Cardio Question about intensity.

[Smurf the little pea.]

I am tired of jogging so I bought a exercise bike with an arm attachment piece a while back. I usually have to peddle for about 30-45 minutes at a fast pace to feel any kind of benefit from it.

My problem is that it is pretty tough mentally to do such a boring exercise every second day at such a high intensity. I was wondering if slowing down my pace to just lightly faster then leisurely would have many negative side effects (less calories burned, less toning, ect...)

Is it worth it to do low intensity cardio workouts?

 

[Cackerot69]

You seem to really be wanting to learn, ace

If you can do the cardi for 45 minutes then it's not exactly high intensity. Try some interval training, 30 seconds as hard as you can, 30 second lighter, and so on...for about 20 minutes. Cardio is anything that get your heart rate up (don;'t worry about the "fat burning zone" BS)....can be basketball, other sports, sex, running anything.....So, if it's really that boring then do something you enjoy moreso.

 

[fhg43]

If you can do the cardi for 45 minutes then it's not exactly high intensity. Try some interval training, 30 seconds as hard as you can, 30 second lighter, and so on...for about 20 minutes. Cardio is anything that get your heart rate up (don;'t worry about the "fat burning zone" BS)....can be basketball, other sports, sex, running anything.....So, if it's really that boring then do something you enjoy moreso.

Okay-
1) there really is a zone where you burn more fat-it ain't BS by any means. Decades of research have proven this beyond a doubt. Cackerot69 has a point though-Don't get to hung up on exercise intensity. Just do it. Ultimately it is calories in vs calories out. Just refuel with good food.

2) Sell your exercise bike and buy a real one. Do anything but be bored. You'll quit cardio or learn to hate it. Plus if you do real cardio (ride a real bike or run outside on a trail) you'll inevitably spend more time doing it and burn more calories.

FHG

 

[big4life]

Like they said try some interval training.
During one workout go at a constant pace,
then the next try interval training.

If you have a park or something around you,
try doing your running there.
Personally I can't stand running on a treadmill,
but if I go to a track, or a park I actually
enjoy running.

Change it up or you will get bored, and find reasons
not to do it.

 

[Cackerot69]

"1) there really is a zone where you burn more fat-it ain't BS by any means. Decades of research have proven this beyond a doubt."

Yes, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day. Thus, it's BS that you should do your cardio in the "fat burning zone". Calories in VS calories out, cardio at a higher intensity than that of the "fat burning zone" burns more calories so it's better for burning fat. Which basically makes the entire idea of the superiority of cardio done in the "fat burning zone" BS.

 

[bignate73]

"Calories in VS calories out, cardio at a higher intensity than that of the "fat burning zone" burns more calories so it's better for burning fat.

nope not exactly. at a rate of 55%MHR, of the total cals you are burning, 50% of them are from stored bodyfat that is mobilized through thermogenesis. @70% MHR the percentage drops to 33%, BUT you are burning more calories. you do burn more overall fat however with that increase in cals burned you run the risk of burning up more lbm than usual because you are teetering on being anaerobic and are dipping more into your glycogen stores which if they are depleted dips into LBM. thats the whole principle of fat burning "zone", its a more efficient training zone for a cosmetic athlete since it preserves lbm more than high intensity balls to the wall cardio. the term slow burn or long duration low intensity is a buzzword among bodybuilders for a reason. thats why.

 

[Skeeter1]

I agree with you on this one Cackerot69

 

[Cackerot69]

I understand where you're coming from bignate, and I do know this.

But think about it, how much impact on your bodyfat does that "fat burning zone" cardio have directly? Very little, insignificant. The reason cardio helps is not because of how much fat it burns directly, but how much calories it burns so at the end of the day you've expended more calories. So, while yes "fat burning zone" cardio may burn more fat directly, at the end of the day intense cardio is more effective for fat loss because it expends more calories (in less time), making it better for fat loss purposes.

 

[edgecrusher]

I've got to agree w/ Cackerott on this one as well. "Fat burning" cardio as it is called burns calories only during the training session itself. Afterwards, there is little to no effects on the metabolism, while cardio of an intense nature (i.e. sprinting or interval programs) ramp up the metabolism to increase caloric usage throughout the day.

One thing I have also noticed in myself and in many of my clients, is that when an individual begins doing intense cardio, it seems to increase there musculature. Also, an argument that was brought up to me one day is compare a mrathon runner to a sprinter. Look at the difference in there bodies. Marathoners are usually quite frail with a higher amount of bodyfat. While sprinters are generally much leaner and have a greater amount of muscle mass on there body.

 

[bignate73]

I understand where you're coming from bignate, and I do know this.

But think about it, how much impact on your bodyfat does that "fat burning zone" cardio have directly? Very little, insignificant. The reason cardio helps is not because of how much fat it burns directly, but how much calories it burns so at the end of the day you've expended more calories. So, while yes "fat burning zone" cardio may burn more fat directly, at the end of the day intense cardio is more effective for fat loss because it expends more calories (in less time), making it better for fat loss purposes.

fat loss yes, im thinking of maintaining as much lbm as possible though. the higher the intensity the easier it is to dip into skeletal muscle as an energy source. im all about keeping size.

as for edgecrusher's analogy. increase musculature...maybe due to an increased ability to recover BUT leaning out tends to give that illusion as well.

 

[MarkFlC5]

"1) there really is a zone where you burn more fat-it ain't BS by any means. Decades of research have proven this beyond a doubt."

Yes, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day. Thus, it's BS that you should do your cardio in the "fat burning zone". Calories in VS calories out, cardio at a higher intensity than that of the "fat burning zone" burns more calories so it's better for burning fat. Which basically makes the entire idea of the superiority of cardio done in the "fat burning zone" BS.

Right again Cack!!!

Hey man, if you learn one thing from these boards on Cardio, learn this:

http://www.cbass.com/fatburn.htm

Now, after reading the above link, do you still think you're doing HIT Cardio? Most people don't know what HIT Cardio is. Let me tell ya, its the hardest goddam thing you'll ever want to do. Those people doing 45 mins of 60-70 MHR don't know what they are missing.

Let me tell you, I have a stationary bike cause its the only cardio I can do as I have physical limiatons preventing running or swimming. So 6 months ago, I start riding this bike right? I use to ride it for about 30 mins with a friggin heart monitor making sure I was in that stupid "FAT ZONE". (BTW, I started a post basically stating that it doesn't friggin matter whether you r burning fat, glycogen, protein - you are burning calories goddamit and at the end of the its cal in/cal out - period!) Well, I lost about an inch in 4 months (continued to eat properly, mind you - no calorie restrictions here) but reached diminishing returns quickly.

Then I tried this Interval thing and something similar to the above link but not exactly. Hey, I'm not in that kind of cardio shape that it takes to do 170% VO2 MAX. So anyway, 30 sec intervals, going as fast as I can with a very high resistance, ok? I do this 8 times with 30 sec rests in between. After 7-8 workouts, I'm able to increase it to 10. But then I switch routines - on the days I'm not doing intervals, which is 2 out of the 4 days, I cycle 5 mins at 50 MHR, 5 more mins at 70% MHR, and 12 minutes at what I would say 90 MHR. These 2 methods have worked for me immensely.

But it is hard shit. Hey, this is where the men are separated from the boys. But many give up early and they don't get the fact that post workout calorie burning is what's the trick here.

 

[fhg43]

edgecrusher-
I've got to agree w/ Cackerott on this one as well. "Fat burning" cardio as it is called burns calories only during the training session itself. Afterwards, there is little to no effects on the metabolism, while cardio of an intense nature (i.e. sprinting or interval programs) ramp up the metabolism to increase caloric usage throughout the day.

This isn't really true. Any cardio will raise metabolism for an extended amount of time after the workout. More intense cardio obviously raises it higher because of increased demands on the body. Its hard to burn just fat. Your energy systems are synergistic meaning you RARELY burn just fat or carbs or protein; you are always burning a mix. The intensity of activity dictates what energy source your body likes to use.

Below ~70% intenstiy (of max HR) = carbs
~70-85% = fat
~85%-max = carbs

This is simplified but here we go ...

The greater the intensity, the greater the demands, the greater the need to recover. The body will first try to consume simple carbs then PROTEIN (OR MUSCLE) then fat when trying to recover from an intense or extremely long endurance workout. The body's last resort after any workout is fat. Why? Fat is hard to burn and your body would rather burn carbs and protein first. Why burn carbs and protein? They release lots of glycogen which fuels your muscles and also...your brain (seriously!-do some research you'll see). That is why endurance athletes consume carb drinks and bars before during and after events or workouts. Carbs are easy to break down but you need lots of them. This is also why the Atkins or other low carb diets only work for short periods of time-your body runs day to day operations on carbs.

As people adapt to cardio their bodies become more efficient at burning fat. At 9 cals per fat gram; fat is a huge resource of energy for athletes. Fat converts very easily to ATP. But you still need some carbs to break down fat-like sparkplugs in an engine. After ~:30 of exercise you have used all the simple carbs in your body so your body will likely begin to burn fat any way. If you stay at a low intensity your bod like to use carbs for their glycogen. As intensity and duration increase your body switches to fat with carbs to help the process.

This why people who only do :20-30 minutes of cardio find it hard to loose fat. They loose water weight and muscle. Water and muscle are heavy so people see noticeable weight loss. To burn fat you have to exercise longer or you have to train your body to burn fat quicker.

Think of this-when operating at 70-85% max HR (running, swimming,riding) for an extended period of time your muscles need energy. Fat easily converts to ATP. Your body can efficiently use stored body fat to fuel muscles. When increase workload above 85% max HR your body can't efficiently breakdown fat so it uses carbs since they break quickly.

One thing I have also noticed in myself and in many of my clients, is that when an individual begins doing intense cardio, it seems to increase there musculature.

Yes-Intense cardio will build some muscle. Running, cycling, swimming all require muscular power. Your body adapts to the continued stress on the muscles by recruiting more muscle fibers-just like lifting weights.

Also, an argument that was brought up to me one day is compare a mrathon runner to a sprinter. Look at the difference in there bodies. Marathoners are usually quite frail with a higher amount of body fat. While sprinters are generally much leaner and have a greater amount of muscle mass on there body.

This is a very flawed argument (your source was probably comparing the slightly built, but flabby guy at the gym who ran a marathon to Carl Lewis-bad comparison). Top marathoners have equal or lower body fat than top sprinters. Sprinters just have more muscle mass-it is needed for their events. Marathoners don't need tons of muscle-they just need the minimum amount of muscle to allow them to be competetive in their races. All endurance and sprint athletes generally shoot for high power to weight ratios. You want to weigh as little as possible, but be as strong (muscularly) as you possibly can for the event you are trying to win.

Some food for thought:

I knew a guy who was a cyclist on the 92 Olympic cycling team. He would routinely put in 400+ miles a week on his bike. He could leg press 1000lbs and was about 6-8% BF. He did an event on the velodrome which was only 2.5 miles long, but he often had do 100-120 mile rides to increase his aerobic and muscular endurance. I also competed with a cyclist who was small 5'11" and 150lbs. He did really well in long (100mile) hilly bike races. Super skinny and he could leg press 800lbs at the peak of his offseason lifting program. His quads were only 23".

 

[fhg43]

MarKFIC5-

Hey man, if you learn one thing from these boards on Cardio, learn this:http://www.cbass.com/fatburn.htm

I learned they were selling something-a book called Ripped 3.

Okay the first part of the article was nothing new. The author presents like its the holy grail, but he is about 15 years late. It is well known that VO2max will increase, but anaerobic capacity won't if you only do steady-state training. Everybody knows that VO2max and anaerobic capacity increase with interval training. Interval training has been used for decades by competetive runners, cyclists, and swimmers to improve performance. I'm not sure what this article had to do with fat loss, however.

The next study was fine, but read this next part:

As you might expect, the total energy cost of the ET program was substantially greater than the HIIT program. The researchers calculated that the ET group burned more than twice as many calories while exercising than the HIIT program. But (surprise, surprise) skinfold measurements showed that the HIIT group lost more subcutaneous fat. "Moreover," reported the researchers, "when the difference in the total energy cost of the program was taken into account..., the subcutaneous fat loss was ninefold greater in the HIIT program than in the ET program." In short, the HIIT group got 9 times more fat-loss benefit for every calorie burned exercising.

How can that be?

Yeah-how can that be? What is the physiological process at work here. They are making a cause and effect conclusion which is sloppy research.

Dr. Tremblay's group took muscle biopsies and measured muscle enzyme activity to determine why high-intensity exercise produced so much more fat loss. I'll spare you the details (they are technical and hard to decipher),

No I want the details-that the whole point of doing a study. If they don't want to explain then they are hiding something

but this is their bottom line: "[Metabolic adaptations resulting from HIIT] may lead to a better lipid utilization in the postexercise state and thus contribute to a greater energy and lipid deficit." In other words, compared to moderate-intensity endurance exercise, high- intensity intermittent exercise causes more calories and fat to be burned following the workout.

They still won't say why.

Citing animal studies, they also said it may be that appetite is suppressed more following intense intervals.

This statement is totally flawed. Last time I did an interval session on the bike (during my 3 hour ride) I came back famished. If you lose as many calories as they were claiming (which is possible) you will be starving. Animals and people are two different groups.

Here is the scoop guys-WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BURN MUSCLE OR FAT?

 

[fhg43]

MarKFIC5-

Hey man, if you learn one thing from these boards on Cardio, learn this:http://www.cbass.com/fatburn.htm

I learned they were selling something-a book called Ripped 3.

Okay the first part of the article was nothing new. The author presents like its the holy grail, but he is about 15 years late. It is well known that VO2max will increase, but anaerobic capacity won't if you only do steady-state training. Everybody knows that VO2max and anaerobic capacity increase with interval training. Interval training has been used for decades by competetive runners, cyclists, and swimmers to improve performance. I'm not sure what this article had to do with fat loss, however.

The next study was fine, but read this next part:

As you might expect, the total energy cost of the ET program was substantially greater than the HIIT program. The researchers calculated that the ET group burned more than twice as many calories while exercising than the HIIT program. But (surprise, surprise) skinfold measurements showed that the HIIT group lost more subcutaneous fat. "Moreover," reported the researchers, "when the difference in the total energy cost of the program was taken into account..., the subcutaneous fat loss was ninefold greater in the HIIT program than in the ET program." In short, the HIIT group got 9 times more fat-loss benefit for every calorie burned exercising.

How can that be?

Yeah-how can that be? What is the physiological process at work here? They are making a cause and effect conclusion which is sloppy research. Plus using calipers isn't the most accurate tool, but it is consistent.

Dr. Tremblay's group took muscle biopsies and measured muscle enzyme activity to determine why high-intensity exercise produced so much more fat loss. I'll spare you the details (they are technical and hard to decipher),

No I want the details-that is the whole point of doing a study. If they don't want to explain then they are hiding something

but this is their bottom line: "[Metabolic adaptations resulting from HIIT] may lead to a better lipid utilization in the postexercise state and thus contribute to a greater energy and lipid deficit." In other words, compared to moderate-intensity endurance exercise, high- intensity intermittent exercise causes more calories and fat to be burned following the workout.

Right. If you work out harder, you'll raise your metabolic rate for a longer time after exercise. Harder workouts are more difficult to recover from. Thats why all athletes rest the day or week before a major competition. Calories have to come from somewhere though and they are more likely to come from simple carbs or protein not fat. So if you don't replenish with glycogen or protein post workout, you are catabolizing muscle more than likely.

Citing animal studies, they also said it may be that appetite is suppressed more following intense intervals.

This statement is totally flawed. Last time I did an interval session on the bike (during my 3 hour ride) I came back famished. If you lose as many calories as they were claiming (which is possible) you will be starving. Animals and people are two different groups.

Here is the scoop guys-WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BURN MUSCLE OR FAT?

If you do hard interval workouts your metabolism will be up after the workout. If you don't recover properly you will only loose water and muscle.

CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT IS CORRECT!-But what do you want to loose-muscle, water, or fat?

Also HIIT for bodybuilders is probably fine-maybe. Extended cardio will really really inhibit mass gains. But if you want to drop fat weight you gotta do cardio for more than :30. Thats where the real benefits come from. Plus all the Heart Rate values described in their study are within the fat burning zone I described in a previous post.

Everyone is different and everybody has some good points. I am really experienced (and educated) in this area and am just trying to pass on knowledge that has helped myself and many others.

FHG

 

[edgecrusher]

fhg 43 all very good and very valid points. However, the main problem I see is with the formula used to calculate your zone. Using the Karvonean therum, the resting heart rate is taken into acount. Some individuals, (such as my boss) just have inherently low rhr's. His 85% is somewhere in the area of 172. I have personally witnessed him workout at 185 bpm's, he then maintained this hr for approximately 20 minutes. This is also after a 3 week layoff from cardio.

Now obviously this was not his true 85%. Therefore if he trained at a lower level his metabolism would have seen only slight improvements. This I feel is another good reason for interval training, when you can only last for a minute or so, you know you are working near maximal capacity, and deriving greater benefits.

As far as the preserving lbm discussion goes. If you are doing true interval training, and are working at near maximal capacity, you should not be able to train for much longer then 20 minutes. If this is the case, and the workout is taxing higher threshold fibers, then it's effect should be similar to a brief but intense weight traininng session. therefore calories ingested post workout should go to repair, thus elevating the metabolism, and aiding (all be it very slightly in muscular recovery.)

I should also state, I do not feel one should do nothing but intense cardio, as it does tax the nervous system. I feel a blend of both high and low intensity days are best. This I feel helps to ensure a high metabolic rate while helping to preserve muscle mass, and prevent overtraining.

 

[MarkFlC5]

Therefore calories ingested post workout should go to repair, thus elevating the metabolism, and aiding (all be it very slightly in muscular recovery.)

I should also state, I do not feel one should do nothing but intense cardio, as it does tax the nervous system. I feel a blend of both high and low intensity days are best. This I feel helps to ensure a high metabolic rate while helping to preserve muscle mass, and prevent overtraining. [/B]

My thoughts exactly. I do cardio 5 days a week. 3 of those days are INtervals or some other HIT method. Those days never take place on Resistance Days and in fact take place atleast 24 hours after (I've been safe with this so far) Resistance resistance training. The other 2 days are much lower intesity and much longer duration and the routine occurs right after resistance training. I also work my abs on the 3 Higher Intensity cardio days - that way, I have more of a reason to have that large post-workout meal which would be used for repair.

 

[fhg43]

edgecrusher-
The formulas are rough and don't take RHR into account-I just threw them out there as basic info.

As your cardiovascular system becomes better trained your max HR will rise a little and obviously your RHR will drop. Your boss' target HR is probably higher than the formula. He seems to have traits indicative of someone with good genetics in the heart/lungs/cardiovascular area. I'm jealous.

I did some more research yesterday and found a few better sources that indicated that post-workout you are burning some amount of fat (similar to what that study was try to say). I still think it is important to recover properly to hang on to LBM. It is hard to gain LBM and athletes need to preserve it so I am big on proper recovery.

I agree totally with you that people need to mix up cardio intensity. People should do both long low intensity workouts and short high intensity workouts.

I think everyone is correct in saying during high intensity exercise you burn more calories than when you do a lower intensity workout. I think it is safe to say you are burning more fat, but you are also buring some LBM too. I think we have been talking about different approaches: specifically targetting fat loss and reducing weight by increasing overall caloric expenditure.

I always get concerned when the fitness industry throws out some new supplement, workout device, diet, or fitness regime and trys to sell it as the next best thing. I think HIIT works, but those who are promoting it for money (the fitness industry) don't tell everyone all the details. They don't say "only do this once a week and only if you've been doing cardio for a few weeks." They say "buy into this-it's great for you."

FHG

P.S. I really like the fact we aren't trying to flame the shit out of each other. I apologize if the tone of my posts was...heated. The great thing about Elite boards is that people are here to share and gain knowledge. Cheers.

 

[edgecrusher]

I always get concerned when the fitness industry throws out some new supplement, workout device, diet, or fitness regime and trys to sell it as the next best thing. I think HIIT works, but those who are promoting it for money (the fitness industry) don't tell everyone all the details. They don't say "only do this once a week and only if you've been doing cardio for a few weeks." They say "buy into this-it's great for you."

No doubt this indutstry (like any other) is filled w/individuals who will do just about anything to line there own pockets at our expense. That is why people such as us educate ourselves on the matter. So we can make more informed and more intelligent choices. And we can also discuss it in a civilized manner as we have done here w/ this thread.