Cardio for fatloss 65-75% MHR

[Gumball]

Hi!

I restarted doing this cardio on empty stomach @ 65-75% MHR. I am 24, so my MHR is 196, which gives me an interval of around 128-147 bpm for optimum fatloss.

Now, aren't these bpm a little too much for fatloss? I felt like I was pushing my legs a bit (stationary bike), and I also sweated quite a bit for a "low intensity" workout (I usually sweat a lot).

I think that if I go out running, I can keep myself between that interval, which doesn't seem right? If I did a brisk walk, on the other hand, I think I couldn't be able to reach at least 128 bmp needed to be in "the fat burning zone".

I am well conditioned as far as cardio is concerned, and do some sort of exercise almost everyday, so fitness levels are fine.

Any thoughts?? Is this interval correct?

Thanx

 

[mcr]

IMO it doesn't matter. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, but cardio, put bluntly, just burns calories. There's no special percentage that suddenly metabolises your fat stores and leaves what you've just eaten alone. The body thinks MUCH longer term than that.

I think the main reason most people stick to 65-75% MHR is because it's easier to burn 500 total calories doing that for an hour, than it is to burn 500 total calories from 90% MHR for (say) 30 minutes.

In other words, just work out how many calories you need/want to burn from cardio, and fit in whatever cardio you want at whatever rate you feel happy with in order to burn those calories.

 

[jstrick2]

Those numbers seem good. If you are having trouble getting the heart rate up while walking briskly, try hitting the treadmill and upping the incline until you get where you need. Thats usually what I do in the mornings. Others can probably give their opinions as well, but seems good to me.

 

[JKurz1]

IMO it doesn't matter. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, but cardio, put bluntly, just burns calories. There's no special percentage that suddenly metabolises your fat stores and leaves what you've just eaten alone. The body thinks MUCH longer term than that.

I think the main reason most people stick to 65-75% MHR is because it's easier to burn 500 total calories doing that for an hour, than it is to burn 500 total calories from 90% MHR for (say) 30 minutes.

In other words, just work out how many calories you need/want to burn from cardio, and fit in whatever cardio you want at whatever rate you feel happy with in order to burn those calories.

Actually, you are wrong, but I was wrong about it before too.....studies prove that there are HR percentages where you body uses fat stores as it's primary source of fuel while others use carbohydrates...do some research.......you'll see...........


As far as when you do cardio, this is widely debateable.....IMHO, I don't really think it matters.....I think I've lost a TON of strength and size from doing it on an empty tank...I now make sure to eat something at least 2 hours beforehand....

 

[mcr]

Actually, you are wrong, but I was wrong about it before too.....studies prove that there are HR percentages where you body uses fat stores as it's primary source of fuel while others use carbohydrates...do some research.......you'll see...........

Yes - but that's just how your body is fuelling itself during the cardio. It's burning a higher percentage of calories from fat rather than calories from carbs - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's using body fat. Sure there are studies that show the body is burning more calories from fat - but there isn't a study I've ever seen that shows 65% MHR cardio beating 90% MHR cardio in actual BODY fat loss. At the end of the day, what does it matter how your body fuelled itself - it burns 500 calories in each approach. This also explains why both ketogenic AND moderate carb / low fat diets work.

I think it was you who originally said (a few threads back) that the body thinks longer term than "shit I'd better burn some bodyfat because he's doing 70% MHR cardio right now". I TOTALLY subscribe to that view.

 

[JKurz1]

Yes - but that's just how your body is fuelling itself during the cardio. It's burning a higher percentage of calories from fat rather than calories from carbs - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's using body fat. Sure there are studies that show the body is burning more calories from fat - but there isn't a study I've ever seen that shows 65% MHR cardio beating 90% MHR cardio in actual BODY fat loss. At the end of the day, what does it matter how your body fuelled itself - it burns 500 calories in each approach. This also explains why both ketogenic AND moderate carb / low fat diets work.

I think it was you who originally said (a few threads back) that the body thinks longer term than "shit I'd better burn some bodyfat because he's doing 70% MHR cardio right now". I TOTALLY subscribe to that view.

Your body thinking in advance in not days like we do is very accurate. However, v02 tests have been performed on both olympic athetes and joe blows, resulting in high intensity exerc. burns more carbs as fuel than fat, but more overall calories post. The reason, we as bbers, like low-mod. intensity, is that it saves our carbs to shuttle the protein to our starving muscles.....

 

[treet0ps4]

if u go above target heart rate - 65ish %, then soon thereafter the body cannot keep up with energy supply through just fat, so it mobilizes protein also at that point, which is catabolic, so stay at 65

 

[turbinhunter]

HIIT burns 9 times more fat than low intensity cardio per minute... stick with HIIT.

 

[JKurz1]

HIIT burns 9 times more fat than low intensity cardio per minute... stick with HIIT.

 

[~SC~]

Yes - but that's just how your body is fuelling itself during the cardio. It's burning a higher percentage of calories from fat rather than calories from carbs - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's using body fat. Sure there are studies that show the body is burning more calories from fat - but there isn't a study I've ever seen that shows 65% MHR cardio beating 90% MHR cardio in actual BODY fat loss. At the end of the day, what does it matter how your body fuelled itself.

Wow, you couldn't be FURTHER off in reasoning. As well, everything above you have '"not seen" has been proven, it's PROVEN SCIENCE!

May wish to check out "why I don't count calories", an article I wrote. It's not as simple as KCALS in/KCALS out.

~SC~

 

[~SC~]

HIIT burns 9 times more fat than low intensity cardio per minute... stick with HIIT.

Sorry, but that's entirely WRONG.

It MAY burn more KCALS (ENERGY), NOT FAT. The heart-rate for HIIT is ABOVE that of mobilizing FAT STORES for fuel. IT"S PROVEN SCIENCE, so don't argue this point.

If the activity is TOO intense, FAT cannot be used quick enough for fuel. Plain/simple.

~SC~

 

[JKurz1]

Sorry, but that's entirely WRONG.

It MAY burn more KCALS (ENERGY), NOT FAT. The heart-rate for HIIT is ABOVE that of mobilizing FAT STORES for fuel. IT"S PROVEN SCIENCE, so don't argue this point.

If the activity is TOO intense, FAT cannot be used quick enough for fuel. Plain/simple.

~SC~

I was about to tear into it, but realized he was a newb and obviously misinformed......hey bro - shoot me the link to your article....I know your website, but I can't navigate through there very well. It's the color contrast with my work computer....doesn't work......or post it for all?

 

[~SC~]

All good, yes, mis-informed big time I'd say he is, but we can help him see the light!



~SC~

http://216.27.200.156/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14622#14622

 

[Burning_Inside]

Wow, you couldn't be FURTHER off in reasoning. As well, everything above you have '"not seen" has been proven, it's PROVEN SCIENCE!

May wish to check out "why I don't count calories", an article I wrote. It's not as simple as KCALS in/KCALS out.

~SC~

So I can eat 2000 cals daily worth of sugar and protein, but I'll get shredded form that as long as I stay under my BMR?

 

[Burning_Inside]

Sorry, but that's entirely WRONG.

It MAY burn more KCALS (ENERGY), NOT FAT. The heart-rate for HIIT is ABOVE that of mobilizing FAT STORES for fuel. IT"S PROVEN SCIENCE, so don't argue this point.

If the activity is TOO intense, FAT cannot be used quick enough for fuel. Plain/simple.

~SC~

"When you exercise vigorously, you get a robust hormonal change, which causes your body to burn more fat during your recovery time," says Janet Walberg Rankin, PhD, professor of nutrition at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg. Your metabolism also stays revved up five times longer after a vigorous workout than after an easy one. Over time, this can add up to burning an additional 100 to more than 200 calories a day"
http://www.prevention.com/cda/qamulti2002/0,2495,s1-7492,00.html

"copyright 2002 by Greg Landry, M.S.

You've probably heard it, "you have to exercise at a lower intensity to burn more fat.. to get in the "fat-burning zone." guess what, it's a myth! "
http://www.weight-loss.drugsnewsnetwork.com/fat_burning_zone.html

"by Jonny Bowden, M.A., C.N.S.

Now, this situation has led many people to assume that in order to "burn fat" they need to exercise at lower intensities. They're missing the boat. Why? Because while at rest, although a higher percentage of your calories is indeed coming from fat, you are ultimately burning a lower absolute number of calories. At higher intensity exercise, the percentage of calories from fat goes down, true -- but it is a percentage of a significantly higher number.
http://www.ivillage.com/diet/expert...randRef=0&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=11162527

~SC~ you need to get in touch with these well educated people immediately and inform them they have been taught some loony form of science.

Just busting your chops. I think these 3 paragraphs sum it up well enough for me (from the last link provided)

"Now, this situation has led many people to assume that in order to "burn fat" they need to exercise at lower intensities. They're missing the boat. Why? Because while at rest, although a higher percentage of your calories is indeed coming from fat, you are ultimately burning a lower absolute number of calories. At higher intensity exercise, the percentage of calories from fat goes down, true -- but it is a percentage of a significantly higher number.

To illustrate this critical difference, I often ask audiences to picture Ross Perot standing next to me. Then I ask them, "Would you rather have 90 percent of all the money I have in the world, or 3 percent of all the money Mr. Perot over here has?" When they give the obvious answer, I say, "But why? 90 percent is so much higher than 3 percent!

So, let's say you're exercising at a fairly low intensity that burns, oh, 100 calories in a half-hour. Let's say that 70 percent of those calories come from fat. Your neighbor, however, is working out much harder, outside the magical "fat burning" zone: She's burning up, say 300 calories in that same half hour, but only 50 percent of those calories are from fat. Now do the math. You're burning a higher percentage of fat, but 70 percent of your 100 calories equals 70 fat calories burned. Your neighbor, on the other hand, is burning a lower percentage of fat, but she has burned up 50 percent of 300 calories, or 150 fat calories, more than twice what you've burned in the same period of time! "

Discuss

 

[~SC~]

So I can eat 2000 cals daily worth of sugar and protein, but I'll get shredded form that as long as I stay under my BMR?

That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what the article reveals.

~SC~

 

[~SC~]

To make this quick/short, I could sit here and copy/paste THOUSANDS of articles in support of 65-75% mild cardio, and many opposing HIIT.

I won't, there is no point. I know what works for myself and the 100's I assist, and I'm not changing ONE thing as the body composition changes that I provide would NEVER happen w/HIIT.

I am focused on preserving/attaining lean mass while improving body composition, and HIIT does not address those needs for my customized approaches. The studies you pasted are about kcals burned during the period, and that is not the concern w/the type of cardio that I wish to utilize in my approaches. I want FAT mobilized DURING cardio, not the burning of muscle glycogen (kcals) only to get an elevated metabolism after. Your metabolism is elevated after the 65-75% MHR anyhow, so you get that benefit as well.

So, copy/paste all day, the fact is that there are a plethora of arguments for both sides of the cardio stance. Just do what YOU need to do to get the results YOU want, that's the key.

No sense in arguing cardio styles, I've too much work to do, even on a Saturday. Fitness never sleeps!

~SC~

"When you exercise vigorously, you get a robust hormonal change, which causes your body to burn more fat during your recovery time," says Janet Walberg Rankin, PhD, professor of nutrition at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg. Your metabolism also stays revved up five times longer after a vigorous workout than after an easy one. Over time, this can add up to burning an additional 100 to more than 200 calories a day"
http://www.prevention.com/cda/qamulti2002/0,2495,s1-7492,00.html

"copyright 2002 by Greg Landry, M.S.

You've probably heard it, "you have to exercise at a lower intensity to burn more fat.. to get in the "fat-burning zone." guess what, it's a myth! "
http://www.weight-loss.drugsnewsnetwork.com/fat_burning_zone.html

"by Jonny Bowden, M.A., C.N.S.

Now, this situation has led many people to assume that in order to "burn fat" they need to exercise at lower intensities. They're missing the boat. Why? Because while at rest, although a higher percentage of your calories is indeed coming from fat, you are ultimately burning a lower absolute number of calories. At higher intensity exercise, the percentage of calories from fat goes down, true -- but it is a percentage of a significantly higher number.
http://www.ivillage.com/diet/expert...randRef=0&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=11162527

~SC~ you need to get in touch with these well educated people immediately and inform them they have been taught some loony form of science.

Just busting your chops. I think these 3 paragraphs sum it up well enough for me (from the last link provided)

"Now, this situation has led many people to assume that in order to "burn fat" they need to exercise at lower intensities. They're missing the boat. Why? Because while at rest, although a higher percentage of your calories is indeed coming from fat, you are ultimately burning a lower absolute number of calories. At higher intensity exercise, the percentage of calories from fat goes down, true -- but it is a percentage of a significantly higher number.

To illustrate this critical difference, I often ask audiences to picture Ross Perot standing next to me. Then I ask them, "Would you rather have 90 percent of all the money I have in the world, or 3 percent of all the money Mr. Perot over here has?" When they give the obvious answer, I say, "But why? 90 percent is so much higher than 3 percent!

So, let's say you're exercising at a fairly low intensity that burns, oh, 100 calories in a half-hour. Let's say that 70 percent of those calories come from fat. Your neighbor, however, is working out much harder, outside the magical "fat burning" zone: She's burning up, say 300 calories in that same half hour, but only 50 percent of those calories are from fat. Now do the math. You're burning a higher percentage of fat, but 70 percent of your 100 calories equals 70 fat calories burned. Your neighbor, on the other hand, is burning a lower percentage of fat, but she has burned up 50 percent of 300 calories, or 150 fat calories, more than twice what you've burned in the same period of time! "

Discuss

 

[JKurz1]

Sc...what would your average cardio seesion look like??

 

[John WB]

And what would you recommend while bulking?

 

[view]

Sc...what would your average cardio seesion look like??

bump.

 

[nikolai_bolkov]

yes, do you have a recommendation for mins\session and number of sessions per week...

I'm leaning towards trying 40 mins\session for 5-6 sessions per week

 

[Gumball]

Thanx for all the info posted here, but my main question was: isn't 70-75% of MHR too much for fatloss? I am sure I can keep my heart beating in those %s by running, the same wouldn't happen if I was walking (outside, flat, even if I was walking as fast as possible!).

While stationary biking I don't pass the 140 bmp easily (around 70% MHR for me), and I feel some effort doing it (maybe too much?).

I am also interested in SC's cardio routine, but I believe it's pretty plain/simple.

Thanx

 

[Dieharder]

HIGH-INTENSITY INTERVAL TRAINING:

THE OPTIMAL PROTOCOL FOR FAT LOSS?

James Krieger

As exercise intensity increases, the proportion of fat utilized as an energy substrate decreases, while the proportion of carbohydrates utilized increases (5). The rate of fatty acid mobilization from adipose tissue also declines with increasing exercise intensity (5). This had led to the common recommendation that low- to moderate-intensity, long duration endurance exercise is the most beneficial for fat loss (15). However, this belief does not take into consideration what happens during the post-exercise recovery period; total daily energy expenditure is more important for fat loss than the predominant fuel utilized during exercise (5). This is supported by research showing no significant difference in body fat loss between high-intensity and low-intensity submaximal, continuous exercise when total energy expenditure per exercise session is equated (2,7,9). Research by Hickson et al (11) further supports the notion that the predominant fuel substrate used during exercise does not play a role in fat loss; rats engaged in a high-intensity sprint training protocol achieved significant reductions in body fat, despite the fact that sprint training relies almost completely on carbohydrates as a fuel source.

Some research suggests that high-intensity exercise is more beneficial for fat loss than low- and moderate-intensity exercise (3,18,23,24). Pacheco-Sanchez et al (18) found a more pronounced fat loss in rats that exercised at a high intensity as compared to rats that exercised at a low intensity, despite both groups performing an equivalent amount of work. Bryner et al (3) found a significant loss in body fat in a group that exercised at a high intensity of 80-90% of maximum heart rate, while no significant change in body fat was found in the lower intensity group which exercised at 60-70% of maximum heart rate; no significant difference in total work existed between groups. An epidemiological study (24) found that individuals who regularly engaged in high-intensity exercise had lower skinfold thicknesses and waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs) than individuals who participated in exercise of lower intensities. After a covariance analysis was performed to remove the effect of total energy expenditure on skinfolds and WHRs, a significant difference remained between people who performed high-intensity exercise and people who performed lower-intensity exercise.

Tremblay et al (23) performed the most notable study which demonstrates that high-intensity exercise, specifically intermittent, supramaximal exercise, is the most optimal for fat loss. Subjects engaged in either an endurance training (ET) program for 20 weeks or a high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program for 15 weeks. The mean estimated energy cost of the ET protocol was 120.4 MJ, while the mean estimated energy cost of the HIIT protocol was 57.9 MJ. The decrease in six subcutaneous skinfolds tended to be greater in the HIIT group than the ET group, despite the dramatically lower energy cost of training. When expressed on a per MJ basis, the HIIT group's reduction in skinfolds was nine times greater than the ET group.

A number of explanations exist for the greater amounts of fat loss achieved by HIIT. First, a large body of evidence shows that high-intensity protocols, notably intermittent protocols, result in significantly greater post-exercise energy expenditure and fat utilization than low- or moderate-intensity protocols (1,4,8,14,19,21,25). Other research has found significantly elevated blood free-fatty-acid (FFA) concentrations or increased utilization of fat during recovery from resistance training (which is a form of HIIT) (16,17). Rasmussen et al (20) found higher exercise intensity resulted in greater acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) inactivation, which would result in greater FFA oxidation after exercise since ACC is an inhibitor of FFA oxidation. Tremblay et al (23) found HIIT to significantly increase muscle 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase activity (a marker of the activity of b oxidation) over ET. Finally, a number of studies have found high-intensity exercise to suppress appetite more than lower intensities (6,12,13,22) and reduce saturated fat intake (3).

Overall, the evidence suggests that HIIT is the most efficient method for achieving fat loss. However, HIIT carries a greater risk of injury and is physically and psychologically demanding (10), making low- and moderate-intensity, continuous exercise the best choice for individuals that are unmotivated or contraindicated for high-intensity exercise.

1. Bahr, R., and O.M. Sejersted. Effect of intensity of exercise on excess postexercise O2 consumption. Metabolism. 40:836-841, 1991.

2. Ballor, D.L., J.P. McCarthy, and E.J. Wilterdink. Exercise intensity does not affect the composition of diet- and exercise-induced body mass loss. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 51:142-146, 1990.

3. Bryner, R.W., R.C. Toffle, I.H. Ullrish, and R.A. Yeater. The effects of exercise intensity on body composition, weight loss, and dietary composition in women. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 16:68-73, 1997.

4. Burleson, Jr, M.A., H.S. O'Bryant, M.H. Stone, M.A. Collins, and T. Triplett-McBride. Effect of weight training exercise and treadmill exercise on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:518-522, 1998.

5. Coyle, E.H. Fat Metabolism During Exercise. [Online] Gatorade Sports Science Institute. http://www.gssiweb.com/references/s0000000200000015/s0000000200000016/d000000020000006d.html [1999, Mar 25]

6. Dickson-Parnell, B.E., and A. Zeichner. Effects of a short-term exercise program on caloric consumption. Health Psychol. 4:437-448, 1985.

7. Gaesser, G.A., and R.G. Rich. Effects of high- and low-intensity exercise training on aerobic capacity and blood lipids. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 16:269-274, 1984.

8. Gillette, C.A., R.C. Bullough, and C.L. Melby. Postexercise energy expenditure in response to acute aerobic or resistive exercise. Int. J. Sports Nutr. 4:347-360, 1994.

9. Grediagin, M.A., M. Cody, J. Rupp, D. Benardot, and R. Shern. Exercise intensity does not effect body composition change in untrained, moderately overfat women. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 95:661-665, 1995.

10. Grubbs, L. The critical role of exercise in weight control. Nurse Pract. 18(4):20,22,25-26,29, 1993.

11. Hickson, R.C., W.W. Heusner, W.D. Van Huss, D.E. Jackson, D.A. Anderson, D.A. Jones, and A.T. Psaledas. Effects of Dianabol and high-intensity sprint training on body composition of rats. Med. Sci. Sports. 8:191-195, 1976.

12. Imbeault, P., S. Saint-Pierre, N. Alméras, and A. Tremblay. Acute effects of exercise on energy intake and feeding behaviour. Br. J. Nutr. 77:511-521, 1997.

13. Katch, F.I., R. Martin, and J. Martin. Effects of exercise intensity on food consumption in the male rat. Am J. Clin. Nutr. 32:1401-1407, 1979.

14. Laforgia, J. R.T. Withers, N.J. Shipp, and C.J. Gore. Comparison of energy expenditure elevations after submaximal and supramaximal running. J. Appl. Physiol. 82:661-666, 1997.

15. Mahler, D.A., V.F. Froelicher, N.H. Miller, and T.D. York. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, edited by W.L. Kenney, R.H. Humphrey, and C.X. Bryant. Media, PA: Williams and Wilkins, 1995, chapt. 10, p. 218-219.

16. McMillan, J.L., M.H. Stone, J. Sartin, R. Keith, D. Marple, Lt. C. Brown, and R.D. Lewis. 20-hour physiological responses to a single weight-training session. J. Strength Cond. Res. 7(3):9-21, 1993.

17. Melby, C., C. Scholl, G. Edwards, and R. Bullough. Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:1847-1853, 1993.

18. Pacheco-Sanchez, M., and K.K Grunewald. Body fat deposition: effects of dietary fat and two exercise protocols. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 13:601-607, 1994.

19. Phelain, J.F., E. Reinke, M.A. Harris, and C.L. Melby. Postexercise energy expenditure and substrate oxidation in young women resulting from exercise bouts of different intensity. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 16:140-146, 1997.

20. Rasmussen, B.B., and W.W. Winder. Effect of exercise intensity on skeletal muscle malonyl-CoA and acetyl-CoA carboxylase. J. Appl. Physiol. 83:1104-1109, 1997.

21. Smith, J., and L. McNaughton. The effects of intensity of exercise on excess postexercise oxygen consumption and energy expenditure in moderately trained men and women. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 67:420-425, 1993.

22. Thompson, D.A., L.A. Wolfe, and R. Eikelboom. Acute effects of exercise intensity on appetite in young men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 20:222-227, 1988.

23. Tremblay, A., J. Simoneau, and C. Bouchard. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 43:814-818, 1994.

24. Tremblay, A., J. Després, C. Leblanc, C.L. Craig, B. Ferris, T. Stephens, and C. Bouchard. Effect of intensity of physical activity on body fatness and fat distribution. Am J. Clin. Nutr. 51:153-157, 1990.

25. Treuth, M.S., G.R. Hunter, and M. Williams. Effects of exercise intensity on 24-h energy expenditure and substrate oxidation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:1138-1143

 

[Dieharder]

This has been debated on the boards until its blue in the face, so i thought to myself, hmmm when was i the leanest-strongest-most cut in my life? ANSWER: when i ran track in high school and freshman year of college (400m, 110hurdles, high jump). What did i eat then? ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Granted, my metabolism was probably through the roof back then, and i knew nothing about nutrition. So i started running sprints again a little over a month ago, kind of watched what i ate, and what happened? Striations and veins start popping up all over the place, seperation in my chest, delts, calves, and quads, muscles noticeably looking leaner, stronger, etc. My body began to adapt to the stress i was putting on it. Now you will all say that is due to reduced bodyfat, but i did low intensity cardio before while on FINA and it never worked this fast.
Now some bodybuilders really are too big and carry too much mass to do sprints, but its not just sprints or HIIT, its fucking INTENSITY that is the key. Get your fucking heart rate up, go all out for short periods, rest, repeat. Another example of HIIT would be doing farmers walks. Try and carry your bodyweight a certain distance, rest, repeat. Losing muscle? Its a fucking 20-30min workout tops for christ's sake. This allows you to have that momentary lapse in your diet, and helps you stay lean year round, because i guarantee that less than 20% of the people on these boards actually compete and are complete monsters that need to come in at a certain weight.

 

[NoWork]

There is a time for both high and low intensity cardio. Who cares about percentages and target fat burning zones. You burn the highest PERCENTAGE of fat sitting your ass in front of the computer. It's all about calories burned as was said earlier. Unless you are approaching a contest, I see no reason to do low intensity cardio. Get out there and bust your ass and you will see results. There are too many fat asses that walk and walk and get no results because the amount of calories they burn is the equivilant of a can of coke. People like SC get results from that because everything else (DIET) is in check. later

 

[Burning_Inside]

DieHarder, nice article there. never again will i do anything but hiit type cardio.