Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Cardio Misconception #1
- Thread starter 2Thick
- Start date
2Thick said:
You have to ask????
Circuscide had some novel ideas relating BBing to the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.
http://milossarcev.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Health;action=display;num=1039333879
Fukkenshredded
New member
Nearly everything posted on this thread is incorrect. Look at the thread "some observations about cardio" for an overview.
L
lil k
Guest
Andy13 said:
jesus citrus, how many boards do you post at...lol....what a whore...hahaha
Andy13 said:
What you are missing is the fact that we are not talking about caloric deficits. We are talking about burning fat while gaining lean body mass. In this case, we do not want to go into a deficit because we need the 300 or so extra (clean) calories to allow our protein intake to focus primarily on muscle repair and growth.
That is the difference between the marathon runner and the 200-800 meter runners. The marathon runner is constantly pushing the limits of their caloric balance, while the 200-800 meter runners are going to more likely be in surplus (even it is only a couple hundred calories). Hence, marathon runners usually have a very flat and less massive frame while it is the opposite for the 200-400 meter runners.
heres where i get confused.
i have tried hiit the last 3 weeks, mixed in with "lower intensity" cardio.
my heart rate during hiit gets up to 162/168 beats per minute, these sessions last about 20 minutes, in which 5 minutes is warmup/5 minutes cool down. so my heart is racing for @ 12 to 13 minutes overall.
on the low intensity days i go 30 minutes keeping my heart rate between 126 and 138 for @ 26 minutes.
am i lead to believe that there is a major difference between the 2? my low intensity cardio is an extremely brisk walk (4.2 to 4.7 mph, sometimes higher). i mean if you look at the 2, my average heart rate is higher for the hiit, but over the duration of the low intensity my heart rate stays higher longer.
this is where i am confused. is there that much of a difference? is my low intensity really more like moderate intensity, therefor more beneficial?
i have tried hiit the last 3 weeks, mixed in with "lower intensity" cardio.
my heart rate during hiit gets up to 162/168 beats per minute, these sessions last about 20 minutes, in which 5 minutes is warmup/5 minutes cool down. so my heart is racing for @ 12 to 13 minutes overall.
on the low intensity days i go 30 minutes keeping my heart rate between 126 and 138 for @ 26 minutes.
am i lead to believe that there is a major difference between the 2? my low intensity cardio is an extremely brisk walk (4.2 to 4.7 mph, sometimes higher). i mean if you look at the 2, my average heart rate is higher for the hiit, but over the duration of the low intensity my heart rate stays higher longer.
this is where i am confused. is there that much of a difference? is my low intensity really more like moderate intensity, therefor more beneficial?
Last edited:
