- This topic has 14 voices and 30 replies.
-
Posts
-
The few examples I see here about people running to lose their chub revolve around (apparently) males who where chubby kids and started some type of program in which they ran.The research is quite clear on this: cardio, at a level of moderate to intense (moderate, in the literature starts at 65% of max heart rate) for 30 minutes plus decrease fat burning in all cells, increase tGLUT concentration but decreases it's mobility in membranes, down regulates metabolism, down regulates testoterone, decreases the thermic effect of food and decreases muscular sensitivity to catecholamines (epinephrine, norephinephrine, specifically). All these effects together are detrimental to anyone, whether their goal is purely aesthetic or not.Well controlled studies have also show that running does not contribute to body fat loss for over 9 months and any loss of fat can be directly attributed to changes in diet.People believe I hate cardio and as such am trying to villainize it, but this is not true. I cycled for many years. And I don't mean took utility rides to the grocery store. I'd average about 400 miles per week on the bike and every time I rode, I rode to get better. So, often, depending on headwinds, I'd average between 18 to 21 mph. I LOVED THOSE RIDES. The zen-like trance I'd achieve watching the pavement pass beneath me in a mottled blur produced a trance-induced euphoria; the same thing as a runner's high, I suspect. My greatest disappointment came when I learned what all this cardio did to my metabolism and how negatively it affected my overall performance. After a year of researching the subject, I hung my 6000$ bike on the wall for 9 years and recently gave it to a friend to use as spare parts.So, you don't have to believe me, you can think I'm exaggerating and that's fine with me. My only goal is to make performance, aesthetics and life easier for everyone who's willing to listen and for those who don't trust me, providing the research to make the facts obvious. As I've said before, don't trust me: you can find this out for yourself.
I have done my fair share of cardio. Thats how I initially lost 85 pounds to a sickly level by doing to much cardio. Hormone levels dropped, and I could not build any muscle no matter how much time I spent in the gym. Even though this is very new; I have only been walking to and from the gym for cardio for two weeks now. I have seen an increase in strength, I look 300% better, and my body feels better all around. I am doing the detox diet now and have dropped 7 pounds in 4 days since starting it when not cardio. This just proves all of these points above. Doing cardio is not an excuse to over eat calories.
Whever Kiefer said he was gonna be posting on these forums more often, I knew it was a matter of time before he would discover his thread. I hope I didn't get on his shit list. If you ever read this again, Kiefer, I didn't mean to insult you, I just thought there was more to this issue.Anyways, I actually do hate cardio of all kinds. HIIT, steady state doesn't matter. I hate it, though I do love walks. It is annoying that people who want to get in shape think cardio is the most important thing to do, because it clearly isn't.
Kiefer, so the research you cited presents the detrimental effects of cardio at 65% max heart rate. That's about where I am on a brisk walk on level ground. It's higher when I walk up hills.Are you saying that I should slow down my walks and not go on hills so my heart rate doesn't rise above 65%? Or, should I go at the same speed but make sure it's less than 30 minutes?
The few examples I see here about people running to lose their chub revolve around (apparently) males who where chubby kids and started some type of program in which they ran.The research is quite clear on this: cardio, at a level of moderate to intense (moderate, in the literature starts at 65% of max heart rate) for 30 minutes plus decrease fat burning in all cells, increase tGLUT concentration but decreases it's mobility in membranes, down regulates metabolism, down regulates testoterone, decreases the thermic effect of food and decreases muscular sensitivity to catecholamines (epinephrine, norephinephrine, specifically). All these effects together are detrimental to anyone, whether their goal is purely aesthetic or not.Well controlled studies have also show that running does not contribute to body fat loss for over 9 months and any loss of fat can be directly attributed to changes in diet.People believe I hate cardio and as such am trying to villainize it, but this is not true. I cycled for many years. And I don't mean took utility rides to the grocery store. I'd average about 400 miles per week on the bike and every time I rode, I rode to get better. So, often, depending on headwinds, I'd average between 18 to 21 mph. I LOVED THOSE RIDES. The zen-like trance I'd achieve watching the pavement pass beneath me in a mottled blur produced a trance-induced euphoria; the same thing as a runner's high, I suspect. My greatest disappointment came when I learned what all this cardio did to my metabolism and how negatively it affected my overall performance. After a year of researching the subject, I hung my 6000$ bike on the wall for 9 years and recently gave it to a friend to use as spare parts.So, you don't have to believe me, you can think I'm exaggerating and that's fine with me. My only goal is to make performance, aesthetics and life easier for everyone who's willing to listen and for those who don't trust me, providing the research to make the facts obvious. As I've said before, don't trust me: you can find this out for yourself.
I don't doubt it for a second, but if you had any quick links to specific studies that I could use when explaining this myself, I think that would help a lot. I had no idea about the decreased sensitivity to catecholamines and I think that's pretty damn important.
Kiefer, so the research you cited presents the detrimental effects of cardio at 65% max heart rate. That's about where I am on a brisk walk on level ground. It's higher when I walk up hills.Are you saying that I should slow down my walks and not go on hills so my heart rate doesn't rise above 65%? Or, should I go at the same speed but make sure it's less than 30 minutes?
It depends on your background. The most accurate measure is your lactic-acid threshold, and do a percentage based on the intensity at which that occurs. But you can't really "calculate" it, it needs to be tested. 65% is pretty good for most people to guess at. Depending on your background, it may be higher or lower. Because I'll be honest: 65% for me doesn't feel like anything. But here's my general rule of thumb for everyone, for any type of cardio (even HIIT): limit any steady state cardio that's hitting or cresting the 65% mark to thirty minutes or less.
If you ever read this again, Kiefer, I didn't mean to insult you, I just thought there was more to this issue.
A) There was more to the story, but it only makes the picture more bleak;B) You didn't insult me; you should always question "authority", I do;C) You are, however, on my shit list.
What about moderate to intense cardio thats less than 30mins in length? Same effects? Similar, but to a lesser extent? P.S. I showed this to a friend and he goes "Whatever. I don't believe that."
The few examples I see here about people running to lose their chub revolve around (apparently) males who where chubby kids and started some type of program in which they ran.The research is quite clear on this: cardio, at a level of moderate to intense (moderate, in the literature starts at 65% of max heart rate) for 30 minutes plus decrease fat burning in all cells, increase tGLUT concentration but decreases it's mobility in membranes, down regulates metabolism, down regulates testoterone, decreases the thermic effect of food and decreases muscular sensitivity to catecholamines (epinephrine, norephinephrine, specifically). All these effects together are detrimental to anyone, whether their goal is purely aesthetic or not.Well controlled studies have also show that running does not contribute to body fat loss for over 9 months and any loss of fat can be directly attributed to changes in diet.
Hi there!I do a lot of endurance training - mountainbiking, hiking, rowing. Should I be concernded about negative side effects eventhough it's not LISS most of the time? Well, getting down from a mountain top could be classified as LISS, but it's only half of the way.Thanks!
I think anybody starting out in exercise, for example, running probably get a similar effect to HIIT until they build up their endurance. They run for a bit, walk for a bit, run for a bit, and finally walk. That, for them at least, is HIIT! Until they adapt to it and "progress" to using their aerobic energy system.So hell yes running can help someone shed fat initially. The problem is, and if you have seasoned runners in your area(I'm being diplomatic) you'll know what I mean, they don't push themselves(That's assuming that they started running(probably on the 2nd of Jan) for the purposes of shedding fat), not to mention the terrible postural positions, arm carriage or lack there of, etc. Sprinters on the other hand...Once you get in to that comfort zone that allows you to pretty much run at the same pace for seems like ever - you've obviously adapted. You've already gone thru the energy systems to get to the one, in my opinion, that's the least optimal for your goal. Despite this; "Aerobic energy system is the only system to use fat as an energy source" - it gets skewed and is assumed then that for optimal fat loss one must run or do steady state. While yeah that's true, we do have access to fat stores during steady state, it's not quite as simple as just running or cycling or rowing....and that's even without mentioning all the info above on catabolism, whether cardio does decrease or increase myostatin and so on.Simple adjustment to running which makes it effective for fat loss - get out of your comfort zone and up the pace, in other words, fartlek it.
I think anybody starting out in exercise, for example, running probably get a similar effect to HIIT until they build up their endurance. They run for a bit, walk for a bit, run for a bit, and finally walk. That, for them at least, is HIIT! Until they adapt to it and "progress" to using their aerobic energy system.
Agreed, but I just want to make clear, for an untrained, out-of-shape person, a moderate run might be the 100% max effort they could give. Just start HIIT and do whatever output is your max effort. Over time, your max effort will be more and more intense. But don't make the mistake that because you're overweight you only have to run. If you can do more, do more.
I think anybody starting out in exercise, for example, running probably get a similar effect to HIIT until they build up their endurance. They run for a bit, walk for a bit, run for a bit, and finally walk. That, for them at least, is HIIT! Until they adapt to it and "progress" to using their aerobic energy system.
Agreed, but I just want to make clear, for an untrained, out-of-shape person, a moderate run might be the 100% max effort they could give. Just start HIIT and do whatever output is your max effort. Over time, your max effort will be more and more intense. But don't make the mistake that because you're overweight you only have to run. If you can do more, do more.
Spot on. Besides which, being overweight and running or in fact any impact exercise is probably best left until you have the weight under control. Even if running, for example, a marathon is the objective. The temptation to start running on account of the fact that its the end goal may mean "running thru the pain", compromising posture and so on to complete a training session. Put somebody under a bar and tell them to press it - most people will find a way to do that. It won't be pretty but they'll do it. Same or perhaps even more relevant is running. It's the most accessible exercise a person could do and at some point in their life they've already done it. Frankly I'd compare running with a complex movement such as a bench press - just because it looks easy(really) and its an exercise, doesn't mean it's the right exercise for you, yet.
The big guy, Dwayne Chambers is a 100m sprinter. His size is almost a requirement of his sport though. I know there are sprinters who are slighter in build(Bolt) but I wouldn't compare a sprinter to a LD runner – the LD runner doesn't need a lot of muscle. In fact if the LD runner did have a lot of muscle he'd burn out so quickly he'd wish catabolism just to keep up with the leaders!LD runners aren't skinny because they run long distances. They're skinny because its non-sensical to be carrying around 185lb-200lb of mass if you want to run for distance. Just as Dwayne is carrying a shit-ton of muscle - he needs a lot of power and bulk to drive him forward. It's perfect that CP lasts about as long as a 100m race really. That's the energy system they're tapping in that sub 10 seconds and it's also the energy system lifters use for maximal lifts.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.