cardio what do you think

[faz]

i would like to hear your thoughts on this.

also any info studies etc that are relevant.

no arguments just discussions

HIIT v low-intensity v steady-state-higher -intensity etc.

the reason i am starting this thread is because although most people dont like it,most of us have to do it.

i also beleive there is a lot of BS out there at the moment about cardio,i have been doing a bit of reading about it lately "mostly between the lines"the reason i state this is a lot of the studies etc i have read like tabata IMO hype there ideas,and manipulate the full picture on steady state cardio IMO.

tabata used guys doing ss-cardio v HIIT but the ss-cardio guys where only doing 70% of there v02 max while the HIIT guys where doing 170% of there v02 max its obvious who is going to use up more fat

if he had used ss-cardio at a higher intensity the results IMO would have been different.

in my experience i have trained for 30+ years.
i used to run half marathons,and still did some weights so you could call that low intensity cardio,i looked like s**t pencill neck etc.

then i changed to 5 milers"because i actually wanted to race not just do the distance" so anything from 1 to 6 miles was my limit for training so this would be steady-state-higher intensity,still doing weights BTW.

after breaking my leg i stopped running for a year or two,ans started just doing weights,heavy,circuits,light,etc.

i can honestly say i looked the best as far as low fat while keeping good size when i was doing the, steady state higher intensity + weights.

HIIT may have its place for fitness etc but for fatloss there is no way IMO 4 mins of tabata will lose you more weight than say a 40 min ss-cardio session at a higher intensity(not low ss-cardio)

this was a quote from an article on the science of interval training
(quote)
In summary, the intensity of exercise, regardless of the amount of fat burned during the exercise directly influences the amount of fat burned in the post exercise period. Since this fat is derived from peripheral fat stores, the higher the intensity and longer the duration that can be sustained, the greater the post-exercise fat burn that can be achieved.

this was only a small section (thats what i meant about reading between the lines" IMO he is saying that higher intensity cardio for longer is better than HIIT type stuff simply because you are getting the benefits of EPOC as well as the extra time doing it,once you go over say 80% of you HR then you will use EPOC which is the benefit of HIIT,but because your not going as far as 90%95% HR you can maintane it for a longer period,so getting both benefits.

dont think i have ever wrote so much.
what do you guys think give your expereinces and what ever info you have.

would appreciate some unbiased studies on cardio etc if anyone has any.

 

[Slapshotz]

No unbiassed studies, just my biassed opinion from personal experience

I don't think that anyone would disagree that cardio is a must for overall cardiac health, regardless of your modus operendi.

When using cardio as part of a cutting regimen, I prefer low intensity static cardio. Here's why.

-If cutting in conjunction with a low carb/high protein diet, energy reserves are much lower. Low intensity static cardio is very effective at burning calories w/out taxing the CNS or other musculature. This allows you put the bulk of your energy to the place it most belongs....in the gym.

-I suppose this point is debateable, but my trainer still insists that stored fat is burnt after about the 20-minute mark. I know many do not ascribe to this line of thinking, but I must respect the professional qulifications of a person who has trained numerous professional athletes (including bodybuilders) across a broad spectrum of sports. He insists that if the goal is aesthetic appearance, static, low intensity cardio along with heavy lifting and high protein intake are the most effective means to the end. I suppose the debate will rage on...

 

[faz]

i only use low intensity cardio in the AM fasted either a good fast pace walk or a jog,anything more and your HR goes into the carb burning zone,and because you have none in the system you could use up muscle.

but i think if you have eaten that day" carbs etc" it would take more than 20mins LSD to use up your carbs IMO unless you had just done a weights session.

if you have not done weights that day then higher intensity ss-cardio should be fine even on a cut.

 

[imported_drpierredebs]

<div>
(Slapshotz @ Jun. 13 2007,11:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">but my trainer still insists that stored fat is burnt after about the 20-minute mark.</div>
Your body is constantly burning fat....at various efficiencies and intensities depending upon the workload. Just walking around throughout the day, you are burning more fat than you may think assuming you are not taking 100% of your calories from carbs

Burning fat for cutting or weight-loss verus endurance training

When you train for endurance, you do so at an intensity level which is below approximately 75% your max heart rate.....as aerobic as possible. The effect is that your body becomes more efficient at burning fat at higher levels of intensities AND your body becomes better at lactic acid clearance.

Unless you are HIGHLY trained in endurance, the cardio that most here talk about, i.e. less than 1 hr 3-4 x week, will not burn much fat. With the HIIT style training, the fat burn comes AFTER the training by way of an increased oxygen consumption.

My opinion is that you burn fat quicker for weight loss and cutting by weight lifting and HITT as opposed to 30 minutes on the treadmill. You burn far more fat in the hours after these types of training than the 30-45 minute HIIT. HIIT isn´t HIIT unless your heart rate gets well above the aerobic threshold at which point your body can´t generate ATP fast enough from FAT and uses stored glycogen.

 

[faz]

DR so if you go above 75% HR into this zone

The Anaerobic Zone - 80% to 90%
Training in this zone will develop your lactic acid system. In this zone, your individual anaerobic threshold is found - sometimes referred to the point of deflection (POD). During these heart rates, the amount of fat being utilised as the main source of energy is greatly reduced and glycogen stored in the muscle is predominantly used. One of the by-products of burning this glycogen is lactic acid. There is a point at which the body can no longer remove the lactic acid from the working muscles quickly enough. This is your anaerobic threshold or POD. Through the correct training, it is possible to delay the POD by being able to increase your ability to deal with the lactic acid for a longer period of time or by pushing the POD higher.

and stay in this zone for longer surely that is even better for burning fat during and after.

 

[_tim]

I can't find it yet, but Dan actually posted something about cardio and fat burning that I found fascinating. I'm gonna attempt to replicate what he said, and in the meantime I'll keep looking for it...

Basically, I believe he advocated a method to get the fat cells to detach through HIIT - AFTER a cardio-based warmup on a piece of equipment OTHER than your bread and butter cardio fave, then an extended period of steady cardio activity to burn the detached fast cells.

In that sense, cardio is possibly the only way to get the desired behavior, if in fact Dan's hypothesis proves out - which I'm pretty sure it does.

For pure fat burning, I've never read anything anywhere that peaked my interest like that post, because it just makes all kind of metabolic sense.

Cardio is necessary for overall health, bottom line.

On occasion (~3 times per month at most), I do medium intensity jogging for 30-45 minutes when I start to feel guilty that my heart hasn't gotten enough attention. Right or wrong, that's how I look at it. I do know that as I age I should add more cardio to my regimen, but at 30, it really isn't a huge priority to me. Yet.

 

[Morgoth the Dark Enemy]

This is a protocol Lyle set-up, it`s called the stubborn fat-loss protocol or something like that, it`s in the HST faq. Your fat-cells don`t detach or anything(although it would be nice, and fat-cell apoptosis is like the Holy Grail of...umm, most of everything fat-loss related. To bad it`s undoable ATM without pretty much incurring death or near death, but, oh well).

The premise is this:through HIIT you get a lot of FFAs into the bloodstream, but studies show that they get back into the fat-cells lest they are burned, so you employ SS-cardio which uses FFAs as its primary energy substrate. The 5-minute pause between HIIT and SS is due to the fact that research also showed that for about that interval fat oxidation is actually impaired after a HIIT bout...and probably due to the high probability of puking if one does not take a break post his balls-to-the-wall cardio.

Oh, and a minor caveat-lest you`re actually lean enough to have an issue with stubborn fat(which means, trust me, quite lean), this is of about jackshit use and there are better ways to go about things.

And all this cardio talk makes me remember that in these ramp-up to contest days I`m so bloody squashed energetically that my cardio can only ammount to 80 minutes of brisk walking. At least it`s working

 

[lcars]

<div>
(Slapshotz @ Jun. 13 2007,11:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">-I suppose this point is debateable, but my trainer still insists that stored fat is burnt after about the 20-minute mark.  I know many do not ascribe to this line of thinking, but I must respect the professional qulifications of a person who has trained numerous professional athletes (including bodybuilders) across a broad spectrum of sports.  He insists that if the goal is aesthetic appearance, static, low intensity cardio along with heavy lifting and high protein intake are the most effective means to the end.  I suppose the debate will rage on...</div>
this part from my xp is true.when i run for 30 mins on the road my weight comes off nicley.i would class the way i run as low to medium intensity.

factors have to be taken into account like metabolism and genetics when these topics are brought up,as we are all different.

 

[Slapshotz]

Taking these two snippits, I can further illustrate my point.....I think!

Dr. P. Wrote:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My opinion is that you burn fat quicker for weight loss and cutting by weight lifting and HITT as opposed to 30 minutes on the treadmill. You burn far more fat in the hours after these types of training than the 30-45 minute HIIT. HIIT isn´t HIIT unless your heart rate gets well above the aerobic threshold at which point your body can´t generate ATP fast enough from FAT and uses stored glycogen. </div>

MDE wrote:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And all this cardio talk makes me remember that in these ramp-up to contest days I`m so bloody squashed energetically that my cardio can only ammount to 80 minutes of brisk walking. At least it`s working </div>

Sure, HIIT can be highly effective, and I don't think anyone here doubts that. But MDE's last statement sums it up nicely.

If we were to take the diet/HIIT approach and &quot;kinda/sorta&quot; do weights once in awhile with lower intensity, that seems like it might work. Trouble is, when you throw the rigors of intense weight training into the mix, the two are usually not compatible.

Unless you're an amazing physical specimen or are taking some type of extra &quot;supplement&quot;, it's nearly impossible to engage in frequent HIIT sessions, AND attack the weights at the intensity necessary to preserve LBM, especially in a calorically deficient state.

As MDE said, sometimes it takes all you have just to drag your a$$ out of the house and go for a brisk walk. And for those who have ridden the &quot;road to ripped&quot; train, we can empathize all too well with that statement. HIIT, diet &amp; occasional lifting may get you skinny, but you may end up with 13&quot; pipecleaners instead of 16&quot; pipes.

In the end, I don't think it's a question of which one would work better, it's a question of, &quot;can the body handle the regimen for the length of time necessary to reach your goal&quot; before burnout sets in. Hence, that's another reason I'm a fan of the low intensity cardio approach.

Now, bulking in conjunction with HIIT is a whole different story!

 

[Morgoth the Dark Enemy]

I think it`s a question of what you like doing. It`s as simple as that. I also think that using cardio(any type of it) as the primary creator of a caloric deficit is dumb for just about all, except athletes in training who can actually engage in enough cardio to create a big enough deficit(and who don`t need it in the first place). So diet is the primary driver for losing weight, establish your deficit there. Train with weights(try to maintain the weight you have on the bar and work heavy, don`t do the retarded a billion reps to burn the fat bber thing), because that spares LBM, and nobody wants to be a concentration camp victim lookalike after they finish dieting. Add cardio once weight-loss stalls, don`t go bananas with it, use it mostly as a finetuning thing. Try to be active(as in walking to the shop instead of driving to it). All of the HIIT/SS wanking is fairly useless once you`ve done all of the above, it`s more of a question of taste:you like doing sprints or whatever, and want to get out of it quick?HIIT it, nigga. Like jogging?Do that instead...it doesn`t really matter in the end.

And I might agree that some degree of the above wanking becomes relevant for contest-prep/low BF individuals targetting stubborn fat. But somehow I doubt they`re the ones this thread is aimed at and thus speaking about them is fairly irrelevant in this context.

 

[faz]

the question wasnt asked particulary for someone on a cut,it could be for someone on a bulk/maintanance etc.

it could be for health reasons,fatloss,keeping fat at a minimum.

i just would like to know what people in general think of cardio and any info they have on it,pro high intensity or pro low intensity,or both  

 

TBH all the info i have been reading is confusing i would like some info that is not biased to one mode or another of cardio.

 

[Morgoth the Dark Enemy]

<div>
(faz @ Jun. 14 2007,09:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">the question wasnt asked particulary for someone on a cut,it could be for someone on a bulk/maintanance etc.

it could be for health reasons,fatloss,keeping fat at a minimum.

i just would like to know what people in general think of cardio and any info they have on it,pro high intensity or pro low intensity,or both

TBH all the info i have been reading is confusing i would like some info that is not biased to one mode or another of cardio.</div>
If you`re not keen on searching medline, goodluck finding unbiased information WRT just about anything in BBing and attached stuff. Because most of the time the dude giving out info actually wants to sell something to you.

That being said, I think that the scope of your question is a bit off:cardio in general, for everyone?Sure as hell, do it, move,moving in important, a sedentary lifestyle is a very very bad thing. Play football, voleyball, basketball(there, you`ve got your HIIT covered), walk a lot, take a brisk stroll with your dog, go up stairs instead of using the elevator(there`s your SS, more or less). It`s great for health. But lest you attach a specific goal to it(cutting/denting the caloric excedent whilst on a bulk etc.), that`s about all that can be said about it, IMHO.

 

[_tim]

<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Jun. 14 2007,10:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sure as hell, do it, move,moving in important, a sedentary lifestyle is a very very bad thing. Play football, voleyball, basketball(there, you`ve got your HIIT covered), walk a lot, take a brisk stroll with your dog, go up stairs instead of using the elevator(there`s your SS, more or less). It`s great for health. But lest you attach a specific goal to it(cutting/denting the caloric excedent whilst on a bulk etc.), that`s about all that can be said about it, IMHO.</div>
Absolutely. There it is. Thanks TDM.

 

[faz]

If you`re not keen on searching medline, goodluck finding unbiased information WRT just about anything in BBing and attached stuff. Because most of the time the dude giving out info actually wants to sell something to you.

i agree thats why i was hoping to get some unbiased info if anyone has any.

also for fatburning,cals burnt,retaining muscle,which is best

HIIT
steady state high intensity
steady state low intensity
how long should each be performed,before you use up muscle.
how long should each be performed to lose fat,
should any be done fasted,

as i have said before in my experieince ss-cardio at a higher intensity burnt more fat while retaining more muscle for me,but the science thats out there at the moment or should i say the hype all points to HIIT,while others recomend fasted ss-cardio.

 

[Morgoth the Dark Enemy]

<div>
(faz @ Jun. 14 2007,10:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you`re not keen on searching medline, goodluck finding unbiased information WRT just about anything in BBing and attached stuff. Because most of the time the dude giving out info actually wants to sell something to you.

i agree thats why i was hoping to get some unbiased info if anyone has any.

also for fatburning,cals burnt,retaining muscle,which is best

HIIT
steady state high intensity
steady state low intensity
how long should each be performed,before you use up muscle.
how long should each be performed to lose fat,
should any be done fasted,

as i have said before in my experieince ss-cardio at a higher intensity burnt more fat while retaining more muscle for me,but the science thats out there at the moment or should i say the hype all points to HIIT,while others recomend fasted ss-cardio.</div>
Umm, no, science in bodybuilding terms generally equals going forwards and backwards between the same things, letting one end or the other of an extreme cool down before it`s brought again to the forefront as revolutionary.

Making use of common sense, have BBers, who are probably the most anal beings when it comes to physique-quality, not managed to become ripped and still full whilst doing either SS, HIIT, or even doing little to no direct cardio work at all?For ages?And I`m considering naturals here as well, before somebody jumps in with the drug-enhanced argument. What this points to is the fact that it`s pretty much a wash what type of cardio you do, if you have the other important aspects in place(caloric intake, macro profile, non-retarded weight training).

I didn`t say it comes down to what you like to do just for shits and giggles. Think about it this way:the great advantage of HIIT that is being pushed is the greater EPOC, which the pushers say equates to burning da fat all day long. MMMkay, so why am I not doing that already due to the caloric restricted state I`m in?Is the increased EPOC worth risking overuse injuries, burnout, glycogen depletion that actually hampers weight training and causes catabolism?The answer is...maybe, if you know you can handle it and those things don`t happen to you, it all comes down to the individual.

The SS crowd(and I`ll bunch morning empty stomach cardio here as well) will argue that substrate utilization is the thing to worry about, and since SS uses FFAs as its primary substrate, it`s God`s gift to man, whilst ignoring that except for really longish bouts of SS cardio, the caloric expenditure is unimpressive, that SS cardio is generally boring, and that it`s effects are limited to the period you`re exercising, having little to no impact on caloric expenditure outside of that window. I think you can see where my argument is going.

There`s no inherent superiority of one method or another, it`s a thing of trade-offs. If sprints turn your knees into mush, will you keep doing them in spite of that cuz HIIT is the way to burn fat?Probably not. If you hate grinding on the stationary bike, will you keep doing it?Again,probably not.

Now comes the part with some theoretical wanking. IMHO, cardio should follow a normal repartition(think Gauss Bell type of curve). You ramp it up to a max(whilst you have extra fuel in the tank) then backdown as you slowly become more and more rundown. This is for cutting, mind you, the use of cardio whilst bulking is relevant mostly for health benefits(you should definitely do it), because, IMO, I`d rather eat one steak less than puke my guts doing intervals/risk an overuse injury/bore myself to death on a treadmill. The best thing to do whilst bulking is to employ a moderate excedent(so no ice-cream truck+kebabs+three big-macs &quot;because I`m bulking&quot; eating sprees), monitor BF so that once you hit about 15/18 you actually stop(this may be higher for those not competing), and be active instead of eating/doing weight training/laying in bed watching TV. I know Jay states he does jacksquat in the offseason asides from those things, because he is afraid he`ll lose mass due to overexertion, but he`s not a proper etalon for anyone.

 

[faz]

cheers morgorth

i like to split the ss crowd into two
ss-low
ss-high
if you do your ss-cardio at a higher level,wiill that not also uttilise EPOC but because you are doing it for longer than the intervals in HIIT,wont that be more beneficial for fatloss.

 

[Morgoth the Dark Enemy]

Umm, no, you don`t get the best out of two worlds if you try to stay dead in the middle. I`m guessing you`re thinking about something like running, but not a peaceful recuperating jog, but something more akin to what footballers(soccer players for the american crowd) tend to generally do on the pitch whilst trying to move into position, rather than going for a fast counterattack. The point of HIIT is that the intensity required to generate its beneficial effects cannot be maintained for long enough, so you take a break, recuperate than hammer again at it. If you`re able to sprint(sprint as in what you should do for intervals) for half an hour you`re either some kenyan trying to catch a gazelle and have no business posting on the internetz, or you`re not near/at lactate threshold(you`re not reaching a high enough percentage of intensity).

That being said, running will burn more calories than walking, so obviously half an hour of running will burn more calories than half an hour of walking which may have positive impact on body-composition if you can do it.

Don`t get me wrong Faz, but, as I said, employ common sense. This is not some revolutionary thing that`s fresh out of research labs that no one knows about. There has been extensive research in the field of endurance training/performance oriented training, and beyond that, it`s application for fat loss-so basically, if a SS cardio that had the benefits of HIIT without it`s disadvantages existed, would you not agree that it would`ve been described already?Or if a HIIT protocol that alleviated all of the sucky aspects of doing intervals was brewed, would it not have been published somewhere somehow?In all of these long years of physique enhancement/chasing the holy grail of fat-loss whilst doing jacksquat(because for the general fat population, that`s pretty much what they`d like), would some optimal approach have been devised?But IRL, we must compromise, that`s the sad reality, and do the best we can with the tools we have. Cheers to you as well, this has been a nice chat, BTW...at least it keeps my mind occupied

 

[faz]

Umm, no, you don`t get the best out of two worlds if you try to stay dead in the middle. I`m guessing you`re thinking about something like running, but not a peaceful recuperating jog, but something more akin to what footballers(soccer players for the american crowd
......................................................................................
well what i was thinking of was more like instead of doing say 5miles at 9 min mile pace,do it at say 6 min mile pace.

also where does fat burn stop and EPOC start,i know if you go over 70%HR you start to use carbs more,so does that mean you are using EPOC after.
.........................................................................................
This is not some revolutionary thing that`s fresh out of research labs that no one knows about. There has been extensive research in the field of endurance training/performance oriented training, and beyond that, it`s application for fat loss-so basically, if a SS cardio that had the benefits of HIIT without it`s disadvantages existed, would you not agree that it would`ve been described already?Or if a HIIT protocol that alleviated all of the sucky aspects of doing intervals was brewed, would it not have been published somewhere somehow
.......................................................................................
im not saying its not been mentioned or described but raising your HR to a level that uses epoc and staying with that for longer is a lot more difficult,and as everone wants the easy option thats what they give them.
and thanks for taking the time to reply

 

[faz]

this is what got me thinking this way.

this was a quote from an article on the science of interval training
(quote)
In summary, the intensity of exercise, regardless of the amount of fat burned during the exercise directly influences the amount of fat burned in the post exercise period. Since this fat is derived from peripheral fat stores, the higher the intensity and longer the duration that can be sustained, the greater the post-exercise fat burn that can be achieved

 

[Morgoth the Dark Enemy]

You do know what EPOC stands for, right?As in it equaling excess post-exercise oxygen consumption?Do you want an exact percentage of heart-rate or what?It`s detailed on Wikipedia I think, off the top of my head I don`t know the exact percentage of HR you have to be at in order to be in the high intensity primarily glycogen based effort zone.

The quote is typical bbing extremist stuff. Read up the protocol that Lyle set-up for stubborn fat that I somewhat reproduced here(there`s a big thread on BR detailing it and having interesting theoretical wanking, search for alpha mediated cardio or something). And no, that quote isn`t entirely accurate nor is it worth fretting over. IMO. Alan Aragon and Cosgrove for example may disagree, but they have to take an extremist stance because moderation sells just about zilch in this industry.