Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Best for fat burning----walking or running
- Thread starter thelegacy
- Start date
It's all about your target heart rate, man.
Generally speaking, walking is much less catabolic than running. Walking allows you to burn fat albeit at a slower pace, without loss of muscle fiber.
There are also some tricks such as exercising 1st thing in the morning on an empty stomach, which also targets your fat stores better. Or, doing a bit of cardio after lifting while you're in an anabolic state.
Generally speaking, walking is much less catabolic than running. Walking allows you to burn fat albeit at a slower pace, without loss of muscle fiber.
There are also some tricks such as exercising 1st thing in the morning on an empty stomach, which also targets your fat stores better. Or, doing a bit of cardio after lifting while you're in an anabolic state.
Running is no doubt better for burning fat, but you run the risk of losing muscle. High intensity cardio on an empty stomach seems to work best for me, but I never make any gains while I'm implementing it. In fact, I find that I am weaker when I run high intensity.
But I would prefer to get really lean and lose a little muscle than do 2-3 hours of walking, and not be as lean... let alone being forced to use ridiculous drugs to burn fat.
It really sucks when you have to sacrifice hard earned gains to become lean... but you can always bulk up again.
And if you would like to burn fat and gain muscle, there's always Fina.
But I would prefer to get really lean and lose a little muscle than do 2-3 hours of walking, and not be as lean... let alone being forced to use ridiculous drugs to burn fat.
It really sucks when you have to sacrifice hard earned gains to become lean... but you can always bulk up again.
And if you would like to burn fat and gain muscle, there's always Fina.
I'd say that walking 2 miles burns about as many calories are jogging 2 miles -- which isn't many calories at all and wouldn't make much of a difference is fat loss.
The "Target Heart Rate" theory is a myth based on skewed studies. There is no magic heart rate that suddenly burns fat.
The "running on an empty stomach" theory is just something that the magazines made up and people started to belive it and repeat it. Exertion while hungry will not suddenly alter the laws of biophysics and make the body use fat for fuel. You would have to be in ketosis, and when that happens the body also burns up an inordinate amount of muscle.
The "Target Heart Rate" theory is a myth based on skewed studies. There is no magic heart rate that suddenly burns fat.
The "running on an empty stomach" theory is just something that the magazines made up and people started to belive it and repeat it. Exertion while hungry will not suddenly alter the laws of biophysics and make the body use fat for fuel. You would have to be in ketosis, and when that happens the body also burns up an inordinate amount of muscle.
M
Mr.X
Guest
thelegacy said:
To answer you question directly: RUNNING WILL BURN MORE CALORIES; THUS, IT'S BETTER FOR FAT-LOSS.
Now, if muscle catabolism is a de-facto for you then you need to shoot for low-intensity cardio like walking up an incline.
Mr.X
Nelson Montana said:
Uhm, empty stomach implies glycogen depletion meaning your next source of fuel would be...?
And that aside I have no idea where that ketosis/cardio thing comes from. And as far as it burning inordinate amounts of muscle... please provide studies that are less anecdotal than this board's reports of success with "empty-stomach cardio".
You wants studies -- do a search.
The next source of fuel would be....? Muscle.
Just because you have an "empty stomach" doesn't mean you're gylcogen depleted.
For everyone who says they had success with this method, I can find someone who had equal success without it -- which is another way of saying there were other factors involved and not those percieved.
Swimming is only a good way to burn calories if you aren't a good swimmer. Skilled, leisurly swimming will barely burn the calories of a bowl of oatmeal in 30 minutes.
The next source of fuel would be....? Muscle.
Just because you have an "empty stomach" doesn't mean you're gylcogen depleted.
For everyone who says they had success with this method, I can find someone who had equal success without it -- which is another way of saying there were other factors involved and not those percieved.
Swimming is only a good way to burn calories if you aren't a good swimmer. Skilled, leisurly swimming will barely burn the calories of a bowl of oatmeal in 30 minutes.
Nelson Montana said:
Dude you're the one who made a (somewhat vacuous) statement, not me. The fact that you're Nelson doesn't mean that you're above proving a point that clearly goes against the grain.
I hope the information in your book is proven more rigorously than your posts on this board.
Btw, the next source of fuel would be...? Muscle... AND FAT, DUDE.. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you don't have the slightest clue what percentage of each in relation to the type of cardio.
Point taken on the "other factors" thing re early AM cardio.
NO point taken on the "bad swimmers burn more calories". A 200lb 10%bf guy will burn n calories running 5 miles. A professional runner at 200lb 10%bf will also burn n calories running that same stretch at the same speed. Or does skill (or even f'in V02-max) somehow relate to metabolism?
I got pretty lean by walking at 4.o pace on the lifecycle treadmill at 0 incline post workout cardio. I would walk at that pace for 5 min, do 3-4 min spurts at 6.5 , then go back to 4.0 pace for 10min, do 3-4 min spurts again at 6.5, then back to 4.0 pace for 10min every day when i worked out. Did this for 2 months.
Fat didn't melt off of me, but did get shredded enough to where my friends thought i was on the gear. However, maintained bodyweight, but lost the fat.
Fat didn't melt off of me, but did get shredded enough to where my friends thought i was on the gear. However, maintained bodyweight, but lost the fat.
blastingthru
New member
Bros,
Could riding the staionary bike at a relatively low rpm or stair climbing at a low-intesity setting coincide with the above mentioned ideas? Just curious because I would like to add a little variety to this idea of lower intensity workouts.
Could riding the staionary bike at a relatively low rpm or stair climbing at a low-intesity setting coincide with the above mentioned ideas? Just curious because I would like to add a little variety to this idea of lower intensity workouts.
MUSTGETHUUUUUGE
New member
You ever see a fat sprinter or a diesel marathon runner.........
If I remember correctly there is no caloric difference between running or walking a specific distance. The biggest factor is the time issue. You may burn the same calories if you either walk or run a mile, however you'll get there a hell of a lot faster while running so therefore you can burn more calories in shorter time.
By the way why do people make cardio so difficult? They act as if there is only one correct way and if they don't follow it then they won't burn fat. I can guarantee you that doing imperfect cardio is still 100x better than not doing any at all. Just get out there and do something to burn calories, what you choose is up to you.
Personally I won't do cardio first thing in the morning. You're already in a catabolic state from an over-night fast, why risk any more muscle loss than necessary? Just do cardio 2-3 hours after a meal so that your stomach is emptied and you won't it for fuel. I tend to eat every 3 hours so this works out good for me.
I promise you that differing cardio times aren't going to make that huge of a difference in the long run. Sure it might help by 1.232343234% but who gives a flying fuck, anything is better than nothing.
By the way why do people make cardio so difficult? They act as if there is only one correct way and if they don't follow it then they won't burn fat. I can guarantee you that doing imperfect cardio is still 100x better than not doing any at all. Just get out there and do something to burn calories, what you choose is up to you.
Personally I won't do cardio first thing in the morning. You're already in a catabolic state from an over-night fast, why risk any more muscle loss than necessary? Just do cardio 2-3 hours after a meal so that your stomach is emptied and you won't it for fuel. I tend to eat every 3 hours so this works out good for me.
I promise you that differing cardio times aren't going to make that huge of a difference in the long run. Sure it might help by 1.232343234% but who gives a flying fuck, anything is better than nothing.
Nelson Montana said:
Nelson, I don't doubt your expertise one moment... You've been in this longer than I've been alive! I do have your book, and have not read every chapter yet. All I know so far based on your replies in this post, and a couple chapters in your book is that you are REALLY good at exposing false myths and beliefs. I think a lot of what you say is true because it's just common sense. The thing is, someone has asked what type of cardio is better, walking or running? You have shown that walking, running, and swimming seem to be really sorry ass forms of cardio. So, what do YOU do for cardio? Personally, I don't see how swimming doesn't burn calories.. there's an athletic center near by with tons of swimmers hanging around.. they would make every guy here looking for a lean physique very jealous. They all have wide shoulders, broad flat defined chest, and ab muscles I've never knew existed. All they do is swim, and lift very very little. I've heard of doing sand bag carries, weighted vests, etc. So, what is most effective?
Well, nevermind my previous reply Nelson.. just read your chapter on aerobics.. makes sense. The only thing I'm wondering about is how the average College swimmer gets his physique (not a shape I'm shooting for) I understand that there is plenty of resistance in the water to be similar to using light weights with high reps. It's just that in the end, swimming should theoretically burn away muscle. I know a lot of swimmers are scrawny, others look like underwear models.
Well, nevermind my previous reply Nelson.. just read your chapter on aerobics.. makes sense. The only thing I'm wondering about is how the average College swimmer gets his physique (not a shape I'm shooting for) I understand that there is plenty of resistance in the water to be similar to using light weights with high reps. It's just that in the end, swimming should theoretically burn away muscle. I know a lot of swimmers are scrawny, others look like underwear models. Also, are you saying that all you need to achieve a lean, hard, muscular phisyque is to lift, lift, and lift some more along with a diet to fit accordingly?
Someone already mentioned it but..
It is your <b>Target Heartrate</b> This number varies depending on age,gender,how much you weigh. You want to keep your heart rate in this range because going under provides no benefit and going above turns the workout into anerobic (not sure if I spelt it correctly) rather then a fat burning workout. Usually when you run so fast you'll sometimes notice that your not sweating but that when you slow down or stop is when you begin to sweat more. This is because you were out of your target heart range for burning fat.
It is your <b>Target Heartrate</b> This number varies depending on age,gender,how much you weigh. You want to keep your heart rate in this range because going under provides no benefit and going above turns the workout into anerobic (not sure if I spelt it correctly) rather then a fat burning workout. Usually when you run so fast you'll sometimes notice that your not sweating but that when you slow down or stop is when you begin to sweat more. This is because you were out of your target heart range for burning fat.
G
Golfer18--old
Guest
I don't like running or walking. I use the cross trainer (elliptical sp?) machine for 35 minutes at a moderate pace. No impact on my knees, I get a good sweat, and it works pretty damn good along with a diet. Running for me burns to much muscle and walking takes atleast 45 minutes to get the same affect of 15 minutes running. Someting in between running and walking is good. I don't think jogging is the answer. Maybe swimming. Everyone is different. Someone may say the cross trainer sucks and running works better. You can do all the studies you want but different things work better for different people.
This is just my thinking – I don’t know crap but this seems logical to me:
Weight loss is taking in less calories then you consume.
Running, walking and swimming all burn more calories then not doing those things.
You can either do them or eat less food.
I don’t believe that if you burn 400 cals running you will lose more muscle then if you just ate 400 cals less that day. This may not apply to you if you are trying to get from 7% bf to 6% body fat.
Either way you have to be under your maintenance level to lose weight.
If your body started to break down some muscle to fuel your workout, then the extra 400 cals that you consume would go towards rebuilding your muscles – remember, you are still under your maintenance amount of cals, so it is not going to be converted to fat.
Weight loss is taking in less calories then you consume.
Running, walking and swimming all burn more calories then not doing those things.
You can either do them or eat less food.
I don’t believe that if you burn 400 cals running you will lose more muscle then if you just ate 400 cals less that day. This may not apply to you if you are trying to get from 7% bf to 6% body fat.
Either way you have to be under your maintenance level to lose weight.
If your body started to break down some muscle to fuel your workout, then the extra 400 cals that you consume would go towards rebuilding your muscles – remember, you are still under your maintenance amount of cals, so it is not going to be converted to fat.
OK Nelson, here is a study that seems to indicate that exercise on an empty stomach does indeed burn MORE fat than exercising on a full or partially full stomach.
===========================================
Int J Sports Med 1988 Jun;9(3):240-3 Related Articles, Links
Energy metabolism during exercise at different time intervals following a meal.
Willcutts KF, Wilcox AR, Grunewald KK.
Department of Physical Education, Dance and Leisure Studies, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506.
The objective of this study was to compare caloric expenditure and substrate utilization during exercise begun at different time intervals following a standard test meal or in the fasted state. Eight physically fit women (aged 21-27 years) participated in four separate exercise trials. In three trials, the subjects consumed a 940-kcal meal following an overnight fast and began exercising either 30, 60, or 90 min after the meal. In the other trial, the subjects did not consume any breakfast prior to exercising. Energy expenditure and substrate utilization were determined by indirect calorimetry during the last 23 min of a 30-min run on a treadmill at an average work load of 62% VO2max. There were no significant differences among trials when comparing the total caloric expenditures (range: 215-219 kcal). However, the subjects oxidized significantly more fat (94.3 kcal) when they exercised on an empty stomach than when they exercised 60 or 90 min after the meal (71.6 and 68.8 kcal, respectively) (P less than 0.05). It was concluded that consumption of a meal prior to exercise does not increase the energy cost of the activity for physically fit women, but it does disrupt the pattern of substrate utilization, reducing the contribution of fat as an energy source.
===========================================
Int J Sports Med 1988 Jun;9(3):240-3 Related Articles, Links
Energy metabolism during exercise at different time intervals following a meal.
Willcutts KF, Wilcox AR, Grunewald KK.
Department of Physical Education, Dance and Leisure Studies, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506.
The objective of this study was to compare caloric expenditure and substrate utilization during exercise begun at different time intervals following a standard test meal or in the fasted state. Eight physically fit women (aged 21-27 years) participated in four separate exercise trials. In three trials, the subjects consumed a 940-kcal meal following an overnight fast and began exercising either 30, 60, or 90 min after the meal. In the other trial, the subjects did not consume any breakfast prior to exercising. Energy expenditure and substrate utilization were determined by indirect calorimetry during the last 23 min of a 30-min run on a treadmill at an average work load of 62% VO2max. There were no significant differences among trials when comparing the total caloric expenditures (range: 215-219 kcal). However, the subjects oxidized significantly more fat (94.3 kcal) when they exercised on an empty stomach than when they exercised 60 or 90 min after the meal (71.6 and 68.8 kcal, respectively) (P less than 0.05). It was concluded that consumption of a meal prior to exercise does not increase the energy cost of the activity for physically fit women, but it does disrupt the pattern of substrate utilization, reducing the contribution of fat as an energy source.
Nelson Montana said:
John G: You're not serious, are you? You're suggesting that if HR gets too high you stop burning fat? Don't mean to flame son, but you're clueless on this one.
DaMann. Of course skill is a factor. Do you think a skilled runner burns as much energy running a mile as someone who is out of shape? If so, you're way off track.
DKH. The good swimmers dont have good bodies because they're good swimmers. They're good swimmers beause they have good bodies! The fat swimmers don't do as well.
Seth: True, everything burns calories. That's the point I'm trying to get across. There is nothing magical about aerobics.
You can only do a certin amount of activity before you overtrain. A bodybuilder should do the maximum amount of bodybuilding. Why waste energy with something that doesn't build muscle and burns less calories than lifting weights? AND PLEASE NOBODY WRITE TO SAY IT'S TO RAISE HEART RATE! Weightlifting raises heart rate just fine.
DaMann. Of course skill is a factor. Do you think a skilled runner burns as much energy running a mile as someone who is out of shape? If so, you're way off track.
DKH. The good swimmers dont have good bodies because they're good swimmers. They're good swimmers beause they have good bodies! The fat swimmers don't do as well.
Seth: True, everything burns calories. That's the point I'm trying to get across. There is nothing magical about aerobics.
You can only do a certin amount of activity before you overtrain. A bodybuilder should do the maximum amount of bodybuilding. Why waste energy with something that doesn't build muscle and burns less calories than lifting weights? AND PLEASE NOBODY WRITE TO SAY IT'S TO RAISE HEART RATE! Weightlifting raises heart rate just fine.
Seeing that I'm not a woman I don't see how this study has anything to do with me. At any rate I don't doubt that there may be some benefit to doing cardio on an empty stomach versus after a meal. My point has always been that doing cardio at any time is still 100x better than not doing it at all. I have anything but a fast metabolism and I can burn plenty of fat without doing cardio at all, I don't quite get all this confusion over cardio as if it matters all that much.
Pick a type of exercise you can handle for an extended amount of time. Do it whenever is convenient for you and don't second guess yourself with all of this bullshit data about which is "best". Most of us would do better just sticking with something instead of jumping on the next best thing that crops up on these boards daily.
ST0RM SHADOW
New member
Personally (and remember, I said "personally"), if it's just the idea of reducing fat and NO other reason, I would suggest going to the Fina Board and talk to Swole Cat and the other Brothers about fat reduction. They got it down to a science and it's worked for A LOT of people including me.
A
Advaik
Guest
Somehow you all lost sight of a very basic biological idea.
Basically how it goes is when you are at your target heart rate or below you will use sugar as fuel. Once you get beyond that target heart rate your body can't metabolise the sugar quick enough and you start to use your muscle fibers as fuel. An easy way to find out your target heart rate is if you can talk while jogging you are fine, once you get to the point where you can no longer talk then you are above your target heart rate and are now in a catabolic state where your muscles feed off itself to fuel itself.
The basic idea of muscle memory is that once your muscles reachs a certain size the muscles "remember" how many muscle fibers it as. If you stop training you'll lose muscle mass, but once you start again your body will quickly regenerate these muscle fibers.
Now let's get an idea straight that you all know. The better shape you are, the lower your heart rate. The more you push your heartrate, the better shape you'll be in.
Let's put all 3 togeather. Get your fat ugly ass in shape and run. You will lose muscle fibers at first. You will lose fat. You will get faster. You will increase stamina. You will enhance endurance. You will have a healthier heartrate. After a while your endurance will be at a point where you can easily run at full speed without your heartrate going out of control. And after months of training your stamina will be well enough to keep this up for a good 20-30 minutes. At this point you will no longer be using muscle fibers as fuel because your heartrate isnt out of control. You will be using sugar as fuel. You will still be burning fat and in a hell of alot better shape. Best of all because of muscle memory you will be able to regain the muscle you lost!
Walking is for old people and fat people. Jogging is for girls. Running is for atheletes. Sprinting is for bodybuilders. Sprint at full speed for 1:30 minutes then walk (SLOWLY) for :30 minutes. Do this for 20-30 minutes. This will get your heartrate under control.
Now stop with the bullshit that running is catabolic. It's only catabolic if your fat ugly ass is out of shape, so get your ass in shape.
Basically how it goes is when you are at your target heart rate or below you will use sugar as fuel. Once you get beyond that target heart rate your body can't metabolise the sugar quick enough and you start to use your muscle fibers as fuel. An easy way to find out your target heart rate is if you can talk while jogging you are fine, once you get to the point where you can no longer talk then you are above your target heart rate and are now in a catabolic state where your muscles feed off itself to fuel itself.
The basic idea of muscle memory is that once your muscles reachs a certain size the muscles "remember" how many muscle fibers it as. If you stop training you'll lose muscle mass, but once you start again your body will quickly regenerate these muscle fibers.
Now let's get an idea straight that you all know. The better shape you are, the lower your heart rate. The more you push your heartrate, the better shape you'll be in.
Let's put all 3 togeather. Get your fat ugly ass in shape and run. You will lose muscle fibers at first. You will lose fat. You will get faster. You will increase stamina. You will enhance endurance. You will have a healthier heartrate. After a while your endurance will be at a point where you can easily run at full speed without your heartrate going out of control. And after months of training your stamina will be well enough to keep this up for a good 20-30 minutes. At this point you will no longer be using muscle fibers as fuel because your heartrate isnt out of control. You will be using sugar as fuel. You will still be burning fat and in a hell of alot better shape. Best of all because of muscle memory you will be able to regain the muscle you lost!
Walking is for old people and fat people. Jogging is for girls. Running is for atheletes. Sprinting is for bodybuilders. Sprint at full speed for 1:30 minutes then walk (SLOWLY) for :30 minutes. Do this for 20-30 minutes. This will get your heartrate under control.
Now stop with the bullshit that running is catabolic. It's only catabolic if your fat ugly ass is out of shape, so get your ass in shape.
C
Counterstrike
Guest
Advaik
how do you suggest for one to deal with shin splints? i started jogging a while back 2 miles 3 times a week tog et in shape but stopped for 3 months b/c shin splints never went away and got worst. If i start running is that too hard for a beginner or atleast one that been layback for a while? will it improve endurance and stamina faster than jogging? I want and need distance like up to 5-6 miles so I don't think sprint will work for me.
Would Nolva help with this fat reduction at 10 mg ed?
how do you suggest for one to deal with shin splints? i started jogging a while back 2 miles 3 times a week tog et in shape but stopped for 3 months b/c shin splints never went away and got worst. If i start running is that too hard for a beginner or atleast one that been layback for a while? will it improve endurance and stamina faster than jogging? I want and need distance like up to 5-6 miles so I don't think sprint will work for me.
Would Nolva help with this fat reduction at 10 mg ed?
jboldman said:
It seems as though we have this discussion going on in more than one location..
Here is a carbon copy of what I wrote about 30 min ago in another land..
Although I'm not familiar with the method of "indirect calorimetry" I still don't think the 90kcals of fat expenditure (empty stomach) is 'significantly' greater than the 70kcals expended after a meal..
Measurable? Yes..
Significant? Not REEEEALLY, IMO.
The article does however state that the TOTAL energy expenditure is the same..
No violation of the 1st law here and the gods of thermodynamics aren't upset; rejoice.
The conclusions from the article are pretty much in line with what I was saying...
http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191484
I DO believe that more fat (by % of total kcals) is expended when cardio is done in the fasted state compared to the fed state.. Although this difference (as measured by these folks) isn't all that significant, IMO..
All this is somewhat intuitive.. However, the article didn't address the question of whether AM cardio amounts to a greater fat loss than the same cardio done some other time of the day..
Mindful that a wrong answer may tend to upset the gods of thermodynamics..
Glancing quickly over my left and right shoulder for bolts of lightning, I say "no."
Andy
A
Advaik
Guest
http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/shin.html
Read that about shin splints. I don't know about shin splints getting worse, they supposed to get better with proper training. Are you stretching before running? You should always stretch every morning after a quick warm up and once again before training (again, with a warm up). If you still get shin splints then it could mean you have a poor running technique and are putting too much strain on your calves (which isn't neccessarily a bad thing because it increases calf size and strength, but it will cause problems with shin/calf pains and could hender your speed).
Also long distance running is probably catabolic. Again it depends on your heartrate, if you walk or jog for 5-6 miles it won't hurt but if you find yourself breathing heavily and not being able to talk then you'll need to slow down and get your heartrate under control. That's why i recommend sprinting, it allows your heartrate to go back down. No matter how good of shape you are in, you'll still have a target heart rate that you can go over. Look at basketball players for example, most arn't too big even though they have incredible stamina and endurance.
There's a biological function that I only know the basic idea to. It's that you can train yourself for either sprinting or long distance. When you sprint your heartrate will go up quicker, but will also go down quicker at rest. This is how football players train, in short spurts so their heartrate will go down quicker in between plays. Opposed to that, basketball players and soccer players train so that their heartrate goes up slower, but will also go down slower. I don't know the idea behind it, I remember I was taught it but I forgot the actual principles.
There's alot of things you have to take into consideration and I'm no biology major, but in short if you're in better shape and don't go over your target heart rate you won't go into a catabolic state when running/sprinting.
I should mention that sprinting burns calories, in case anyone here is wondering. You know, those things that build muscle. So yeah, if you run or sprint you won't gain as much muscle mass as you would if you didn't if you don't increase your calorie intake. Of course doing that defeats the purpose of running to lose fat, but if you keep it up your running even during bulking you'll be in alot better shape when it comes to cutting so therefor you won't lose as much muscle when cutting.
You could write a book on this shit and still not cover everything
Read that about shin splints. I don't know about shin splints getting worse, they supposed to get better with proper training. Are you stretching before running? You should always stretch every morning after a quick warm up and once again before training (again, with a warm up). If you still get shin splints then it could mean you have a poor running technique and are putting too much strain on your calves (which isn't neccessarily a bad thing because it increases calf size and strength, but it will cause problems with shin/calf pains and could hender your speed).
Also long distance running is probably catabolic. Again it depends on your heartrate, if you walk or jog for 5-6 miles it won't hurt but if you find yourself breathing heavily and not being able to talk then you'll need to slow down and get your heartrate under control. That's why i recommend sprinting, it allows your heartrate to go back down. No matter how good of shape you are in, you'll still have a target heart rate that you can go over. Look at basketball players for example, most arn't too big even though they have incredible stamina and endurance.
There's a biological function that I only know the basic idea to. It's that you can train yourself for either sprinting or long distance. When you sprint your heartrate will go up quicker, but will also go down quicker at rest. This is how football players train, in short spurts so their heartrate will go down quicker in between plays. Opposed to that, basketball players and soccer players train so that their heartrate goes up slower, but will also go down slower. I don't know the idea behind it, I remember I was taught it but I forgot the actual principles.
There's alot of things you have to take into consideration and I'm no biology major, but in short if you're in better shape and don't go over your target heart rate you won't go into a catabolic state when running/sprinting.
I should mention that sprinting burns calories, in case anyone here is wondering. You know, those things that build muscle. So yeah, if you run or sprint you won't gain as much muscle mass as you would if you didn't if you don't increase your calorie intake. Of course doing that defeats the purpose of running to lose fat, but if you keep it up your running even during bulking you'll be in alot better shape when it comes to cutting so therefor you won't lose as much muscle when cutting.
You could write a book on this shit and still not cover everything
Advaik: So close.
As one becomes more conditioned, less and less fat is burned. Hey, they just had the Marathon in NYC. I saw a lot of people with a lot of jiggle crossing the finish line.
Regarding jboldmans study: Eight women who lost a drop of fat isn't exactly conclusive proof. But lets examine the testing. The first 3 tests were in the fasted state. The final test was not. Well, a lot can happen from one to the next but what's MOST significant is the fact that fat loss slows down as BF gets lower. We all know that. And that's probably what happened here. Do the test in the opposite manner -- the first 3 runs with food and the last fasted and I'll bet the results would be the same. This is a perfect example of how tests are skewed, erroneous and/or misinterpreted.
As one becomes more conditioned, less and less fat is burned. Hey, they just had the Marathon in NYC. I saw a lot of people with a lot of jiggle crossing the finish line.
Regarding jboldmans study: Eight women who lost a drop of fat isn't exactly conclusive proof. But lets examine the testing. The first 3 tests were in the fasted state. The final test was not. Well, a lot can happen from one to the next but what's MOST significant is the fact that fat loss slows down as BF gets lower. We all know that. And that's probably what happened here. Do the test in the opposite manner -- the first 3 runs with food and the last fasted and I'll bet the results would be the same. This is a perfect example of how tests are skewed, erroneous and/or misinterpreted.
Last edited:
andy: Of course we ALL know that when someone in a research study says "significant" they are talking about statistically significant, so yes, there was a statistically significant difference and not only that, given that we do not lose weight all that fast per exercise bout and all that easily anyway while exercising, don't you think that a 32% increase in fat burning per exercise session is significant? I do! Just becasue the per exercise bout is small, in aggregate, the total could be much different, ah, 32% different.
Nelson: this same comment applies to you. As well as your criticism of the paradigm, your "betting" that the result would be different if the order of trials were reversed is a good suggestion for a further experiment but also a is a typical criticism of those that have no other hard evidince, what we have here is your opinion against a well controlled study. I will grant that the "n" is pretty low but it still surpasses "opinion".
As far as cardio vs no cardio vis a vis overall cardiovascular health, there was just a study posted in the NEJM(as I recall) that I posted that demonstrated that weight lifting resulted in a very large reduction in cardiovascular risk (good) but that a combination of weightlifting and jogging or walking was "significantly" better. I have also NEVER been able to find a single study that showed low intensity aerobics(of reasonable duration , NOT marathon running) results in reduction of LBM, rather the opposite, typically resulting in lbm gain. I really think that the myth of cardio causing loss of lbm was created by lazy bodybuilders and trainers.
The real question here, i believe, is what is the nature of the weight loss exeperienced as a result of calorie deficit in the absence of cardio? Is it all resulting from fat loss or is there a lbm component. I guess I will have to dig out my exercise physiology textbook and do some digging.
Nelson: this same comment applies to you. As well as your criticism of the paradigm, your "betting" that the result would be different if the order of trials were reversed is a good suggestion for a further experiment but also a is a typical criticism of those that have no other hard evidince, what we have here is your opinion against a well controlled study. I will grant that the "n" is pretty low but it still surpasses "opinion".
As far as cardio vs no cardio vis a vis overall cardiovascular health, there was just a study posted in the NEJM(as I recall) that I posted that demonstrated that weight lifting resulted in a very large reduction in cardiovascular risk (good) but that a combination of weightlifting and jogging or walking was "significantly" better. I have also NEVER been able to find a single study that showed low intensity aerobics(of reasonable duration , NOT marathon running) results in reduction of LBM, rather the opposite, typically resulting in lbm gain. I really think that the myth of cardio causing loss of lbm was created by lazy bodybuilders and trainers.
The real question here, i believe, is what is the nature of the weight loss exeperienced as a result of calorie deficit in the absence of cardio? Is it all resulting from fat loss or is there a lbm component. I guess I will have to dig out my exercise physiology textbook and do some digging.
andy: Of course we ALL know that when someone in a research study says "significant" they are talking about statistically significant, so yes, there was a statistically significant difference and not only that, given that we do not lose weight all that fast per exercise bout and all that easily anyway while exercising, don't you think that a 32% increase in fat burning per exercise session is significant? I do! Just becasue the per exercise bout is small, in aggregate, the total could be much different, ah, 32% different.
Nelson: this same comment applies to you. As well as your criticism of the paradigm, your "betting" that the result would be different if the order of trials were reversed is a good suggestion for a further experiment but also a is a typical criticism of those that have no other hard evidince, what we have here is your opinion against a well controlled study. I will grant that the "n" is pretty low but it still surpasses "opinion".
As far as cardio vs no cardio vis a vis overall cardiovascular health, there was just a study posted in the NEJM(as I recall) that I posted that demonstrated that weight lifting resulted in a very large reduction in cardiovascular risk (good) but that a combination of weightlifting and jogging or walking was "significantly" better. I have also NEVER been able to find a single study that showed low intensity aerobics(of reasonable duration , NOT marathon running) results in reduction of LBM, rather the opposite, typically resulting in lbm gain. I really think that the myth of cardio causing loss of lbm was created by lazy bodybuilders and trainers.
The real question here, i believe, is what is the nature of the weight loss exeperienced as a result of calorie deficit in the absence of cardio? Is it all resulting from fat loss or is there a lbm component. I guess I will have to dig out my exercise physiology textbook and do some digging.
To the guy who said, I'm not a women so this does not apply, well, what can I say!
Nelson: this same comment applies to you. As well as your criticism of the paradigm, your "betting" that the result would be different if the order of trials were reversed is a good suggestion for a further experiment but also a is a typical criticism of those that have no other hard evidince, what we have here is your opinion against a well controlled study. I will grant that the "n" is pretty low but it still surpasses "opinion".
As far as cardio vs no cardio vis a vis overall cardiovascular health, there was just a study posted in the NEJM(as I recall) that I posted that demonstrated that weight lifting resulted in a very large reduction in cardiovascular risk (good) but that a combination of weightlifting and jogging or walking was "significantly" better. I have also NEVER been able to find a single study that showed low intensity aerobics(of reasonable duration , NOT marathon running) results in reduction of LBM, rather the opposite, typically resulting in lbm gain. I really think that the myth of cardio causing loss of lbm was created by lazy bodybuilders and trainers.
The real question here, i believe, is what is the nature of the weight loss exeperienced as a result of calorie deficit in the absence of cardio? Is it all resulting from fat loss or is there a lbm component. I guess I will have to dig out my exercise physiology textbook and do some digging.
To the guy who said, I'm not a women so this does not apply, well, what can I say!
well
while we are on the topic of cardio I might as well throw this in. Many BB's today are not doing cardio cause of the catabolic effects, and would rather achieve leaness through better diet and drugs. My ? is this: Isn't it important to raise V02 max, thus supplying the body with more O2 rich blood, less C02, lowering of Hydrogen Ions and lactic acid? Wouldn't better aerobic conditiong equate to better performance in anaerobic actions, leading to an increased anabolic environment? I know trying to do both simultaneously would render in anabolic failures, but shouldn't a cycle of both types of conditioning occur for the best possible output? Just wondering what you guys think.
while we are on the topic of cardio I might as well throw this in. Many BB's today are not doing cardio cause of the catabolic effects, and would rather achieve leaness through better diet and drugs. My ? is this: Isn't it important to raise V02 max, thus supplying the body with more O2 rich blood, less C02, lowering of Hydrogen Ions and lactic acid? Wouldn't better aerobic conditiong equate to better performance in anaerobic actions, leading to an increased anabolic environment? I know trying to do both simultaneously would render in anabolic failures, but shouldn't a cycle of both types of conditioning occur for the best possible output? Just wondering what you guys think.
jboldman: This is the problem:
You assume that because a "study" was done it is "hard evidence," as you say. But I just disproved the study! It was not well controlled! It wasn't even conducted properly! Yet, that logic eludes you. You say I am not offering "hard evidence."Logic is evidence, bro. A misconducted study is bullshit. But some people love the numbers and the titles, ya know?
And another thing. Just because a study doesn't exist doesn't mean something isn't so. A_LOT OF PEOPLE NEED TO GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEADS!!! There isn't a single study to show that poking a five inch fork into my eye is any worse than poking a four inch fork into my eye. But LOGIC tells me it's gonna hurt.
BTW, there are plenty of studies that show aerobic activity lowers testosterone, so let it go man. You're wrong. BUT...you can do and believe whatever you want.
You assume that because a "study" was done it is "hard evidence," as you say. But I just disproved the study! It was not well controlled! It wasn't even conducted properly! Yet, that logic eludes you. You say I am not offering "hard evidence."Logic is evidence, bro. A misconducted study is bullshit. But some people love the numbers and the titles, ya know?
And another thing. Just because a study doesn't exist doesn't mean something isn't so. A_LOT OF PEOPLE NEED TO GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEADS!!! There isn't a single study to show that poking a five inch fork into my eye is any worse than poking a four inch fork into my eye. But LOGIC tells me it's gonna hurt.
BTW, there are plenty of studies that show aerobic activity lowers testosterone, so let it go man. You're wrong. BUT...you can do and believe whatever you want.
Last edited:
Triple J
New member
I believe the most effective running workout is wind sprints. However, given this is short bursts, perhaps it is actually anaerobic. I am just talking 60yd dash, folks. About 10 sets. Each sprint balls out. 1-2 minute rest in between.
This will result in a degree of maximum nervous system recruitment unlike what you will get in any weight workout. And it will stimulate GH output, having a stonger anabolic and thus fat-burning effect than any long distance run.
Of course you have to be in fairly decent shape to try this. And it can cause injuries if you are not.
This will result in a degree of maximum nervous system recruitment unlike what you will get in any weight workout. And it will stimulate GH output, having a stonger anabolic and thus fat-burning effect than any long distance run.
Of course you have to be in fairly decent shape to try this. And it can cause injuries if you are not.
Re: well
I know what you are saying... And it makes sence..
But the next time you hit the weights, strap on one of those heart rate moniters (the one's worn by the folks in spin class).
Now see how high your heart rate gets when you lift.. Ex phys is not my bag.. But I would have to say that a good, 45min weight workout with only enough rest between sets so that you can walk out of the gym rather than crawl, would accomplish what you are trying to gain better than aerobics.
Andy
rj420 said:
I know what you are saying... And it makes sence..
But the next time you hit the weights, strap on one of those heart rate moniters (the one's worn by the folks in spin class).
Now see how high your heart rate gets when you lift.. Ex phys is not my bag.. But I would have to say that a good, 45min weight workout with only enough rest between sets so that you can walk out of the gym rather than crawl, would accomplish what you are trying to gain better than aerobics.
Andy
Counterstrike
I get shin splints easily also. You have to take it slow, don’t increase speed or distance too much, and get a lot of rest, don’t run everyday.
You can also do exercises to help build your shin muscles. Sit on a tall chair and put a 5lb dumbbell on your toes and lift it up and down. Or sit on a chair and stick your feet under a heavy piece of furniture and try to lift it. It doesn’t matter if you can lift it, just keep trying until you feel the burn in your shin.
Also, go to a New Balance store and have them fit you for some good shoes. They have extra wide shoes and shoes to correct the way you run if you run on the inside or outside of your foot.
There are a lot of websites that have info on shin splints – the New Balance site has some good info.
Seth
I get shin splints easily also. You have to take it slow, don’t increase speed or distance too much, and get a lot of rest, don’t run everyday.
You can also do exercises to help build your shin muscles. Sit on a tall chair and put a 5lb dumbbell on your toes and lift it up and down. Or sit on a chair and stick your feet under a heavy piece of furniture and try to lift it. It doesn’t matter if you can lift it, just keep trying until you feel the burn in your shin.
Also, go to a New Balance store and have them fit you for some good shoes. They have extra wide shoes and shoes to correct the way you run if you run on the inside or outside of your foot.
There are a lot of websites that have info on shin splints – the New Balance site has some good info.
Seth
The bottom line is calories in vs. calories out. You can run for 2 hours a day but if you're still eating more calories than your burning, your not doing too much good besides getting your heart rate up and strengthening your cardiovascular system. In terms of the way your gonna look, you have to take in less calories than you burn to lose fat, and also make sure you're getting enough protein to maintain as much muscle as possible. You don't burn the same amount of calories walking as you do running. Think about it, if you run for 20 minutes and burn 300 calories, walking you'd probably burn half that in 20 minutes. Their aren't any magic tricks to burning fat. DNP is as close as you'll get to that, but even taking DNP if your maintenance calorie level a day is 2400 and you take 200mg of DNP a day, you're gonna burn 2880. Some people think they can eat like 6000 calories a day because they're on DNP. NOT TRUE. It's more about hard work and a diciplined diet than anything else.
Fukkenshredded
New member
This is a lot of intellectualizing about a very simple concept. If we assume that increasing physical exertion (force) over a given unit time will increase the caloric expenditure (obvious, since energy is the variant, and energy is, after all, heat) over that same unit of time, then where is the mystery? Increase the energy expenditure, and you increase the amount of tissue burned to produce the energy. All that is required is finding a way to instruct the body to get the energy form the fat cell preferentially. So, the first objective is to increase the intensity, and the second objective is to prioritize fat as the primary energy source.
The first objective is easily met. We can compute the force needed by using the equation F=ma, and we will quickly see that on a level surface, the factors are: leg turn over speed, stride length, and body weight. Obviously, this means that it is possible for a fast walk to be more effective than a slow run, provided the striding is done correctly. This also illustrates why sprints are the obvious choice for high intensity--you have maximum turn over, stride length, and bodyweight propulsion. That equals maximum energy output.
Ok, now about this muscle wasting idea. First off, muscle yields much less energy per pound, about 600 calories in fact. So it seems to vanish at a pretty good rate once it starts burning. But we can tap fat first, simply by entering into ketosis. Well, some of us are pretty close to ketosis in the morning, at least a lot closer than we are at night. We may even be close enough to deplete the glycogen within the first few minutes of cardio, and thereby we tap our fat stores pretty early in the routine.
Now what I do is this. I take about a gram or so of ALA along with my energy drink, sans calories, and hit the sauna until I feel that lightheadedness come on. Then, I hit the treadmill and start those windsprints. I always have a bottle of orange juice right there, and when things get dicey, I sip that juice.
This works, people. This works better than anything else, if you can pull it off.
In second place is a fast uphill walk with weights. Just hit the ALA and sauna/xenadrine, and get a couple of five pound dumbells, put the incline at a maximum and walk uphill at four mph for thirty minutes. Do it first thing in the am on an empty stomach, for the reasons mentioned above.
I don't know what this contrary analysis/skepticism from this Nelson guy is stemming from, but at first glance it looks an awful lot like arrogance.
Its real simple. Get a ketostick, try the above exercise regimen, and see the results for yourself. The stick will tell you what you already guessed, and within a week, the fat will be visibly lessened.
Add to this the presence of a good anticatabolic, such as trenbelone or winstrol, and you will have absolutely no trouble whatsoever getting lean in short order. It isn't easy at all, but it sure is effective.
After all, the question of muscle wasting is the only real valid one, and that question is effectively answered by that ever reliable fina/winny stack. Both can keep muscle in place even in a calorie deficit, and that is without any exercise whatsoever. I can fire enough fina/winny and just eat less, and I will start looking ripped, all the while staying pretty strong. When I add those sprints and uphill walks with weights, I get from seven percent to around four or finve within two weeks, easy.
Plenty of pics of me around here to prove this, folks.
Best of luck.
The first objective is easily met. We can compute the force needed by using the equation F=ma, and we will quickly see that on a level surface, the factors are: leg turn over speed, stride length, and body weight. Obviously, this means that it is possible for a fast walk to be more effective than a slow run, provided the striding is done correctly. This also illustrates why sprints are the obvious choice for high intensity--you have maximum turn over, stride length, and bodyweight propulsion. That equals maximum energy output.
Ok, now about this muscle wasting idea. First off, muscle yields much less energy per pound, about 600 calories in fact. So it seems to vanish at a pretty good rate once it starts burning. But we can tap fat first, simply by entering into ketosis. Well, some of us are pretty close to ketosis in the morning, at least a lot closer than we are at night. We may even be close enough to deplete the glycogen within the first few minutes of cardio, and thereby we tap our fat stores pretty early in the routine.
Now what I do is this. I take about a gram or so of ALA along with my energy drink, sans calories, and hit the sauna until I feel that lightheadedness come on. Then, I hit the treadmill and start those windsprints. I always have a bottle of orange juice right there, and when things get dicey, I sip that juice.
This works, people. This works better than anything else, if you can pull it off.
In second place is a fast uphill walk with weights. Just hit the ALA and sauna/xenadrine, and get a couple of five pound dumbells, put the incline at a maximum and walk uphill at four mph for thirty minutes. Do it first thing in the am on an empty stomach, for the reasons mentioned above.
I don't know what this contrary analysis/skepticism from this Nelson guy is stemming from, but at first glance it looks an awful lot like arrogance.
Its real simple. Get a ketostick, try the above exercise regimen, and see the results for yourself. The stick will tell you what you already guessed, and within a week, the fat will be visibly lessened.
Add to this the presence of a good anticatabolic, such as trenbelone or winstrol, and you will have absolutely no trouble whatsoever getting lean in short order. It isn't easy at all, but it sure is effective.
After all, the question of muscle wasting is the only real valid one, and that question is effectively answered by that ever reliable fina/winny stack. Both can keep muscle in place even in a calorie deficit, and that is without any exercise whatsoever. I can fire enough fina/winny and just eat less, and I will start looking ripped, all the while staying pretty strong. When I add those sprints and uphill walks with weights, I get from seven percent to around four or finve within two weeks, easy.
Plenty of pics of me around here to prove this, folks.
Best of luck.
You could not be more wrong. I do NOT assume that one study with a small "n" is "hard evidence" simply it is a study done that provides us with information that under the design of the study certain things occurred which were reported, these results would "seem" to lend support to a very popular notion. Since when do the words "seems to indicate" equal hard evidence? Who is using bad logic here? Just because you say , if the order were reversed the results would be different does not make it so! I'll see if I can find the full text of the study to make sure there was suffiicient time between trials, yes they were seperate trials. BTW, my read does not indicate that the first three were in a fasted state, they were conducted a certain time after eating, to me that is not a fasted state. Maybe we were reading different studies.... Besides I am not sure how changing the order would have any effect, it sounds like the trials were done on seperate days. You might try to be somewhat less condescending, you are probably not the only person in the world who has had graduate level stat courses and experimental design. You have actually disproved nothing unless your opinion is somehow all that it takes. Also, i understand that just because a study does not exist does not mean that something is not so, give me a break! Give us something to go on here besides your very colorful "fork in the eye" analogy, the physiology of what we are talking about is not rocket science, I would think if someone took some time to dig out the texts we could get a lot of answers. At least that way we would not be basing our opinions on "flawed" studies and very subjective opinions.
And finally, what in the world has your remark about testosterone got to do with what we are talking about? Remember, you are the one who brought up "logic", I believe the logical fallacy you are trying to think about right now would be "false analogy" or "the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar". I suppose i fyou want we could take a look at the research on the effect of aerobic exercise on test levels but we might want to save that for another thread.
I had hoped that you would be able to discuss this without inuendo using your considerable knowledge and bring to the table some relevant information. I am still waiting.
And finally, what in the world has your remark about testosterone got to do with what we are talking about? Remember, you are the one who brought up "logic", I believe the logical fallacy you are trying to think about right now would be "false analogy" or "the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar". I suppose i fyou want we could take a look at the research on the effect of aerobic exercise on test levels but we might want to save that for another thread.
I had hoped that you would be able to discuss this without inuendo using your considerable knowledge and bring to the table some relevant information. I am still waiting.
Nelson Montana said:
Funken shredded: You're all over the place. First you're trying to get glycogen depleted, then you're sipping orange juice. Then you say you're "more in ketosis in the morning" which doesn't make sense because you either are or you aren't and if you are, it isn't good. Then you talk about avoiding catabolism by using drugs! What's your point?
When someone says "it worked for me" it is meaningless. EVERYTHING works. But some things work better han others and some things will continue to work whereas others won't. That's the whole argument.
jbolderman: We're just not going to see eye to eye here. You mentionend "hard evidence" and I was trying to show that the evidence you produced was flawed. What does losing testosterone have to do with catabolism? Do I really have to explain this? What you're not understanding is that results slow down over time. Comparing the results from the early testing to that of the later testing distorts the outcome. A more accurate test would be to split the people up into 2 groups and compare the results from those who had fasted and those who didn't but even then, there are countless variables.
When someone says "it worked for me" it is meaningless. EVERYTHING works. But some things work better han others and some things will continue to work whereas others won't. That's the whole argument.
jbolderman: We're just not going to see eye to eye here. You mentionend "hard evidence" and I was trying to show that the evidence you produced was flawed. What does losing testosterone have to do with catabolism? Do I really have to explain this? What you're not understanding is that results slow down over time. Comparing the results from the early testing to that of the later testing distorts the outcome. A more accurate test would be to split the people up into 2 groups and compare the results from those who had fasted and those who didn't but even then, there are countless variables.
Nelson:
Your right of course, guess we are not seeing eye to eye, seems like you are addressing a more global issue while I was addressing a very specific issue, ie do you burn more fat in a fed or unfed state. Within that narrow parameter, I'm not sure test has much significance, perhaps. I also believe you when you state that results slow down over time, I am just having a problem with results slowing down over three or four bouts of exercise, and, if results (fat burning) slowed down why the later bout, that of the fasting state as opposed to the post prandial previous states showed more fat loss. BTW, thanks for not coming back with a flame, I am really interested in these questions both the specific issue I was talking about and the more global ones. i have always been a proponenet of the idea that reasonably intelligent folk with reasonable attitudes can eventually see their way to reasonable solution/answers.
jb
==============
"jbolderman: We're just not going to see eye to eye here. You mentionend "hard evidence" and I was trying to show that the evidence you produced was flawed. What does losing testosterone have to do with catabolism? Do I really have to explain this? What you're not understanding is that results slow down over time. Comparing the results from the early testing to that of the later testing distorts the outcome. A more accurate test would be to split the people up into 2 groups and compare the results from those who had fasted and those who didn't but even then, there are countless variables."
Your right of course, guess we are not seeing eye to eye, seems like you are addressing a more global issue while I was addressing a very specific issue, ie do you burn more fat in a fed or unfed state. Within that narrow parameter, I'm not sure test has much significance, perhaps. I also believe you when you state that results slow down over time, I am just having a problem with results slowing down over three or four bouts of exercise, and, if results (fat burning) slowed down why the later bout, that of the fasting state as opposed to the post prandial previous states showed more fat loss. BTW, thanks for not coming back with a flame, I am really interested in these questions both the specific issue I was talking about and the more global ones. i have always been a proponenet of the idea that reasonably intelligent folk with reasonable attitudes can eventually see their way to reasonable solution/answers.
jb
==============
"jbolderman: We're just not going to see eye to eye here. You mentionend "hard evidence" and I was trying to show that the evidence you produced was flawed. What does losing testosterone have to do with catabolism? Do I really have to explain this? What you're not understanding is that results slow down over time. Comparing the results from the early testing to that of the later testing distorts the outcome. A more accurate test would be to split the people up into 2 groups and compare the results from those who had fasted and those who didn't but even then, there are countless variables."
Counterstrike said:
I just got out of the Army, I've been running non-stop 3-4 times a week for 4 years. Mon and Wed we ran 4 miles and Fridays we ran 6 miles. Once a month we JOGGED 12 miles. I've had to deal with shin splints right before a PT test. One of my buddies showed me a trick to deal with it, and it has always worked for me since. Buy some cloth wrist bans that basketball players normally wear, and slip them over your shin where the splints normally accure. I don't know why it works so well, it just does. Hope this helps.
Fukkenshredded
New member
Sheesh...
Closer to ketosis in the morning, bro. Semantics notwithstanding, the point is easily recognized. The orange juice is there in case I get too faint too quickly. Five grams of sugar is easily burned very quickly. Just hop along right on the border of ketosis, see.
And what is my point about using drugs for anticatabolic benefits?
You gotta be kidding. This is a board dedicated to that very discussion. The use of steroids to assist muscle building/prevent muscle wasting.
Not a terribly difficult point to internalize.
Think of this another way. I have outlined an approach to fatburning/muscle preservation that has worked well for me, and has worked well for every single person that I know that has tried it.
What you have done is argue that nothing is really provable, from an intellectual standpoint. But we are all waiting for a tangible routine, even a suggestion, that could serve as a real world approach to this challenge.
Now, I am no doctor...I am not even a bodybuilder. But I recognize that there are some irrefutable facts, and while they may be difficult to support with syntax, especially in the absence of a stack of studies, at the end of the day, the proof is in the results.
What are you going to do with your clients who want to win a contest...send them up on stage with a stack of studies and a microphone?
I will stand by my advice on this one. And moreover, I will challenge you to disprove the effectiveness of this approach in the real world. In other words, try it out and see what happens.
In the meanwhile, I will be watching for an alternative suggestion from you, and I will even undertake a routine that you suggest, so that I can add to my own empirical knowledge.
How much simpler could this be? Engage in exercise that burns tissue, encourages muscle trauma, and take drugs that preserve muscle and encourage muscle growth. Be as intense as possible in both regards, factoring in all available safety issues. Voila. Ripped and muscular.
Closer to ketosis in the morning, bro. Semantics notwithstanding, the point is easily recognized. The orange juice is there in case I get too faint too quickly. Five grams of sugar is easily burned very quickly. Just hop along right on the border of ketosis, see.
And what is my point about using drugs for anticatabolic benefits?
You gotta be kidding. This is a board dedicated to that very discussion. The use of steroids to assist muscle building/prevent muscle wasting.
Not a terribly difficult point to internalize.
Think of this another way. I have outlined an approach to fatburning/muscle preservation that has worked well for me, and has worked well for every single person that I know that has tried it.
What you have done is argue that nothing is really provable, from an intellectual standpoint. But we are all waiting for a tangible routine, even a suggestion, that could serve as a real world approach to this challenge.
Now, I am no doctor...I am not even a bodybuilder. But I recognize that there are some irrefutable facts, and while they may be difficult to support with syntax, especially in the absence of a stack of studies, at the end of the day, the proof is in the results.
What are you going to do with your clients who want to win a contest...send them up on stage with a stack of studies and a microphone?
I will stand by my advice on this one. And moreover, I will challenge you to disprove the effectiveness of this approach in the real world. In other words, try it out and see what happens.
In the meanwhile, I will be watching for an alternative suggestion from you, and I will even undertake a routine that you suggest, so that I can add to my own empirical knowledge.
How much simpler could this be? Engage in exercise that burns tissue, encourages muscle trauma, and take drugs that preserve muscle and encourage muscle growth. Be as intense as possible in both regards, factoring in all available safety issues. Voila. Ripped and muscular.
F'nshredded:
It is realatively easy to talk the body into burning fat preverentially over carbohydrates, simply exercise on an empty stomach and keep the exercise intensity down.
jb
============================================
Am J Physiol 1995 Dec;269(6 Pt 1):E1031-6 Related Articles, Links
Effect of physical exercise on glycogen turnover and net substrate utilization according to the nutritional state.
============================================
Proc Nutr Soc 1995 Mar;54(1):107-21 Related Articles, Links
Fuel selection, muscle fibre.
Hultman E.
It is realatively easy to talk the body into burning fat preverentially over carbohydrates, simply exercise on an empty stomach and keep the exercise intensity down.
jb
============================================
Am J Physiol 1995 Dec;269(6 Pt 1):E1031-6 Related Articles, Links
Effect of physical exercise on glycogen turnover and net substrate utilization according to the nutritional state.
============================================
Proc Nutr Soc 1995 Mar;54(1):107-21 Related Articles, Links
Fuel selection, muscle fibre.
Hultman E.
40butpumpin
New member
That's a 15 minute mile, I was doing a 14 minute mile on really rough terraine so I'd have to say no, it's not too high. But I was doing around 4 miles at a little under an hour, seemed perfect. It's when I started jogging it is when I got into trouble...damn shin splints.
Fukkenshredded
New member
Ok, another thing to remember is that the majority of the fatburning is going to occur outside of the gym. If you engage in a moderate intensity exercise, you will burn fat, true enough.
The thing about sprints is that you only have to do five or six all out sprints to get some great results. The idea is to set the body into a mode that burns up the fat all day long. there are plenty of studies (for all ya intellectuals out dere...) that suppoet the notion that HIGH INTENSITY ANAEROBIC EXERCISE is the most effective pathway to such a condition.
The theory has proven to be true in my case.
Example: Warm up walk for five minutes, followed by a sixty second all out (12mph) sprint, followed by two minute walk, another sprint, and so on, until I literaly lock up, which only take a few minutes. Just go to total depletion, then walk another fifteen minutes or so uphill.
All I am doing is trying to help out here. I am not trying to preach from a soapbox about some esoteric theory. This approach works, people. Believe me.
The thing about sprints is that you only have to do five or six all out sprints to get some great results. The idea is to set the body into a mode that burns up the fat all day long. there are plenty of studies (for all ya intellectuals out dere...) that suppoet the notion that HIGH INTENSITY ANAEROBIC EXERCISE is the most effective pathway to such a condition.
The theory has proven to be true in my case.
Example: Warm up walk for five minutes, followed by a sixty second all out (12mph) sprint, followed by two minute walk, another sprint, and so on, until I literaly lock up, which only take a few minutes. Just go to total depletion, then walk another fifteen minutes or so uphill.
All I am doing is trying to help out here. I am not trying to preach from a soapbox about some esoteric theory. This approach works, people. Believe me.
Here is an interesting article on high intensity cardio:
anabolicmass.com
And isn’t 12 mph the same as running a 5 min mile? That is FAST!
anabolicmass.com
And isn’t 12 mph the same as running a 5 min mile? That is FAST!
Seth said:
Something I see you people leaving out is that even when you are through with your aerobic session your metabolic rate is increased for a good while and you burn more calories at rest. Damn this isn't rocket science. Just get a good book. So much bad info on these boards.
Nelson Montana said:
What makes you an expert? What are your credentials? I know that when I only lifted weights, I was in poor cardio condition. I could bench press 400 pounds but couldn't run around the block without feeling like I was going to pass out. I disagree with you and many exercise scientists would as well. A well rounded exercise program includes weight training and cardio work. When I began incorporating cardio into my workouts, it made a world of difference. There are numerous benefits you get from intense aerobic exercise that you don't get from weightlifting alone. Common sense tells me this as well as the scientific reports I have read. My body doesn't lie.
Seth, that was a great reference. I think the problem we have here is that of black and white. One side says that aerobics suck and weightlifting is the only way to go, the other says, whoa there! Aerobics is a necessary part of any training regime, not only for fat loss but for cardiovascular health. THe truth , I suspect, lies in between. THere is absolutely no doubt that aerobic conditioning leads to a significant reducting in CVR(cardio vascular risk) arguably more reduction than weightlifting(backed up by at least one sudy reported in a well respected peer reviewed journal. It is also an incontrovertable fact that fat is preferntially burned at lower exercise intensity while carbohydrate is the preferred fuel at high intensity(plus 70% VO2 Max.) Now, before you get your undies in a bundle, Nelson, hear me out! By looking at the big picture, it seems that there is room for all to come to the party, it looks like for overall fat loss, interval training is the king for high/low intensity aerobics/anaerobic training vs aerobic only training(although both burn fat and improve cvr. For those not interested in anything other than resistance training. just interested in fat burning it seems that there may be some truth to the notion that resistance training raises the bmr for a long period of time and in an equal energy expenditure situation will burn more fat than low intensity exercise. It is not inconceivable that a comparison can be made to interval training(running/sprinting) to resistance exercise done in such a fashion that the heart rate fluctuates bwtween aerobic and anaerobic. I suggest that there is room for both if done properly. And just to prove that I am open minded on this subject and respond to informtion as I receive it that changes my thinking, expanding my knowledge here is a study just for nelson! <GRIN>
jb
ps, note the standard remarks about well respected, peer riewed, yada yada
===========================================
J Appl Physiol 2002 Oct 11; [epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links
Effect of Resistance Exercise on Postprandial Lipemia.
Petitt DS, Arngrimsson SA, Cureton KJ.
Department of Exercise Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of resistance exercise on postprandial lipemia. Fourteen young men and women participated in each of three treatments: 1) control (CON), 2) resistance exercise (RE), and 3) aerobic exercise (AE) estimated to have an energy expenditure (EE) equal that for RE. Each trial consisted of performing a treatment on Day 1 and ingesting a fat-tolerance test meal 16 hours later (Day 2). Resting metabolic rate and fat oxidation were measured at baseline and at 3 and 6 hours postprandial on Day 2. Blood was collected at baseline and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 hours after meal ingestion. RE and AE were similar in EE (1.7 +/- 0.1 vs 1.6 +/- 0.1 MJ, respectively; means +/- SE), as measured using the Cosmed K4b(2). Baseline triglycerides (TG) were significantly lower after RE than after CON (19%) and AE (21%). Further, the area under the postprandial response curve (AUC) for TG, adjusted for baseline differences, was significantly lower after RE than after CON (14%) and AE (18%). Resting fat oxidation was significantly greater after RE than after CON (21%) and AE (28%). These results indicate that resistance exercise lowers baseline and postprandial TG, and increases resting fat oxidation, 16 hours after exercise.
By looking at the big picture, it seems that there is room for all to come to the party, it looks like for overall fat loss, interval training is the king for high/low intensity aerobics/anaerobic training vs aerobic only training(although both burn fat and improve cvr. For those not interested in anything other than resistance training. just interested in fat burning it seems that there may be some truth to the notion that resistance training raises the bmr for a long period of time and in an equal energy expenditure situation will burn more fat than low intensity exercise. It is not inconceivable that a comparison can be made to interval training(running/sprinting) to resistance exercise done in such a fashion that the heart rate fluctuates bwtween aerobic and anaerobic. I suggest that there is room for both if done properly. And just to prove that I am open minded on this subject and respond to informtion as I receive it that changes my thinking, expanding my knowledge here is a study just for nelson! <GRIN>jb
ps, note the standard remarks about well respected, peer riewed, yada yada
===========================================
J Appl Physiol 2002 Oct 11; [epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links
Effect of Resistance Exercise on Postprandial Lipemia.
Petitt DS, Arngrimsson SA, Cureton KJ.
Department of Exercise Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of resistance exercise on postprandial lipemia. Fourteen young men and women participated in each of three treatments: 1) control (CON), 2) resistance exercise (RE), and 3) aerobic exercise (AE) estimated to have an energy expenditure (EE) equal that for RE. Each trial consisted of performing a treatment on Day 1 and ingesting a fat-tolerance test meal 16 hours later (Day 2). Resting metabolic rate and fat oxidation were measured at baseline and at 3 and 6 hours postprandial on Day 2. Blood was collected at baseline and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 hours after meal ingestion. RE and AE were similar in EE (1.7 +/- 0.1 vs 1.6 +/- 0.1 MJ, respectively; means +/- SE), as measured using the Cosmed K4b(2). Baseline triglycerides (TG) were significantly lower after RE than after CON (19%) and AE (21%). Further, the area under the postprandial response curve (AUC) for TG, adjusted for baseline differences, was significantly lower after RE than after CON (14%) and AE (18%). Resting fat oxidation was significantly greater after RE than after CON (21%) and AE (28%). These results indicate that resistance exercise lowers baseline and postprandial TG, and increases resting fat oxidation, 16 hours after exercise.
Similar threads
