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

bump for later

Hmmmm....

But obviously you're right. Looking at my own progress, I'm a total weightloss write off. I've still got some left to lose, and consequently I have no experience at all in weight management, and must defer to those young blokes who've lost a couple of pounds but don't have much left to lose....

In all honesty it is easier to lose if you're 100+ lbs from normal. You can't claim much experience in weight management if you got that bad in the first place. Even if there is some sort of illness or metabolic condition, you still have to over eat a great deal for quite some time. While you can give decent advice to someone with a lot to lose, I can't see your experience being helpful to a healthy person trying to lean out or get fit.

How dare you speak to somebody like that, I think you are completely and utterly out of order!!!

I cannot see YOUR experience being helpful to somebody who has a lot to lose to be honest and your attitude stinks. I suggest you look carefully at your interaction with others before you even speak to them.

Good God, what the hell is going on here!!!!!!!!!!!

Its very simple. It takes more food to maintain 300lbs of body mass. Just eating at the same calorie amount as someone smaller will cause weight loss. It was easier for me to lose weight 30lbs ago as well. I'm talking in a purely physiological sense. I'm not sure what kind of emotional problems are at stake and that wasn't the concern.


And what Kara said.

Bwaaaahaha. Thanks for the laughs

But obviously you're right. Looking at my own progress, I'm a total weightloss write off. I've still got some left to lose, and consequently I have no experience at all in weight management, and must defer to those young blokes who've lost a couple of pounds but don't have much left to lose....

In all honesty it is easier to lose if you're 100+ lbs from normal. You can't claim much experience in weight management if you got that bad in the first place. Even if there is some sort of illness or metabolic condition, you still have to over eat a great deal for quite some time. While you can give decent advice to someone with a lot to lose, I can't see your experience being helpful to a healthy person trying to lean out or get fit.

How dare you speak to somebody like that, I think you are completely and utterly out of order!!!

I cannot see YOUR experience being helpful to somebody who has a lot to lose to be honest and your attitude stinks. I suggest you look carefully at your interaction with others before you even speak to them.

Good God, what the hell is going on here!!!!!!!!!!!

Its very simple. It takes more food to maintain 300lbs of body mass. Just eating at the same calorie amount as someone smaller will cause weight loss. It was easier for me to lose weight 30lbs ago as well. I'm talking in a purely physiological sense. I'm not sure what kind of emotional problems are at stake and that wasn't the concern.


And what Kara said.

This is NOT the issue or what was being discussed. YOU moved it into that area and told someone how, because they lad lost a lot of weight and should not have got to that weight in the first place, they were not really qualified to advise others.

Don't try to tell me about calorie deficits either, because that is taking the attention away from what is really going on here.

I have to laugh when somebody still has the sheer audacity to continue returning here to defend this article and to insult the intelligence of people who do understand physiology and at the same time train with lots of cardio. Also, if the contents of this article in any way demonstrate your basic understanding of physiology then I encourage you to leave this forum, as you have threatened to do. The statements below, quoted from the article are simply wrong. They are beyond wrong and are the exact opposite of truth. If you believe these things then you are not helping anybody here but rather filling those that do come here for help with a bunch of nonsense.

Think about it this way: the body is a responsive, adaptive machine evolved for survival. If running on a regular basis, the body senses excessive energy expenditure and adjusts to compensate. Remember, no matter what dreamy nonsense we invent about how we hope the body works, its endgame is always survival. Start wasting energy running and the body reacts by slowing the metabolism to conserve energy.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. If we exercise the body slows the metabolism. So if we want to speed up the metabolism we should just stay in bed all day.

Training at a consistently plus-65 percent heart rate adapts the body to save as much body fat as possible.

Again, as I said earlier this statement is simply stupid. The body burns fat at all intensities. It burns less a percentage of fat at a higher intensity. It does not train itself to store more fat. Even a moderately sized person with 10% bodyfat has around 15 lbs of fat on their body. That’s enough to fuel the body for over 500 miles running even if they burned exclusively fat.

That’s right, after regular training, fat cells stop releasing fat during moderate-intensity activities like they once did. . . . To this end, the body even sets into motion a series of reactions that make it difficult for muscle to burn fat at all.

So, according to the author the end result of extensive endurance training is that the body stops burning fat for energy and begins to burn only carbohydrates and protein? Trying to respond to a whopper like this is like trying to tell a flat earther that the world is round.

No more muscle because too much steady-state cardio triggers the loss of muscle.

As Jynus explained it is not cardio that triggers the loss of muscle (whatever that means to the author). It is not using a muscle that causes it to atrophy. If you have been lifting weights and stop lifting them to do only cardio your muscle size and strength will decrease. If you have been lifting weights and stop lifting them to do nothing your muscle size and strength will decrease. Can anybody deduce what those last two sentences have in common?

If you have not been lifting weights and start doing cardio your muscle size and strength will not decrease unless your diet is overly restrictive and you are starving yourself. If you have not been lifting weights and do not do any cardio your muscle size and strength will not decrease unless your diet is overly restrictive and you are starving yourself. Can anybody deduce what those last two sentences have in common?

Oh yeah — say good bye to bone density too

Another profoundly ignorant statement from the author. Any exercise you do will increase bone density in the part of the body being loaded assuming one is not starving themselves at the same time.

The only rational response to this article can be summed up in this quote.
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Again, this post is not directed at everyone that defends weight lifting in a fitness program. Resistance training is good. This post is directed at the one or two that continually come back here to insult people on endurance training programs by attempting to defend the idiotic ideas written in the article.

The intensity of the workout is what makes the difference. You won't change the shape you're in if you don't increase the intensity. If you run or use a treadmill, build up more speed each time. Doing the right exercises for your body type is what will shape you up.

I agree - exercise can't make you thick,
just pay attention to nutrition! Look through this info, I think its quit suitable to this topic. http://youcure.me/blog/4245 !

A high level of maturity does not include this.

. I have noticed that the people who support what you have said tend to be very fit, while the ones adamantly opposed tend to have '50 pounds to go' on their tickers.

That is personally insulting me despite the fact that it's not true and I'm sure it was insulting to others also.

Also, recent statements such as this are defending the article.

It doesn't help that the article's headline is written like a Slate attention grabbing piece. "Cardio makes you fat(ty)" would have been 100% improvement. 1000% improvement would been, "If you want to look toned (or cut, buff, ripped, whatever) cardio is absolutely proven to not be the best way to go about it."

The article is pure unadulterated crap. The topic of the article is not that you should do resistance training to achieve a look. I can agree with that. The topic is that cardio will prevent you from achieving that look and at the same time is injurious to your long term health.

Also, recent statements such as this are defending the article.

It doesn't help that the article's headline is written like a Slate attention grabbing piece. "Cardio makes you fat(ty)" would have been 100% improvement. 1000% improvement would been, "If you want to look toned (or cut, buff, ripped, whatever) cardio is absolutely proven to not be the best way to go about it."

The article is pure unadulterated crap. The topic of the article is not that you should do resistance training to achieve a look. I can agree with that. The topic is that cardio will prevent you from achieving that look and at the same time is injurious to your long term health.

His opinion. Agree, disagree but I see no insult here. He is saying that cardio is not the best for developing muscle structure and improving appearance. Ok. Some will agree, some will disagree. I don't see this as insulting. You may agree to disagree.

hey scott. I'll snip the essay you wrote to save space. I get what you're trying to say. But I'll attempt to rationalize the article a lil clearer in what I think the author is trying to say. And why it might not totally be BS.

recently there was a study on macro ratio and BMR from harvard. What was found was that equal calories but different macros caused different shifts in BMR for people. So what that means take 2 identical people with 2 identical diets. Shift the macros for both of them but keep the same calories as when they were maintaining, and one would start to gain weight, the other lose. So there are mechanisms in the body to deal with BMR shifts. And I think this is what the author was hypothesizing on. Could exercise also cause shifts to the bodies BASE BMR so that your goals just become harder and harder to achieve?

The crutch on all this is does loooooooong amounts of cardio cause thyroid changes to the body that negatively impact BMR? (I don't know, I would love to see a study on this either way) I hope we both can agree that for joe average just starting out is not the person you, i or he is talking about. cardio WILL help them if thats their path of choice, as it burns calories and does not have the ill effects talked about. (the lack of resistance training is another story, but i digress) But the article is for people who are at a point where they are close to their goal weight after shedding a ton, and are doing crazy amounts of cardio to just try and drop those last 5-10lbs. And wondering why it's so hard. It's not like the laws of thermodynamics have changed with energy in vs energy out, and I would assume that they monitored their diet enough that little has changed. That leaves the body, it could be the thing thats changing, to match energy in.

Could it be possible that the body is just adapting, making thyroid changes to continually drop the Bodies base BMR to adjust to the workload to maintain stasis?

Another interesting study was a test to see if skinny people who claim to eat anything and never gain weight really can eat anything and never gain weight. Took like 30 people, and fed them all 5k calories a day with no other changes in their routine. Results? Nothing surprising here, it was discovered skinny people just eat far less than fat people, as EVERY skinny person gained a crapton of weight. HOWEVER, what was also noted was that the way the weight was gained was different. Most just added a ton of fat. But there was a couple who added lean mass. And they also discovered that the body changed its BMR for everyone too. one by as much as 30%. Again with no change in exercise, just adding calories, and the body just suddenly burning more per day to try to adapt with zero change in any other daily behaviour.

TLDR
Basically where I'm trying to go with this is that the body is able to change it's calorie burn. It's not a constant thing. And it does so to achieve some sort of stasis to match what outside variables are happening around it. So it's entirely possible that low calories and craaaazy amouts of cardio, when you get to a certain level of bodyweight, causes it to just adapt and make further progress almost impossible. 1 proposed method of doing this is what the article is sugusting, the body will alter thyroid production to lower BMR. to note, this is only in that certain segment of population we're talking about, lost weight with crazy amounts of cardio only and at normal weight trying to drop those last few lbs of fat. If you're starting out, this does not apply to you.

edit: And I should also stress while I fully believe this is true from my own experiences and the vast majority of people I see constantly posting wondering why they are only eating 1200 calories a day and not losing those last few lbs of fat, which assuming energy in vs energy out and if they are burning like 600+ calories a day doing exercise, they should not be stalling. (look in this site, it's full of them) I have zero proof of it however, so for all I know there are factors that are missing and it's something else.

I have to laugh when somebody still has the sheer audacity to continue returning here to defend this article and to insult the intelligence of people who do understand physiology and at the same time train with lots of cardio. Also, if the contents of this article in any way demonstrate your basic understanding of physiology then I encourage you to leave this forum, as you have threatened to do. The statements below, quoted from the article are simply wrong. They are beyond wrong and are the exact opposite of truth. If you believe these things then you are not helping anybody here but rather filling those that do come here for help with a bunch of nonsense.

Think about it this way: the body is a responsive, adaptive machine evolved for survival. If running on a regular basis, the body senses excessive energy expenditure and adjusts to compensate. Remember, no matter what dreamy nonsense we invent about how we hope the body works, its endgame is always survival. Start wasting energy running and the body reacts by slowing the metabolism to conserve energy.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. If we exercise the body slows the metabolism. So if we want to speed up the metabolism we should just stay in bed all day.

Training at a consistently plus-65 percent heart rate adapts the body to save as much body fat as possible.

Again, as I said earlier this statement is simply stupid. The body burns fat at all intensities. It burns less a percentage of fat at a higher intensity. It does not train itself to store more fat. Even a moderately sized person with 10% bodyfat has around 15 lbs of fat on their body. That’s enough to fuel the body for over 500 miles running even if they burned exclusively fat.

That’s right, after regular training, fat cells stop releasing fat during moderate-intensity activities like they once did. . . . To this end, the body even sets into motion a series of reactions that make it difficult for muscle to burn fat at all.

So, according to the author the end result of extensive endurance training is that the body stops burning fat for energy and begins to burn only carbohydrates and protein? Trying to respond to a whopper like this is like trying to tell a flat earther that the world is round.

No more muscle because too much steady-state cardio triggers the loss of muscle.

As Jynus explained it is not cardio that triggers the loss of muscle (whatever that means to the author). It is not using a muscle that causes it to atrophy. If you have been lifting weights and stop lifting them to do only cardio your muscle size and strength will decrease. If you have been lifting weights and stop lifting them to do nothing your muscle size and strength will decrease. Can anybody deduce what those last two sentences have in common?

If you have not been lifting weights and start doing cardio your muscle size and strength will not decrease unless your diet is overly restrictive and you are starving yourself. If you have not been lifting weights and do not do any cardio your muscle size and strength will not decrease unless your diet is overly restrictive and you are starving yourself. Can anybody deduce what those last two sentences have in common?

Oh yeah — say good bye to bone density too

Another profoundly ignorant statement from the author. Any exercise you do will increase bone density in the part of the body being loaded assuming one is not starving themselves at the same time.

The only rational response to this article can be summed up in this quote.
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Again, this post is not directed at everyone that defends weight lifting in a fitness program. Resistance training is good. This post is directed at the one or two that continually come back here to insult people on endurance training programs by attempting to defend the idiotic ideas written in the article.

Maybe it's a matter of interpretation of some of the posts but honestly Scott, I don't see anyone defending this article in recent posts. I pretty much agree with all you said above. What I don't really get is the nastiness and the defensiveness coming specifically from Meerkat and Di312. You or I or anyone can disagree about ideas but the personal attacks and way over the top responses are just plain uncalled for. As far as what I can read, pretty much the concensus is that the article is BS.
"No one is saying tons of cardio will make you gain weight. No one is saying don't run. No one is saying cardio doesn't have some health benefits." From DavPul's post. Now he believes that you will look better if your focus is strength training. Ok, so that's his opinion. He didn't insult anyone. Just stated his opinion and never said the article was valid. I just don't get the high emotional response level from some posters. Maybe a little maturity might be in order

Where did I say ANYTHING that has been nasty?

quote me.

Ok, I can see that. How about some of Meerkat's snide and condescending remarks? Your take on those?

There was a fair bit of give and take sarcasm between several individual posters for the last several days. It wasn't until today that this was generalized to say, "Everyone that doesn't agree with my opinion and training methods is 50 lbs overweight."

Scott that in itself is BS too, 100% agree pmsl. I am not overweight at all and did all cardio - but that aspect has been chosen to be conveniently ignored as has all the other people who lost weight which included no weights but only cardio. This is exactly why this thread has lost all credibility, it has become spiteful and unnecessary now.

I mostly run and do very little of anything else, far from fat.

My boss, in his 70s runs and that's all he does and has done for years. Slim as slim can get and he eats lunch out everyday! He runs 3 times a week, 3-4 miles.