moderate intensity cardio VS hIgh intensity for fat burninig

[cleverlandshark2001]

Dear TheShit,
When I said great genetics I meant toward their specific endeavors, including marathon runners. They have great genetic potential to be great cardiovascular monsters. I think you should take time to try and understand what someone is writing before you get big-headed and act like a smart-ass.
Do you think these silly marathoners were EVER muscular? What did you think they started training in that manner and just lost all that huge mass they used to have? You know you feel dumb right now.

Either way of training for fat loss would work. The higher the intensity, the more glucose you'll use for energy - but you'd burn more totaly calories.
With the low intensity, you'd preserve more muscle mass cause it's easier work...plain and simple. Now don't go and get that twisted. Of course it's possible to do too much low intensity cardio...I would expect you'd lose lots of muscle mass if you did a slow jog for 10 miles at a clip!!!!

If you're training intensely with the weights...why would you do high intensity cardiovascular training. There are purposes for doing that, but you'd have to cut back on one or the other or else, yeah, you'd lose muscle from overtraining.

Enough.

 

[cockdezl]

"Sprinters vs Marathon runners.... "

"There's a reason for that. And the reason is, a bigger framed, mesomorphic person wouldn't be good at long distance running. They have too much weight to carry, and naturally more musclar people wouldn't be competetive against slighter, slimmer people.... and so smaller-framed people tend to become involved in and be successful at long-distance, while bulkier types try another sport. "

While you are correct that some people base their sport on their body type, you are ignoring the training effect. Every training style causes specific adaptations....weightlifting increases overall muscular mass, sprinting induces hypertrophy also, mainly in the legs, but there is a transference effect also, and endurance training increases the body's ability to mobilize fuel and reduce fatigue.

Your are asserting that a power sport, such as sprinting (which is very similar to weight training) does not induce muscular hypertrophy. Sprinters did not look like sprinters before they started the sport, their physique is a direct effect of their training. This would be like assuming that bodybuilders are big and muscular before they start training.

"It's not that marathon running makes you LOSE muscle.... I doubt any of the marathon runners we see on TV were ever big, and lost their muscle from running long-distance."

Actually endurance sports are not conducive to muscular hypertrophy. Cortisol levels are high, testosterone levels are low, insulin levels are low, the body becomes very adept at mobilizing and utilizing all fuel sources...protein too.

Genetics can be potentiated and modified, a big person can become a bigger person, as a big person can become a smaller person. Training for a sport makes one adapt to that training.

"The way I see it, sprinters are usually pretty muscular.... they can maintain their muscle mass while doing intense cardio for short bursts, and they don't even do as much weight training as a bodybuilder. So I don't see why a bodybuilder would lose a whole lot of muscle from intense cardio if sprinters can keep it."

 

[DanielBishop]

Wrong.

A person who is sprinting for the first time, obviously isn't going to look like Maurice Green or any other elite sprinter. But for the sake of their sport, they do weight training to increase their power and subsequently, they increase muscle mass.... sprinting DOES increase muscle mass, as my legs have increased by 2.5" in the past year and a half from sprints, and I don't train my legs in the gym. Upper body, I'm not sure because I train my upper body with weights so it's impossible to tell.

The point I was trying to make, is that a natural mesomorph won't get very far as a marathon runner. Sure, he might do it as a hobby.... but his frame, size and weight is not ideal for long distance running, and as such, he won't be competetive amongst other marathon runners who are more slight and smaller framed. And that's why even if a bigger-framed mesomorph is passionate about marathon running, we won't see him in the professional circuit.

Certain bodytypes are ideal for certain sports. Rarely do you see an athlete competetive in his field, with a noticably different somatotype. That's because sprinters without the musculature and power, aren't explosive and powerful enough to be successful in the higher ranks. Just like the average sprinter is too heavy and bulky to be efficient at running a marathon. As athletes rise through the ranks, the elite weeds out those who don't have the ultimate body for the sport.... which is why most athletes in a certain sport have the same body-type. An example of an exception, would be Australian long-distance runner Robert De Castella.... who was considerably more mesomorphic than the average long-distance runner, but still pretty small-framed and slim by every day standards.

The training effect when talking about the sprinting/running itself, I believe, would have little to do with the physique we see today.

If a Maurice Green stopped sprinting and took up the marathon, I don't think he'd look like that little Etheopian guy.... and vice versa if the little Etheopian guy took up sprinting.

Sorry if you got lost in all that. To sum it up: The bodytype of the athlete is 95% reponsible for which sport he ends up in, and the sport itself is responsible for changing 5% of his body once he's there.

 

[cockdezl]

BISHOP, I agree with alot of your arguments, but I think that you are fixated on champion level athletes, who constitute a very small portion of the entire sport. For these individuals, I agree their genetics is the difference in their abilities.

"The training effect when talking about the sprinting/running itself, I believe, would have little to do with the physique we see today. "

This is where I disagree. Why are sprinters more muscular and lean, and runners are thinner, asides from genetics, it is because the training is conducive to these body types. Take an average person, who is not champion material, and train him/her as a long distance runner...do you think that he/she will maintain his/her pre-training physique? If they are overweight, they will lose bodyfat, along with a reduction in muscle size, whether from catabolism or fiber-type switching. Likewise, just as you have experienced, if we did this same thing with sprinting, there would be a compensatory hypertrophy of muscle mass.

I do pray that we are not locked into our genetics to the degree that you are talking about, because I am wasting my time then with weighlifting and dieting (and I know that I often feel this way).

To end this debate, I originally stated that higher intensity training was better than lower intensity training, for fat loss, because the evidence shows that it utilizes more energy and it can help prevent muscle loss. If you would care to ignore the analogy that I made, that is fine, the science still supports my original idea.

 

[DanielBishop]

I agree with your main point, don't get me wrong. I think higher intensity IS better than lower intensity for fat loss/muscle retension.

But the analogy pointed at professional/Olympic runners. I don't believe that the training effect of their respective sports would be primarilly reponsible for their physiques as we see them today.

 

[Cuts]

I agree with your main point, don't get me wrong. I think higher intensity IS better than lower intensity for fat loss/muscle retension.

But the analogy pointed at professional/Olympic runners. I don't believe that the training effect of their respective sports would be primarilly reponsible for their physiques as we see them today.

When I initially made that point comparing sprinters to marathon runners, that is exactly why I closed it off by saying that "This may be oversimplified somewhat..." Seems like a classic case of the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy... "if after that, therefore because of that..."

 

[EVE]

"...hate cardio so i jerk off more often."

Bwaaahahahaha. I wonder how a 15-20 minute jackoff session compares to 30-45 minutes of cardio.
I guess it all depends on intensity...I reckon you could get the best of both worlds: Beatoff while running on a treadmill.

15-20 mins! that's a very long time. i can get off in about 1 1/2.

 

[MS]

I can't see why this topic is so controversial. HIIT can be sprinting OR heavy low rep weight training. They are metabolically the same thing. Sure weight training is catabolic in the short term just like sprinting. They both use predominantly glycogen for fuel as well. But the overall picture is what's important, and sprinting/weight training is metabolically superior for fat loss and mass gain IN THE LONG TERM compared to moderate intensity continuous cardio.

Take a look at Olympic sprinters from 30 years ago and compare them to modern Olympic sprinters. Aside from ergogenic supps the main increase in mass/leaness seen in modern sprinters is because they also spend a LOT of time weight training. Sprinters of yesteryear did not do this because they were afraid that all that bulk would slow them down. There is no comparison in training style or diets between sprinters and marathoners. I'll bet ya a million bucks that if you took a marathoner and convinced them to stop running, eat lots more protein and hit the weights big time that they would not look anything like a marathoner in 5 years time.

However, as I've said before on a different board, there is a time and place for moderate cardio. When you're dieting for a comp etc...and you've dropped your carbs down so that you have just enough to maintain your weight training, but you still need to lose more fat, then I go for the low/moderate stuff. This is when I don't have enough glycogen to do everything HIIT, and I'm already down to pretty low %bf.

I also like to hike, so I incorporate some cardio into each week so that I can stay fit enough to enjoy hiking.

And I think HIIT with fasting blood glucose is a bad idea. I'll reiterate what cockdez1 said-it's not the fuel source, it's the total calories. To burn the most calories and raise your metabolism maximally you should train when your muscles have peak glycogen storage.

 

[skinnyfat]

Well, to debate the training/genetic issue, look at top basketball players--I would say 95% of them are VERY tall--because that height gives them an edge. They didn't get taller by playing basketball. Same with other sports--sprinters have a higher percentage of fast-twitch fibers, which are the ones that make them good at sprinting, and also the ones that make big muscles. Endurance athletes generally have smaller bone structures, and also have more slow-twitch fibers, which don't get all that big even with training. I'm sure you all remember when you were kids, there was always one kid that could outsprint anyone, and there was always another that always blew everyone away in the mile during P.E. They weren't training for that specific event, but they had natural gifts.

 

[Cuts]

Just one afterthought... I have a friend who's been trying to lose his gut for months now... swimming 30-40 minutes many times per week. Just a few weeks ago, I loaned him a recent copy of MM, in which there was an article about Guerilla cardio (basically the same as HIIT). Well, he's been doing that instead now for about 3 weeks... 3 12 minute super-high intensity sessions per week. I spoke to him about it today; I quote "This shit is badass man! It's damn tough, but it's working... I'm already seeing fat loss like I've never seen before, AND I'm actually spending LESS time doing cardio!"

Everyone is different. That's very true. But, for the naysayers, at least give HIIT/Guerilla sessions a try for a while before extolling the virtues of slow-go cardio. See for yourself. Later.