during rest repairing itself. The energy to do this doesn't come from thin air....

edit: Read the article again. It says 16-18cal/lbs as a STARTING POINT. Key word there. And i AGREE with this. That is a good starting point. The reason being is that beginners are NOT able to push themselves hard enough to really need all those extra calories. However, the better someone gets at lifting, the more calories they will need, even with the same hours trained per week. The more you're able to push, the more you're able to stress muscles, the more energy required to repair it. So ya, joe average just starting out only needs 3-4k calories a day to really gain. But joe intermediate will prob need 1k more than that. And joe advanced another 1-2k on top of that, and so on and so forth. Getting to elite levels is tough, no question. so very few people will hit the level where 10k a day will be needed. But being serious about lifting means intermediate to advanced to doable by pretty much anyone dedicated to it, so expect to have to pack back a ton of calories.

Here is a girl btw who eats 3-4k a day to maintain. and she's just a regular girl training for fun, not elite.

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

And it gets even funnier. You really don't get it. I don't know why you are trying to come at me with some example that is definitely NOT representative of bodybuilders as a whole, especially not even NATURAL body builders. That info in that article is nowhere near applicable to the average bodybuilder, much less to the average person. I's well known that Yates took tons of drugs, which allows you to train much harder & longer and thus eat more. I'm sure, with your incredible google skills, you can find out how much elite natural endurance athletes consume in comparison to elite natural bodybuilders. Off the top of my head, Tour de France cyclists and Michael Phelps consume in the 10,000 range (and are way less likely juiced up than the avg body builder). Again, compare apples to apples, or elite athletes to elite athletes. There was some interesting stuff in that article, though. Like this:

"A leanness quantum leap occurred when bodybuilders began systematically including cardio in the training regimen. It had been assumed cardio would 'tear muscle down' but in fact cardio not only burned extra calories but improved endurance thereby allowing the athletes to train harder, longer, more often. Aerobics resulted in a huge across-the-board improvement as intense cardio burns calories and the metabolism remains elevated hours afterward. Cardio timing tricks improved results."

So, cardio not only is claimed here to help bodybuilders in their training, but it also allows them to eat more. So even your elite body builders are doing cardio. On the other hand, this article included some nonsense:

"When the bodybuilders began increasing calories to support the intense training and newly added cardio, a funny thing occurred: they didn't get fat. They got larger. They got more muscular. Incongruously they also became leaner."

Unless you are using drugs, you will gain *both* fat and muscle when bulking. This is why natural body builders have to cycle through bulking and cutting periods. Bulk to add muscle, cut to get lean. I'm guessing the ones referred to on here were not getting leaner as they added muscle because of the magic of bodybuilding, but because of the magic of drugs. In any case, not applicable to the average person.

Anyways, I already gave you references on how much is burned through EPOC, which accounts for tissue repair, from weight training vs cardio. And it's not 1000s of calories in difference. Sorry. :-( And I gave you references to how much bodybuilders eat while bulking, relative to their current weight. Yes, the 16-18 calories/lb is a starting point, but do you honestly believe that it's going to go up 1000s of calories relative to weight? Please don't refer me to drug-using juice heads to try to prove to me that bodybuilding requires massive amounts of calories in comparison to endurance sports. But you should go ahead and eat 10K calories to support your lifting. Let us know how that works out for you.

Oh, I just read the nerdfitness link. Not that I believe these personal stories to be very accurate, but she claimed to eat that many calories to GAIN muscle, and not to maintain. She says right in there that she does not currently count calories. But according to her example daily diet, she currently eats around 2K, not 3K or 4K.

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?

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, Jynus. I was out running.

Two things: the study you shared demonstrates that weight loss comes from caloric deficit, whether that deficit is produced by diet alone or a combination of diet and "cardio" exercise. If the diet was identical and one group did cardio, I would expect to see them lose more weight than the group that didn't (through reasoning: they would have a larger deficit). I don't have a study to back that up. I'm not good at finding them.

Secondly, yes. For some people (like me) doing cardio is easier than not eating. A lot of overweight people (like me) have a problem where they eat too much food. I like to eat. I like to eat a lot. It's easier for me to go run for an hour or two than it is to eat less food. Not only do I get to eat more food that way, I also have less time in which to eat it, since I don't eat while running or right beforehand. Also (for me) vigorous exercise seems to be an appetite suppressant, so I don't really feel like eating right afterwards. I have started taking in a fair bit of calories through gatorade and nesquick, though.

Yep, I'd rather run 5 miles than cut my calories by 400-500. But I do enjoy running. If you're someone who hates exercise, then maybe you would be happier cutting out that many calories. Plus there is the other health benefits of cardio. There's no rule that says you have to eat less OR do cardio. Of course, if you try to a bunch of cardio on a huge deficit, you are probably going to run into problems. But I think generally a moderate deficit + cardio is better than large deficit + no cardio.

And it gets even funnier. You really don't get it. I don't know why you are trying to come at me with some example that is definitely NOT representative of bodybuilders as a whole, especially not even NATURAL body builders. That info in that article is nowhere near applicable to the average bodybuilder, much less to the average person. I's well known that Yates took tons of drugs, which allows you to train much harder & longer and thus eat more. I'm sure, with your incredible google skills, you can find out how much elite natural endurance athletes consume in comparison to elite natural bodybuilders. Off the top of my head, Tour de France cyclists and Michael Phelps consume in the 10,000 range (and are way less likely juiced up than the avg body builder). Again, compare apples to apples, or elite athletes to elite athletes. There was some interesting stuff in that article, though. Like this:

"A leanness quantum leap occurred when bodybuilders began systematically including cardio in the training regimen. It had been assumed cardio would 'tear muscle down' but in fact cardio not only burned extra calories but improved endurance thereby allowing the athletes to train harder, longer, more often. Aerobics resulted in a huge across-the-board improvement as intense cardio burns calories and the metabolism remains elevated hours afterward. Cardio timing tricks improved results."

So, cardio not only is claimed here to help bodybuilders in their training, but it also allows them to eat more. So even your elite body builders are doing cardio. On the other hand, this article included some nonsense:

"When the bodybuilders began increasing calories to support the intense training and newly added cardio, a funny thing occurred: they didn't get fat. They got larger. They got more muscular. Incongruously they also became leaner."

Unless you are using drugs, you will gain *both* fat and muscle when bulking. This is why natural body builders have to cycle through bulking and cutting periods. Bulk to add muscle, cut to get lean. I'm guessing the ones referred to on here were not getting leaner as they added muscle because of the magic of bodybuilding, but because of the magic of drugs. In any case, not applicable to the average person.

Anyways, I already gave you references on how much is burned through EPOC, which accounts for tissue repair, from weight training vs cardio. And it's not 1000s of calories in difference. Sorry. :-( And I gave you references to how much bodybuilders eat while bulking, relative to their current weight. Yes, the 16-18 calories/lb is a starting point, but do you honestly believe that it's going to go up 1000s of calories relative to weight? Please don't refer me to drug-using juice heads to try to prove to me that bodybuilding requires massive amounts of calories in comparison to endurance sports. But you should go ahead and eat 10K calories to support your lifting. Let us know how that works out for you.

Oh, I just read the nerdfitness link. Not that I believe these personal stories to be very accurate, but she claimed to eat that many calories to GAIN muscle, and not to maintain. She says right in there that she does not currently count calories. But according to her example daily diet, she currently eats around 2K, not 3K or 4K.

I forgot to add that you seem to think that bodybuilders can add muscle at a faster pace the longer they've been training (I.e., that your average Joe bodybuilder would eat less relative to his overall body weight in comparison to Joe intermediate. This is yet another false assumption. I'm sure if you're into lifting, you've heard of "newbie gains." In your first year of training, you can expect to gain maybe max 2 lbs of muscle per month (20-25 per yr). After 4 yrs + of proper weight training, you can expect to gain 2 lbs of muscle per year. So a newer BBer will generally be able to eat more above his non-exercise TDEE than a more seasoned BBer.
http://www.builtlean.com/2011/10/13/how-fast-can-you-build-muscle-5-factors-that-affect-muscle-growth/

First off, I'm a physiologist. The author has his/her facts straight, but the logic is wrong. It's true that your body will adapt to your exercise regimen so that over time you will burn fewer calories in order to do the same amount of work. Likewise, as you lose weight, you will burn fewer calories when you do the same exercise as when you were heavier. Your body is really, really good at helping you perform in times of calorie shortage. Most people become markedly more efficient after only 7 or so workouts.

If you keep your eating habits the same, this means you will plateau. You might even gain weight if you become very efficient at your workout, but still eat the same number of calories.

But it's not the cardio itself that is the problem. Cardio is SO good for you. Plus, who wants to hang out with someone who has to huff and puff their way through everything?

The lack of variety in exercise routines is the problem. Every few weeks, switch things up a bit. That's all.

AMEN!!! I totally agree! ^^^^^

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.

You seem to have a bad attitude and a bit of a chip on your shoulder, I don't really think its necessary and it comes off like you are bitter and twisted. How many cats do you have ?

Stick around a while and you'll get to understand that some people on this site have senses of humour.

Some people on this site may have multiple personalities requiring multiple senses of humour, Either way the comment in question came across as sarcastic rude, bitter and not at all funny. It appeared to come from the same place as women who tell you they can open the door by themselves thank you very much.

All I can say is, I dropped from a 12 to a 6 in 12 weeks with cardio and yoga and didn't lift a single weight in all that time.

I'm not saying lifting is bad or anyone (even me) shouldn't do it. But the idea that cardio causes weight gain is absurd.

Bump

bump for later

All I can say is, I dropped from a 12 to a 6 in 12 weeks with cardio and yoga and didn't lift a single weight in all that time.

I'm not saying lifting is bad or anyone (even me) shouldn't do it. But the idea that cardio causes weight gain is absurd.

Doing yoga IS lifting weights! You're just using the weight of your own body the same as other's use dumbells. PS, for me, yoga is waaayyy harder than lifting weights. I was encouraged to to yoga to relax. That was the toughest class I've ever taken. I'm trying to graduate to a yoga class. Right now my core development is in the infancy stage! :happy: