Cardio Misconception #1

[2Thick]

You're almost as stubborn in your views as Nelson, 2thick.

If I were really anal, i'd dig up a dozen studies showing that HIIT is more effective at reducing bodyfat than low intensity cardio...but I doubt that even that would convince you.

Maybe I am not being clear enough.

This is not a HIIT vs. low intensity thread.

This is pointing out that going high intensity is not burning fat directly. It is just burning calories (which might burn fat depending on your diet and training).

As a person who keeps a very healthy diet, burning fat with low intensity is most beneficial.

Using HIIT is counterproductive for people with a well-rounded healthy diet that is low in saturated fats and high in O-3 fatty acids.

 

[Bulldog_10]

This is nothing new people...I don't even know why people are arguing about this...maybe it's just the demeaning attitude of certain posters that makes people want to argue things like this.

Low intensity = higher percentage of fat oxidized during the session.

High intensity = higher percentage of carbohydrate oxidized during session.

 

[rager2500]

2Thick,

Losing weight without the aid of anabolics, is a mere calorie in vs. calorie expenditure. It's really as simple as that. Considering you are not a beginner trainer, you cannot grow if your body does not have the calories to facilitate the growth. And, you cannot lose the weight if your body is not in a calorie deficit, and again, this is predominantly why we use fat burners, to raise our metabolic rate of burning throughout the day. If this wasnt the case, then we wouldnt be using ECA, clen, DNP, etc. Comes down to old school thought v. current studies. Old habits and myths are hard to void.

 

[rager2500]

This is nothing new people...I don't even know why people are arguing about this...maybe it's just the demeaning attitude of certain posters that makes people want to argue things like this.

Low intensity = higher percentage of fat oxidized during the session.

High intensity = higher percentage of carbohydrate oxidized during session.

Bulldog is right here and so is 2Thick about the burning of calories during the session. The only thing we disagree on is the method to which burns the most fat over the long haul. Flames are flying all over the place

 

[kidkoala]

I agree with latinus. I definitely noticed more a "leaning out/muscle sparing" effect when i was skating(w/sprints) vs. low intensity treadmill work.

 

[latinus_spicticus]

2Thick,

This is my last response.

If you simply saying that low-intensity cardio burns a higher percentage of fat calories than high-intensity, then you are correct.

But, above, you say that this is not a High-intensity vs. low-intensity thread, then state

"As a person who keeps a very healthy diet, burning fat with low intensity is most beneficial.

Using HIIT is counterproductive for people with a well-rounded healthy diet that is low in saturated fats and high in O-3 fatty acids."


I'll sum it up for you.
HIIT will lead to quicker, greater fat-loss than doing low-intensity cardio because it causes a greater loss of calories, which leads to a greater loss of bodyfat.

HIIT will not burn muscle b/c of glycogen expediture. If this were true, then lifting weights would cause muscle loss. We know this is not true. Just as we (minus a few) know that HIIT will not cause muscle loss as long as the caloric deficit is not too great.

Cardio is unneccessary for dieting, since fat-loss is a function of calories in vs. calories out. Thus, cardiovascular exercise is not a requirement for fat loss. If one does implement cardio for fat-loss, however, HIIT is more effective than low-intensity, as it is much more efficient (burns many more calories in a much shorter time as well as causing a sustained elevation in metabolism) than the low-intensity variety.

Your assertion that low-intensity cardio burns a higher PERCENTAGE of fat calories vs. HIIT is correct. However, the total amount of calories that low-intensity cardio burns are much lower vs. HIIT. Hence, HIIT is a more effective means of fat-loss. It is not counterproductive unless taken to extremes. Such as doing interval training for an hour every day. Low intensity, similarly, can be counterproductive (i.e. walking at 3mph for 8 hours per day). In conclusion, if one is to do cardio-- HIIT is more effective than low-intensity.

You may want to test out the new AF neuro supplement before pondering this subject any further.

 

[flexed1]

My body only responds to low intensity cardio 25-30 minutes this is how i get cut. high intensity in me causes pain in joints, ankles and shins and it my bodies way of saying no. I listen to my body on all I do.

 

[WannaImpress]

2Thick,

This is my last response.

If you simply saying that low-intensity cardio burns a higher percentage of fat calories than high-intensity, then you are correct.

But, above, you say that this is not a High-intensity vs. low-intensity thread, then state

"As a person who keeps a very healthy diet, burning fat with low intensity is most beneficial.

Using HIIT is counterproductive for people with a well-rounded healthy diet that is low in saturated fats and high in O-3 fatty acids."


I'll sum it up for you.
HIIT will lead to quicker, greater fat-loss than doing low-intensity cardio because it causes a greater loss of calories, which leads to a greater loss of bodyfat.

HIIT will not burn muscle b/c of glycogen expediture. If this were true, then lifting weights would cause muscle loss. We know this is not true. Just as we (minus a few) know that HIIT will not cause muscle loss as long as the caloric deficit is not too great.

Cardio is unneccessary for dieting, since fat-loss is a function of calories in vs. calories out. Thus, cardiovascular exercise is not a requirement for fat loss. If one does implement cardio for fat-loss, however, HIIT is more effective than low-intensity, as it is much more efficient (burns many more calories in a much shorter time as well as causing a sustained elevation in metabolism) than the low-intensity variety.

Your assertion that low-intensity cardio burns a higher PERCENTAGE of fat calories vs. HIIT is correct. However, the total amount of calories that low-intensity cardio burns are much lower vs. HIIT. Hence, HIIT is a more effective means of fat-loss. It is not counterproductive unless taken to extremes. Such as doing interval training for an hour every day. Low intensity, similarly, can be counterproductive (i.e. walking at 3mph for 8 hours per day). In conclusion, if one is to do cardio-- HIIT is more effective than low-intensity.

You may want to test out the new AF neuro supplement before pondering this subject any further.

latinus_spicticus, thanks for the very informative post. I'm a big fan of HIIT cardio and now by reading your post you have just re-assured me!

 

[pharmguy]

Go read a book on human physiology and come back when you are finished

Can you recommend one?

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

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.


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

This would be true if the only muscles exercised during cardio were skeletal, but the heart is a huge muscle that uses exclusively fat for fuel no matter what your heart rate is. I'm unsure what fuels smooth muscle tissue.

Also if you are on a ketogenic diet you I would suspect skeletal muscle must be using fat even for short term energy indirectly.