Cardio Misconception #1

[papucho]

But the bigger your cardio capability the faster you recover...Right?
(and before you quote me, I mean cardio capability as in overall cardio-pulmonar perfomance, I ain't saying sprint, mount biking, high impact,sex; hold that last comma)

 

[poantrex]

WHO CARES WHAT YOUR HEART RATE IS DURING EXERCISE.

You rarely burn a signifigant amount of fat *during* exercise...what matters is raising your metabolism to an extent
that you burn fat and clear glucose more efficiently *following* exercise. High intensity jogging/running does this much more effectively than plodding along a treadmill half-assed.

I can't believe people think that doing something lazily will be more effective than busting your ass.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

And it (high intensity cardio) only takes 10-20 minutes 2 to 4 times a week max.

You are correct right here. I thought you were referring to 60 minute bouts of this. Now that would defeat muscle gain for sure.

 

[2Thick]

Some of you are missing the whole point of this post.

Your body does not burn fat at a high heart rate. It burns carbos at high rates because of the perceived need for extra fuel.

Moderate cardio at least 20 minutes burns more fat than "high intensity" cardio for the same amount of time. You might burn more calories with the "high intensity" cardio, but then you are hurting yourself by reducing calories without directly reducing fat stores.

Aerobic exercise burns fat while "high intensity" cardio (anaerobic) exercise burn carbos first (and then glucose stores).

 

[Kaksback]

2thick is right on this one folks.

the main source of energy is oxidative fat stores when intensity is low. why? when doing low intensity prolonged exercise, the heart begins pumping more, more blood is being pumped to send oxygen throughout the body. O2 is the substrate needed for ATP production (energy) the first cell broken down for atp production will be fat because the low intensity will not require precious glycogen stores to be burnt up.

less "calories" are burned per se, but the calories burned will be pure bodyfat (well close to 75-85% of those calories


during high intensity, glycogen will be burned first, then once glycogen stores are burned, then fat will be burned.

 

[Kaksback]

on a side note, many who know me on this board know i dont do cardio and get down to 5-6% bf. hheheheheheh

eat me ya fuckers...j/k

 

[rager2500]

The HIT (15-20 min) type of cardio does not burn more calories than slower steady state cardio(45-60 min), nor does it burn more fat calories DURING the cardio session. HIT cardio burns more efficiently because of its after effects, meaning it raises your metabolism after the session is done where as slower steady state cardio emphasizes the cardio session itself. In MY OPINION, I think that slow cardio burns too much muscle due to the duration of the activity,ie. 45 minutes where the HIT type of cardio preserved muscle due to its duration of activity ie.15min. The only problem is that HIT relies on the fast twictch muscle fibers, the same you use during your leg training, so you would have to curtail your leg training to fit the HIT type of cardio. I got much better result doing HIT, than slower state cardio. I had my bf measured where I did slow state cardio and lost alot of muscle along with the fat, switched to HIT the next year, and compared the results with every other factor being the same. Kept most of my muscle during HIT cardio and lost mostly fat, not to mention my lifts did not go down.

 

[Kaksback]

The HIT (15-20 min) type of cardio does not burn more calories than slower steady state cardio(45-60 min), nor does it burn more fat calories DURING the cardio session. HIT cardio burns more efficiently because of its after effects, meaning it raises your metabolism after the session is done where as slower steady state cardio emphasizes the cardio session itself. In MY OPINION, I think that slow cardio burns too much muscle due to the duration of the activity,ie. 45 minutes where the HIT type of cardio preserved muscle due to its duration of activity ie.15min. The only problem is that HIT relies on the fast twictch muscle fibers, the same you use during your leg training, so you would have to curtail your leg training to fit the HIT type of cardio. I got much better result doing HIT, than slower state cardio. I had my bf measured where I did slow state cardio and lost alot of muscle along with the fat, switched to HIT the next year, and compared the results with every other factor being the same. Kept most of my muscle during HIT cardio and lost mostly fat, not to mention my lifts did not go down.

hence me personally getting down to 5-6% bodyfat without cardio.

i keep strength training sessions extremely high for 45 mins each day, keep my diet in order and wah lah (plus some genetic advantage heheh)

but if you take 2thick for what he's saying he's right:

low intensity cardio burns more fat in terms of ratio of fat calories to total calories burned.

high intensity has a lower ratio of fat calories burned to total calories burned.

Percentage is higher with low intensity. doesnt mean its the best but he's right

 

[manny78]

on a side note, many who know me on this board know i dont do cardio and get down to 5-6% bf. hheheheheheh

eat me ya fuckers...j/k

lol......sounds like you dont know what 5% is.... stop using those Walmart caliper.

 

[Shallow Hal]

low intensity cardio burns more fat in terms of ratio of fat calories to total calories burned.

high intensity has a lower ratio of fat calories burned to total calories burned.

But wouldn't more total fat colries be burned in the high intensity scenario?