Cardio vs Calorie reduction

[Loomer]

Scenario 1: You run 3 six minute miles
Scenario 2: You reduce your calories by 60 per meal

Both results in an extra 355 calories burned in a day. Which would be more catabolic? I think the cardio would raise some serious cortisol levels, but the dieting would slow the metabolism. What if one did intervals where one day you reduce calories but do no cardio, the next you increase but do cardio? If one is cutting, it really seems like the two biggest concerns are burning more calories than consumed, and preserving lean muscle. So why is cardio so much more emphasized than dieting away the same amount of calories?

 

[plornive]

I believe that cardio not only increases one's caloric deficit, but also increases levels of fat metabolizing and mobilizing enzymes and intramuscular triglycerides. Supposedly, it takes about 3 weeks of consistent cardio at least 3 times per week to make this change.

Increasing fat-burning and mobilizing enzymes and intramuscular triglycerides should be anti-catabolic, since catabolism is often a result of low serum fatty acid levels, necessitating glucose and amino acid metabolism and resulting in muscle loss. Done in a certain way, a high percentage of calories burned during cardio can be fat, but I'm not sure if this results in a higher percentage of calories burned from fat in a 24 hour period (the supposed fallacy of the "fat-burning" zone).

However, while some aspects of cardio are anticatabolic on an energy deficit (calorie deficit), the catch-22 is that cardio increases cortisol and takes time and energy away from lifting.

A caloric deficit from cardio is similar to a caloric deficit from diet in terms of metabolic slowdown.

A happy medium should be found that optimizes fat burning and muscle retention relative to one's goals.

 

[plornive]

For me, 4 40 minute sessions per week works well. I see more fat-loss and can still lift. Also, doing it in the morning has mood enhancing benefits because of sunlight exposure and physical activity setting my body's clock.

 

[Loomer]

So ideally I should do both, but at the risk of a major metabolic slowdown?

What sort of cardio do you do for 40 minutes? If I split it up to 20 min in the morning and 20 in the evening, do you think it would have the same accumulative fat metabolizing and enzyme and intramuscular triglyceride mobilization effect? (I love saying that )

Maybe since it is shorter duration, do you think there would be less cortisol secretion?

 

[plornive]

So ideally I should do both, but at the risk of a major metabolic slowdown?

Choose an energy defict, then create it will cardio and calorie restriction. Doing both doesn't mean doubling your energy deficit.

You might say that an energy deficit causes loss of energy stores, while exercise and food choices (mostly exercise) influence where the energy comes from (fat or lean mass).

What sort of cardio do you do for 40 minutes? If I split it up to 20 min in the morning and 20 in the evening, do you think it would have the same accumulative fat metabolizing and enzyme and intramuscular triglyceride mobilization effect? (I love saying that )

Maybe since it is shorter duration, do you think there would be less cortisol secretion?

I run in the morning in the sun. Improves my mood and its convenient.

I don't know what would be better. I have heard reasons to do both, neither of which made much sense. For me, I feel like longer sessions improves my cardiovascular performance more than higher-frequency shorter sessions, but that is just me and it fits with my goals.

I don't know which would lead to less cortisol secretion. Lyle McDonald claimed once that one session in a day leads to less negative effect from cortisol than two sessions in a day. I heard MS say she has done two sessions in a day. I prefer to seperate my lifting from my running so as not to interfere with lifting or immediate recovery from lifting. Also I don't enjoy running post-workout.

 

[BarryMcCalkiner]

Both results in an extra 355 calories burned in a day. Which would be more catabolic?

Don't discount the fact that an intense cardio session will cause you to continue to burn calories long after you have stopped exercising, so the cardio may give you a bigger calorie deficit than you had anticipated.


B-Mac

 

[=w=]

Also, I seem to remember Bryan Haycock mentioning that your body will eventually adapt to the workload lessening (or near eliminating) the negative impact of cortisol.

 

[Loomer]

Plornive, I'm really sorry about being so persistent about this, but I'm more than a little confused, and really interested in this.

I don't understand why cardio and calorie restriction at both the same amount of energy defecit in conjunction would not have double the energy defecit as opposed to doing just one or the other?

Anyway, I lift Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in the PM, and I was contemplating sprinting 2-3 mornings/week and long distance running at night on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I'm trying to reduce body fat, increase my cardiovascular endurance (which sucks right now and is why I couldn't possibly do 40 minute sessions yet), and preserve muscle as much as possible.

 

[plornive]

Plornive, I'm really sorry about being so persistent about this, but I'm more than a little confused, and really interested in this.

I don't understand why cardio and calorie restriction at both the same amount of energy defecit in conjunction would not have double the energy defecit as opposed to doing just one or the other?

Anyway, I lift Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in the PM, and I was contemplating sprinting 2-3 mornings/week and long distance running at night on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I'm trying to reduce body fat, increase my cardiovascular endurance (which sucks right now and is why I couldn't possibly do 40 minute sessions yet), and preserve muscle as much as possible.

No problemo...

What I meant was that if you are losing weight/fat at a decent pace right now, then if you add cardio/sprints you should eat more. This way, your energy deficit would be the same, but some of it would be from cardio/sprints. Or, if you aren't losing weight quickly enough right now, you would not eat more and have a larger energy deficit due to adding sprints/cardio.

Say you want to lose 2 lbs per week. You need about a 1000 energy/calorie deficit per day. Using your current maintenance calories as a baseline (maintenance while lifting, I guess), you could eat 500 calories less per day, and run for 40 minutes every day to burn 500 calories. If you were eating 1000 calories less per day and decided to add 40 minutes of cardio or some sprints (burning 500 calories) every day, you could eat 500 calories more and still lose the same weight/fat. These amounts are probably off, but you get the concept.

In your case, figure out how many calories you burn approximately per week from the cardio/sprints you are adding, and you can eat that much more. However, maybe you want to lose weight faster in which case you would not eat that much more. Also, counting calories is annoying and sometimes self-defeating.

I think adding the cardio will make things easier and assist you in your goal, but you need to guage if adding cardio/sprints hinders your lifts. While losing weight/fat usually causes some muscle loss, you need to find what works best for you so you don't lose too much. Just try it out.

Hope that helps.

 

[Loomer]

That definitely helps, and makes a lot of sense now!

I have a hard time eating enough as it is so I'm leaning towards keeping my caloric defecit and adding cardio (I do practically none right now) for faster weight loss, and trying that out for a bit.

Thanks a lot!