Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

CARDIO is a WASTE of TIME and ENERGY!!!

Themachine01

New member
Who here believes this? I have been told this more than once by people on this board and others, but have yet to have anyone back it up, or let out their secret. I find that cardio is the only way to drop bf for me. If this is a true statement in some eyes, what can be done in place of it, because im sure we can all agree, cardio is not the funnest shit in the world. If there is a way around this please let me know.
 
I only do cardio 4-5 weeks out from contest. Diet should be the main thing used, cardio should be used for sticking points or platue's in your "cutting" regimen.
 
Dieting sucks – I would rather run and work up a sweat then starve.

And I don’t care how hard you lift, you can not maintain the intensity to burn the same calories as you car running.
 
I'd rather drop my calories by another 400 or so then spend and hour on the treadmill first thing in the morning.
 
Cardio does have its place, but I too avoid overdoing it. When bulking, I only do very limited cardio--Walk to the gym (12-14min's) and back on SOME days, mow the yard, incidental stuff like that. When cutting, it is definitely better to cut with modest calorie deficit, carb cycling, etc., then to do tons of cardio as excess cardio WILL burn off muscle in addition to fat! I'm cutting right now and will do just modest cardio in the am, before I eat, when your body is most iin fat-burning mode; I'll take my dog for a long brisk walk, or I'll walk to the gym, do just 20 min's on a bike set to Fat-Burner mode (montiors heart rate to 70%) and walk home--only a few times a week.

THe key to cardio is use it when needed to burn some fat, but DON'T OVERDO it or you'll end up looking like a marathon runner instead of a bodybuilder!
 
JG1 said:
I'd rather drop my calories by another 400 or so then spend and hour on the treadmill first thing in the morning.

I really dont think that dropping 400 calories from a diet will have the same effect as an hour on the treadmill. If that works for you then god bless you, but with my metabolism it just isnt good enough.

Im waiting for a reply from Mr. Nelson on this.
 
Cardio

Your heart is a muscle too, and needs to be worked as well. Builds enfurance for one. Cardio is for your heart, like the bench is for your chest.
Cardio and legs...no one wants to do either, but everyone wants to be big. You'll end up looking like a big Mack truck driving around on bicycle tires, and not enough gas to get anywhere.
 
Proper diet = lower BF.

"Combined anerobic and aerobic training can reduce the gain in muscle girth" [1] and maximum strength [1, 2, 3].

1. Craig, B.W., J. Lucas, R. Pohlman and H. Stelling. The effects of running, weightlifting and a combination of both on growth hormone release. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 5(4): 198-203. 1991

2. Hadmann, R. The available glycogen in man and the connection between rate of oxygen intake and carbohydrate usage. Acta Physiol. Scand. 40:305-330. 1957

3. Hickson, R.C. Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 215:255-263. 1980

The most lasting fat loss 'gains' are the ones that occur by means of negative calorie balance over time. Also, this will have the least negative impact in a catabolic sense.

Oops, I forgot to mention that these references are through Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (NSCA), Thomas R. Baechle, Roger W. Earle (Editors), 2nd Ed.
 
I never do cardio and I can get really lean. I think genetics of course plays the largest part, dieting and good overall weight training come an equal second, then cardio. I think cardio can help, but it's not the best thing you can do.
 
I do...

limited cardio work. I find that a calorie restricted diet and more anabolics (higher doses) burn fat off me faster than any cardio program. So I do cardio for the cardiovascular benefits it brings and to keep a good sense of general physical fitness (don't wanna be one of those big lugs that gets winded going up a flight of stairs :) )

later,

DrG
 
I'd rather cut a couple hundred calories and decrease my rest time between sets than peddle anymore on the damn bike.
 
Themachine01 said:


I really dont think that dropping 400 calories from a diet will have the same effect as an hour on the treadmill. If that works for you then god bless you, but with my metabolism it just isnt good enough.

Im waiting for a reply from Mr. Nelson on this.


You bring up a good point about metabolism. I think that the cardio has many benefits, increased metabolism being one of them. Some people are genetically gifted to not have to do cardio. I for one believe in the cardio + diet theory. It works for me every year. My B.F. goes from about 10% to about 5% in the spring during my diet/exercise/cycle. I'd also like to hear Nelson Montana's take on it.
 
cutting cardio means really cutting back your cals if you gonna stay lean (for most peeps)... personally-- Id rather hit the treadmill for 40 minutes than give up my Guiness :)
 
http://www.geocities.com/brickgirl2002/main.html

I didn't even start cardio until October 7th, and I am naturally a fat ass, I have a really slow metabolism but that can be fixed with diet. If you have an excellent diet and are disciplined to stay on it. Then diet will get you a very long way. Heck, I didn't even add clen in until 3 weeks from the last pic. I think the majority of people that say they have to have cardio all the time, have a very bad diet or are not disciplined enough to stay on the diet they have. Again, I don't have a good metabolism, I probably have one of the worst :)
 
40butpumpin said:
Proper diet = lower BF.

"Combined anerobic and aerobic training can reduce the gain in muscle girth" [1] and maximum strength [1, 2, 3].

1. Craig, B.W., J. Lucas, R. Pohlman and H. Stelling. The effects of running, weightlifting and a combination of both on growth hormone release. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 5(4): 198-203. 1991

2. Hadmann, R. The available glycogen in man and the connection between rate of oxygen intake and carbohydrate usage. Acta Physiol. Scand. 40:305-330. 1957

3. Hickson, R.C. Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 215:255-263. 1980

The most lasting fat loss 'gains' are the ones that occur by means of negative calorie balance over time. Also, this will have the least negative impact in a catabolic sense.

Oops, I forgot to mention that these references are through Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (NSCA), Thomas R. Baechle, Roger W. Earle (Editors), 2nd Ed.

Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1980;45(2-3):255-63 Related Articles, Links


Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance.

Hickson RC.

The purpose of this study was to determine how individuals adapt to a combination of strength and endurance training as compared to the adaptations produced by either strength or endurance training separately. There were three exercise groups: a strength group (S) that exercised 30--40 min . day-1, 5 days . week-1, and endurance group (E) that exercised 40 min . day-1, 6 days . week-1; and an S and E group that performed the same daily exercise regimens as the S and E groups. After 10 weeks of training, VO2max increased approx. 25% when measured during bicycle exercise and 20% when measured during treadmill exercise in both E, and S and E groups. No increase in VO2max was observed in the S group. There was a consistent rate of development of leg-strength by the S group throughout the training, whereas the E group did not show any appreciable gains in strength. The rate of strength improvement by the S and E group was similar to the S group for the first 7 weeks of training, but subsequently leveled off and declined during the 9th and 10th weeks. These findings demonstrate that simultaneously training for S and E will result in a reduced capacity to develop strength, but will not affect the magnitude of increase in VO2max.
 
Cardio...

Cardio should be the base to any program especially if u are experimenting with A.S. (I.M.O and many others) My reason is simple...how long do u wanna live??? Without a healthy heart what the hell do u have. Anybody who says cardio is a waste isn't seeing the big picture. And for all those who say what about the person who lives to be 70 or 80 and used a lot of A.S. well in my damn opinon they would have lived to be 100 or 110 if they did their daily cardio. Either way u look at it the heart is your most important muscles and many people sell themselves short on this and think it doesn't matter but when your 50 and on your deathbed you'll be wishing you did cardio when you were younger once again I.M.O!!! Have a nice day... ~JT~ :alien:
 
I worked out at Gold's Venice for years and years... it was always interesting to me that I almost NEVER saw any pros doing cardio.

Seeing a pro on the treadmill was a huge rarity. Why?
 
SofaGeorge said:
I worked out at Gold's Venice for years and years... it was always interesting to me that I almost NEVER saw any pros doing cardio.

Seeing a pro on the treadmill was a huge rarity. Why?


My thoughts exactly, im missing something.
 
Dial_tone said:
I'm all for cardio, especially people with slower metabolisms. I was (and still am) an avid cyclist and I put in 25-40 mile rides on weekends. For me to get on a stationary bike for 30-45 minutes after a workout is nothing.
I'd much rather keep my calories higher and burn it off with cardio than suffer thru 1500 calorie days.

Echo those sentiments exactly...For an endomorph like myself,dietary manipulation alone is not enough,I have to create a LARGE caloric deficit,and cardio is the only way to do it for me.I've tried it both ways many times over the years,and cardio has always worked superior for stripping off the adipose for me.Not to mention the healthy aspect for the cardiovascular system/lipid profile which is a hugely overlooked area in the A/S using/abusing athlete.For me,cardio is absolutely essential,not only for cutting,but for overall vitality.
 
I worked out at Gold's Venice for years and years... it was always interesting to me that I almost NEVER saw any pros doing cardio.

Seeing a pro on the treadmill was a huge rarity. Why?

no shit? i was always under the assumption that the pros did hours and hours of cardio. could it be their training (aside from diet and gear) that helps them lose the bf? some of them do claim to train twice a day, six times a week. although when they interview them they always say cardio is a must when cutting...dont they?
 
HUCKLEBERRY FINNaplex said:


Echo those sentiments exactly...For an endomorph like myself,dietary manipulation alone is not enough,I have to create a LARGE caloric deficit,and cardio is the only way to do it for me.I've tried it both ways many times over the years,and cardio has always worked superior for stripping off the adipose for me.Not to mention the healthy aspect for the cardiovascular system/lipid profile which is a hugely overlooked area in the A/S using/abusing athlete.For me,cardio is absolutely essential,not only for cutting,but for overall vitality.

being an endomorph myself, I cant even imagine cutting without cardio. I couldnt agree with you more when talking about the healthy aspect for the cardiovascular system/lipid profile which is a hugely overlooked area in the A/S using athlete. Even when bulking I try to put in at least 20 mins bike or treadmill.
 
The point that everyone is missing is that all exercise is cardiovascular in nature. I you exercise regularly, you aren't going to die younger or live longer depending on how much you jump up and down on a box.

There are so many issues here. It's the first 10 pages or so of my book.

Aerobics are simply a less effective form of exercise which still stress the adrenal system, breaks down muscle tissue and increases oxidation. Yet it will not build muscle or increase GH.

After all these years I'm amazed people people still believe that somehow, "aerobics" (which is a term made up by Kenneth Cooper, by the way) are somehow magical at burning more fat while weight lifting does not. And if anyone says weight lifting is ANEROBIC I swear, I'll puke.

And by the way, even Keneth Cooper admitted he was wrong about aerobics. But hey, keep riding a bicycle that doesn't go anywhere if you want. That'll work.
 
MsBeverlyHills said:


cuase theyre taking so much juice-- theyd fall over from a heart attack... haha!

I don't think this is a reason... although your attempt at humor is par. :)

c-ditty
 
so nelson, working out for say 45mins six times a week will be better to strip fat over running for 60mins four times a week?
 
here guys check this out...

BODY FAT: HARD FACTS ABOUT SOFT TISSUE

by M. Doug McGuff, MD
---------------------------------------------
Fat is an amazing tissue. It has ensured survival of our species through two ice ages and never ending drought and famine. A mere pound of fat stores an astounding 3,500 Calories for delayed use at any time in the future. As dormant tissue, there is almost no metabolic cost for keeping it on the body. As a member of the human species we all owe our existence to fat. Even more amazing than fat's capabilities are the number of misconceptions surrounding this specialized body tissue.

Probably the biggest misconception regarding fat is the idea that it is unhealthy. Actually, fat is probably the main reason we are even here in the first place. Throughout human history, the ready availability of food was the exception rather than the rule. Our ability to eat when food was available and to store excess caloric energy for future use allowed us to survive when food was not available. Fat storage is the sign of good health, it signals that metabolic resources are abundant and the organism is healthy. An extreme overabundance of bodyfat places stresses on the body and can be unhealthy. However, the degree of leanness (or lack of bodyfat) that is currently in vogue is probably just as unhealthy for up to 80% of the population. Unhealthy levels of bodyfat have been increasing every decade. It seems that an adaptation that has allowed us to survive through history is now killing us in modern times.

Ask almost anyone why modern man is becoming more obese and you will get a similar answer from just about everyone. Most people believe that the labor-saving technologies of modern life have made us more sedentary, and we are much less physically active than our predecessors. Since physical activity burns calories, and we are less physically active than we once were, we are unable to burn off the calories like we used to. This argument seems logical, but the argument is incorrect for 2 basic reasons. First, physical activity burns much less calories than we have been lead to believe (we will discuss this in detail later in this chapter). Suffice to say that to survive we must be able to use our energy efficiently lest we starve to death in the process of hunting and gathering food. Secondly, our ancestors were not as physically active as we think they were. The work of anthropologists who observe primitive peoples in various regions of the globe show that a primitive hunter/gatherer lifestyle is much less physically active than that of modern man. In Australia, aborigines alternate between the modern world and traditional aboriginal life. While in their more primitive mode, these aborigines are noted to be much less active. So, despite popular opinions to the contrary, it does not appear that increased activity is the solution to modern obesity.

The real problem with modern obesity is food abundance. If I were to give you a jumbo industrial role of toilet paper and allowed you to hold it while I unraveled it, we wound end up with a very long strand of toilet paper. If I tore of the last square of toilet paper and gave you the entire rest of the strand, we could use your long strand of toilet paper to represent the length of human history where starvation was a real day to day threat. The single square in my hand would represent the length of human history where starvation was not much of a threat. Not since the end of the Great Depression and World War II has starvation not been a real possibility. We have about 150,000 generations where efficient fat storage was essential for survival, and 3-4 generations where efficient fat storage can lead to obesity. The problem is not that we are inactive, the problem is that calories are so readily available to be consumed. An hour of jogging will burn only about 150 calories above your basal metabolic rate, but it only takes about 30 seconds to eat 150 calories of cookies. We judge the value of our meals on the size of the portions we are given. When we go out to eat, we want to leave full. Studies show that there are about 1,000 Calories between being satisfied and feeling full. Even more frightening is that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 calories between feeling full and feeling stuffed. If you go out to an all-you-can-eat food bar and leave feeling stuffed, you may have consumed as many as 4,000 unneeded calories. When this happens we typically go out for a jog the next day to "burn off those calories". But to burn off that many calories would require you to jog continuously for 27 hours. The problem is not that we don't burn enough calories, it's that we put too many calories down our neck.


Leptin: the genetics of fat storage
As anyone with a bodyfat problem knows, there seems to be a strong setpoint for how much body fat a particular individual has. This setpoint is controlled by a gene called the ob gene that produces a protein called Leptin. Leptin is a strong suppressor of appetite and food intake. As your bodyfat rises, more leptin is produced and your appetite declines so that your bodyfat stabilizes. If your body fat falls, your leptin production declines and your appetite is disinhibited. It seems that we inherit a bodyfat setpoint that is most efficient for our environment and the environment of our ancestors.

Why exercise doesn't burn many calories
Go to the health club and climb on a stair stepper or treadmill. Program the machine by plugging in your weight, select your speed or program and begin your workout. As you plod along on the apparatus you are driven along by the ever-increasing number on the screen that indicates the number of calories that you have burned. Eventually you go long enough to burn 300 calories and you are left with a feeling of accomplishment. Now, as you wipe the sweat from your brow and catch your breath, let me ask you a question. Why did the machine ask you to program in your weight? If you answered to calculate how many calories you burn you are right. What you most likely failed to consider is the main reason it needs your weight is to calculate your basal metabolic rate. The average male will maintain his weight on about 3200 calories a day. That is about 140 calories an hour at rest. So the 300 calories burned are not calories burned above your basal metabolic rate, they are calories burned including your basal metabolic rate. So for your time on the treadmill, you burned about 160 calories above your baseline. If you eat just 3 cookies, you have completely undone about an hour's worth of work. Think about it...if we were so metabolically inefficient as to burn 300 calories at the rate the exercise equipment says you do, would we ever have survived as a species. The calories burned hunting and gathering would have caused us to die of starvation before we could ever have found anything to eat. At that rate of calorie burn, we would barely have enough metabolic economy to survive a trip to the grocery store. Most people have accepted blindly the information displayed on exercise equipment and as such have turned exercise into a form of guilt absolution. Have dessert (600 calories of pie) and feel guilty? Just go to the health club and work on the stepper until 600 calories tick by on the screen. Other than the fact that this simply seems pathetic, it also just doesn't work.


Let us assume that you have the determination and time to do such a workout 7 days a week. If we take the 300 calories burned and subtract out your basal metabolic rate of 140 calories, we are left with 160 calories burned. There are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat. If your appetite is not spurned by the exercise (as it commonly is) and you keep a stable calorie intake, it would take you 21.875 days to burn off a pound of fat with the extra activity. This is assuming that no other variables are present. Unfortunately there is a big variable that almost no-one accounts for...muscle loss. In order to exercise long enough to reach the 300 calorie mark on the stepper or treadmill, you have to perform low intensity steady state activity. Steady state activity does not place much demand on the muscles, that is why it can be carried out for so long. Rather than demanding use of a large percentage of your muscle fibers, you are actually using a small percentage of your weakest, slow-twitch fibers over and over. When you perform this type of exercise your body can adapt by actually losing muscle. Since you use such a small percentage of your muscle mass to do the work, additional muscle is perceived as dead weight, useless and burdensome. If a person persisted in 7 day a week steady state training they could easily lose about 5 pounds of muscle tissue. Muscle tissue is the most metabolically expensive tissue we have; it takes between 50 and 100 calories a day just to keep a pound of muscle alive.



Let's assume the lower number of 50 calories a day. If you lose 5 pounds of muscle over time as you perform your calorie burning exercise that will result in a loss of 250 calories per day that would be used to keep that muscle alive. The 160 calories you burned would probably now be more like 100 burned because with practice, your running or climbing economy improves and requires less effort (most of the perceived conditioning in steady state activity is actually the exercise getting easier not because of improved cardiovascular condition, but because of improved economy of motion. This is why if you take a runner and have him perform another steady state activity such as cycling he will be gasping for air. Indeed, runners who train on treadmills in the Winter notice a large decrease in perceived condition when they hit the road in the Spring). So now if we do the math we will find that you burned about 100 calories above your baseline per day, but we must subtract out 250 calories due to muscle loss. For all your effort you are now 150 calories in the wrong direction. Furthermore, the stress hormones that result from such overtraining also stimulate fat storage. Anyone who has attempted such a program of weight loss can confirm...you will end up feeling washed out, moody, and (worst of all) fatter. The truth is this: you cannot use physical activity to negate excess caloric intake.

Muscle: the real key to burning calories
Remember when you were a teenager and could eat everything in sight and not get fat? Somewhere in your 30's things changed. Now it seems like just looking at food can make you fat. What happened?

The main difference for most people is that they have less muscle in adulthood than they had in their late teens and early twenties. As we age there is a natural tendency to lose muscle and we also are less vigorous in our physical activity, which results in further muscle loss. This loss of muscle tissue results in a decreasing metabolic rate. Lose 5 pounds of muscle and your calories burned per 24 hours decreases by about 250 calories. While this may not sound like much, it adds up. If you continue to eat like you did when you were younger, you will gain a pound of fat in about 14 days. Over a 20 week period you will gain 10 pounds.


The key to getting rid of accumulated body fat is to get back your youthful metabolism by getting back your muscle. You have probably heard people say that "muscle has memory". Well, this is one popular saying that is actually true. With a proper exercise stimulus that dormant muscle can be reclaimed. When you get back the muscle that requires 250 calories a day to keep alive, what used to be an insidious weight-gain problem will become an insidious weight-loss technique. As you become stronger you will have a natural tendency to partake of more vigorous activities. This situation will allow you to lose weight with less attention paid to calorie counting and food selection. The more reasonable your diet can be, the greater your chance to stick with it. As you ride this spiral of success, you may be able to eat more like you did as a teenager. Putting just 5 pounds of calorie burning muscle on your body can really turn things around for you.


Proper exercise and discriminant weight loss
SuperSlow inventor Ken Hutchins was the first person to ever explain the idea of discriminant weight loss to me. He told me to picture the human body as a corporation that is run by a board of directors. He told me to assume that a body operating on a calorie deficit is like a corporation running at a budget deficit. Each of the body tissues could represent a different department within that corporation. He then presented two scenarios. In the first scenario there is a budget deficit and no department has any unusual demands. In this scenario layoffs can occur in all departments. So your body lays off some fat, some muscle, some bone and connective tissue, as well as nervous tissue . Your corporation (or body) becomes a smaller version of its former self. In the second scenario, there is a large demand placed on the muscle department. In this scenario, no layoffs can occur in the muscle department. Indeed, more muscle has to be hired on. This results in a larger layoff in the fat department. We cannot produce cutbacks in the bone or connective tissue department because we need their support because muscle is not helpful unless it is attached to strong bone by strong connective tissue. This means more fat has to be let go. We cannot lay off any nervous tissue, because our new muscle is useless unless it is innervated by new nervous tissue. This means more fat has to be let go. Under this scenario, all weight loss is shunted toward fat loss. In this scenario, your corporation (body) takes on a dramatic shape change. You have added a modest amount of shape-improving muscle and jettisoned a large amount of shape-ruining fat.


Don't put that in your mouth
It should now be evident to you that the easiest way to create the calorie deficit you need to lose bodyfat is to simply avoid putting the extra calories in your mouth in the first place. Even a very modest calorie reduction of 150 calories will result in significant fat loss over time. In the long run, the self-discipline required is much easier to produce than the effort of running on a treadmill for an hour every day (which is a losing proposition anyway). A calorie intake deficit of 500 calories a day is still fairly easy to achieve, and if you have added some muscle to your body the shape change you can produce in 6-12 weeks can be amazing. Initially, you may have to be very compulsive about counting calories, but within a few weeks you will probably learn to manage simply by controlling the portion size of the foods you eat.


Superhydration
Ellington Darden, PhD (Author and former Research Director for Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries) came up with this concept. The food calories that you count are actually Kilocalories or Calories. A Calorie is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a liter of water by one degree celsius. The calories that you count are actually just units of heat-energy.


Dr. Darden developed a program of drinking large volumes of ice-cold water throughout the day. The ice water that goes into your system has to be warmed to body temperature. Thus a liter of water at 1 degree celsius that ultimate leaves your body at 37 degrees celsius and thus requires 36 calories of heat energy. If you manage to consume 5 liters of water per day this results in roughly 180 extra calories burned.


According to Dr. Darden, superhydration helps fat loss in another way. If you are well hydrated most of your body's waste products can be eliminated through the kidneys. When you are underhydrated much of this burden is assumed by the liver. One of the liver's main functions is the processing of stored bodyfat for use as energy. If your liver is occupied processing waste products it is less efficient at mobilizing bodyfat. Superhydration not only burns calories, it allows your liver to be more efficient at mobilizing fat off of your body.


Plenty of Sleep
Dr. Darden also discovered that plenty of sleep was essential to fat loss. In his research he noted that subjects who were sleep deprived did not lose fat as easily as those who were well rested. It seems that calorie restriction is fairly stressful to the body and any further stressors can result in a protective slowing of the metabolism. My own theory is that a calorie restriction sends a biological signal of starvation and decreased sleep sends a signal that the organism is having to stay up to search for food, or it has to be vigilant because its environment is unsafe. These are probably powerful biological signals that cause a protective slowing of the metabolism.


Simple Dietary Guidelines and Recommended Diets
There are literally thousands of diet books out there. Many of these books make extraordinary claims or involve complex regimines that cannot be carried out long term. By far the best diet books written are those by Ellington Darden, PhD. His books are no-nonsense and have precise regimines that are easy to follow. Most importantly, his diets easily adapt into lifelong eating habits that will keep you lean. Some of Dr. Darden's best books include Soft Steps to a Hard Body, Living Longer Stronger, and A Flat Stomach A.S.A.P. Protein Power by Dr's. Michael and Mary Dan Eades is well written and makes a compelling argument for control of carbohydrate intake. Many of my clients have found that producing a calorie deficit on this program is easier for them than many other diets. The bottom line is that you will need to devise a system of reducing calorie intake that seems to work for you.


My own dietary guidelines for people are actually quite simple. It involves looking at your hand. You have five fingers that represent five meals to eat in a day (3 meals and 2 snacks). The serving size of any food you choose should be either the size of your palm or able to fit in the palm of your hand. Meals can have 4 servings from any categorie of food. Snacks have 2 servings. Your five fingers also represent the 5 liters of water you should drink over the course of the day. If you follow these guidelines you will limit your portion sizes so that you should be able to produce weight loss without excessive attention to detail. If you want a more detailed way of portioning your intake, I also suggest the "Food Mover" sold by Richard Simmons on his informercial (although I do not recommend his aerobics-based exercise program that comes with it).


The Bottom Line
The bottom line for fat loss is as follows: 1) Build some calorie burning muscle through proper exercise. 2) Create a modest calorie deficit through dietary restraint. 3) Superhydration. 4) Get some extra sleep. 5) Avoid over activity or steady-state activities that are popularly thought to "burn calories". If you have the discipline, these simple steps will prove successful beyond your expectations.
 
WanTtoBeDeisel said:
here guys check this out...

BODY FAT: HARD FACTS ABOUT SOFT TISSUE

by M. Doug McGuff, MD
---------------------------------------------
Fat is an amazing tissue. It has ensured survival of our species through two ice ages and never ending drought and famine. A mere pound of fat stores an astounding 3,500 Calories for delayed use at any time in the future. As dormant tissue, there is almost no metabolic cost for keeping it on the body. As a member of the human species we all owe our existence to fat. Even more amazing than fat's capabilities are the number of misconceptions surrounding this specialized body tissue.

Probably the biggest misconception regarding fat is the idea that it is unhealthy. Actually, fat is probably the main reason we are even here in the first place. Throughout human history, the ready availability of food was the exception rather than the rule. Our ability to eat when food was available and to store excess caloric energy for future use allowed us to survive when food was not available. Fat storage is the sign of good health, it signals that metabolic resources are abundant and the organism is healthy. An extreme overabundance of bodyfat places stresses on the body and can be unhealthy. However, the degree of leanness (or lack of bodyfat) that is currently in vogue is probably just as unhealthy for up to 80% of the population. Unhealthy levels of bodyfat have been increasing every decade. It seems that an adaptation that has allowed us to survive through history is now killing us in modern times.

Ask almost anyone why modern man is becoming more obese and you will get a similar answer from just about everyone. Most people believe that the labor-saving technologies of modern life have made us more sedentary, and we are much less physically active than our predecessors. Since physical activity burns calories, and we are less physically active than we once were, we are unable to burn off the calories like we used to. This argument seems logical, but the argument is incorrect for 2 basic reasons. First, physical activity burns much less calories than we have been lead to believe (we will discuss this in detail later in this chapter). Suffice to say that to survive we must be able to use our energy efficiently lest we starve to death in the process of hunting and gathering food. Secondly, our ancestors were not as physically active as we think they were. The work of anthropologists who observe primitive peoples in various regions of the globe show that a primitive hunter/gatherer lifestyle is much less physically active than that of modern man. In Australia, aborigines alternate between the modern world and traditional aboriginal life. While in their more primitive mode, these aborigines are noted to be much less active. So, despite popular opinions to the contrary, it does not appear that increased activity is the solution to modern obesity.

The real problem with modern obesity is food abundance. If I were to give you a jumbo industrial role of toilet paper and allowed you to hold it while I unraveled it, we wound end up with a very long strand of toilet paper. If I tore of the last square of toilet paper and gave you the entire rest of the strand, we could use your long strand of toilet paper to represent the length of human history where starvation was a real day to day threat. The single square in my hand would represent the length of human history where starvation was not much of a threat. Not since the end of the Great Depression and World War II has starvation not been a real possibility. We have about 150,000 generations where efficient fat storage was essential for survival, and 3-4 generations where efficient fat storage can lead to obesity. The problem is not that we are inactive, the problem is that calories are so readily available to be consumed. An hour of jogging will burn only about 150 calories above your basal metabolic rate, but it only takes about 30 seconds to eat 150 calories of cookies. We judge the value of our meals on the size of the portions we are given. When we go out to eat, we want to leave full. Studies show that there are about 1,000 Calories between being satisfied and feeling full. Even more frightening is that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 calories between feeling full and feeling stuffed. If you go out to an all-you-can-eat food bar and leave feeling stuffed, you may have consumed as many as 4,000 unneeded calories. When this happens we typically go out for a jog the next day to "burn off those calories". But to burn off that many calories would require you to jog continuously for 27 hours. The problem is not that we don't burn enough calories, it's that we put too many calories down our neck.


Leptin: the genetics of fat storage
As anyone with a bodyfat problem knows, there seems to be a strong setpoint for how much body fat a particular individual has. This setpoint is controlled by a gene called the ob gene that produces a protein called Leptin. Leptin is a strong suppressor of appetite and food intake. As your bodyfat rises, more leptin is produced and your appetite declines so that your bodyfat stabilizes. If your body fat falls, your leptin production declines and your appetite is disinhibited. It seems that we inherit a bodyfat setpoint that is most efficient for our environment and the environment of our ancestors.

Why exercise doesn't burn many calories
Go to the health club and climb on a stair stepper or treadmill. Program the machine by plugging in your weight, select your speed or program and begin your workout. As you plod along on the apparatus you are driven along by the ever-increasing number on the screen that indicates the number of calories that you have burned. Eventually you go long enough to burn 300 calories and you are left with a feeling of accomplishment. Now, as you wipe the sweat from your brow and catch your breath, let me ask you a question. Why did the machine ask you to program in your weight? If you answered to calculate how many calories you burn you are right. What you most likely failed to consider is the main reason it needs your weight is to calculate your basal metabolic rate. The average male will maintain his weight on about 3200 calories a day. That is about 140 calories an hour at rest. So the 300 calories burned are not calories burned above your basal metabolic rate, they are calories burned including your basal metabolic rate. So for your time on the treadmill, you burned about 160 calories above your baseline. If you eat just 3 cookies, you have completely undone about an hour's worth of work. Think about it...if we were so metabolically inefficient as to burn 300 calories at the rate the exercise equipment says you do, would we ever have survived as a species. The calories burned hunting and gathering would have caused us to die of starvation before we could ever have found anything to eat. At that rate of calorie burn, we would barely have enough metabolic economy to survive a trip to the grocery store. Most people have accepted blindly the information displayed on exercise equipment and as such have turned exercise into a form of guilt absolution. Have dessert (600 calories of pie) and feel guilty? Just go to the health club and work on the stepper until 600 calories tick by on the screen. Other than the fact that this simply seems pathetic, it also just doesn't work.


Let us assume that you have the determination and time to do such a workout 7 days a week. If we take the 300 calories burned and subtract out your basal metabolic rate of 140 calories, we are left with 160 calories burned. There are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat. If your appetite is not spurned by the exercise (as it commonly is) and you keep a stable calorie intake, it would take you 21.875 days to burn off a pound of fat with the extra activity. This is assuming that no other variables are present. Unfortunately there is a big variable that almost no-one accounts for...muscle loss. In order to exercise long enough to reach the 300 calorie mark on the stepper or treadmill, you have to perform low intensity steady state activity. Steady state activity does not place much demand on the muscles, that is why it can be carried out for so long. Rather than demanding use of a large percentage of your muscle fibers, you are actually using a small percentage of your weakest, slow-twitch fibers over and over. When you perform this type of exercise your body can adapt by actually losing muscle. Since you use such a small percentage of your muscle mass to do the work, additional muscle is perceived as dead weight, useless and burdensome. If a person persisted in 7 day a week steady state training they could easily lose about 5 pounds of muscle tissue. Muscle tissue is the most metabolically expensive tissue we have; it takes between 50 and 100 calories a day just to keep a pound of muscle alive.



Let's assume the lower number of 50 calories a day. If you lose 5 pounds of muscle over time as you perform your calorie burning exercise that will result in a loss of 250 calories per day that would be used to keep that muscle alive. The 160 calories you burned would probably now be more like 100 burned because with practice, your running or climbing economy improves and requires less effort (most of the perceived conditioning in steady state activity is actually the exercise getting easier not because of improved cardiovascular condition, but because of improved economy of motion. This is why if you take a runner and have him perform another steady state activity such as cycling he will be gasping for air. Indeed, runners who train on treadmills in the Winter notice a large decrease in perceived condition when they hit the road in the Spring). So now if we do the math we will find that you burned about 100 calories above your baseline per day, but we must subtract out 250 calories due to muscle loss. For all your effort you are now 150 calories in the wrong direction. Furthermore, the stress hormones that result from such overtraining also stimulate fat storage. Anyone who has attempted such a program of weight loss can confirm...you will end up feeling washed out, moody, and (worst of all) fatter. The truth is this: you cannot use physical activity to negate excess caloric intake.

Muscle: the real key to burning calories
Remember when you were a teenager and could eat everything in sight and not get fat? Somewhere in your 30's things changed. Now it seems like just looking at food can make you fat. What happened?

The main difference for most people is that they have less muscle in adulthood than they had in their late teens and early twenties. As we age there is a natural tendency to lose muscle and we also are less vigorous in our physical activity, which results in further muscle loss. This loss of muscle tissue results in a decreasing metabolic rate. Lose 5 pounds of muscle and your calories burned per 24 hours decreases by about 250 calories. While this may not sound like much, it adds up. If you continue to eat like you did when you were younger, you will gain a pound of fat in about 14 days. Over a 20 week period you will gain 10 pounds.


The key to getting rid of accumulated body fat is to get back your youthful metabolism by getting back your muscle. You have probably heard people say that "muscle has memory". Well, this is one popular saying that is actually true. With a proper exercise stimulus that dormant muscle can be reclaimed. When you get back the muscle that requires 250 calories a day to keep alive, what used to be an insidious weight-gain problem will become an insidious weight-loss technique. As you become stronger you will have a natural tendency to partake of more vigorous activities. This situation will allow you to lose weight with less attention paid to calorie counting and food selection. The more reasonable your diet can be, the greater your chance to stick with it. As you ride this spiral of success, you may be able to eat more like you did as a teenager. Putting just 5 pounds of calorie burning muscle on your body can really turn things around for you.


Proper exercise and discriminant weight loss
SuperSlow inventor Ken Hutchins was the first person to ever explain the idea of discriminant weight loss to me. He told me to picture the human body as a corporation that is run by a board of directors. He told me to assume that a body operating on a calorie deficit is like a corporation running at a budget deficit. Each of the body tissues could represent a different department within that corporation. He then presented two scenarios. In the first scenario there is a budget deficit and no department has any unusual demands. In this scenario layoffs can occur in all departments. So your body lays off some fat, some muscle, some bone and connective tissue, as well as nervous tissue . Your corporation (or body) becomes a smaller version of its former self. In the second scenario, there is a large demand placed on the muscle department. In this scenario, no layoffs can occur in the muscle department. Indeed, more muscle has to be hired on. This results in a larger layoff in the fat department. We cannot produce cutbacks in the bone or connective tissue department because we need their support because muscle is not helpful unless it is attached to strong bone by strong connective tissue. This means more fat has to be let go. We cannot lay off any nervous tissue, because our new muscle is useless unless it is innervated by new nervous tissue. This means more fat has to be let go. Under this scenario, all weight loss is shunted toward fat loss. In this scenario, your corporation (body) takes on a dramatic shape change. You have added a modest amount of shape-improving muscle and jettisoned a large amount of shape-ruining fat.


Don't put that in your mouth
It should now be evident to you that the easiest way to create the calorie deficit you need to lose bodyfat is to simply avoid putting the extra calories in your mouth in the first place. Even a very modest calorie reduction of 150 calories will result in significant fat loss over time. In the long run, the self-discipline required is much easier to produce than the effort of running on a treadmill for an hour every day (which is a losing proposition anyway). A calorie intake deficit of 500 calories a day is still fairly easy to achieve, and if you have added some muscle to your body the shape change you can produce in 6-12 weeks can be amazing. Initially, you may have to be very compulsive about counting calories, but within a few weeks you will probably learn to manage simply by controlling the portion size of the foods you eat.


Superhydration
Ellington Darden, PhD (Author and former Research Director for Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries) came up with this concept. The food calories that you count are actually Kilocalories or Calories. A Calorie is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a liter of water by one degree celsius. The calories that you count are actually just units of heat-energy.


Dr. Darden developed a program of drinking large volumes of ice-cold water throughout the day. The ice water that goes into your system has to be warmed to body temperature. Thus a liter of water at 1 degree celsius that ultimate leaves your body at 37 degrees celsius and thus requires 36 calories of heat energy. If you manage to consume 5 liters of water per day this results in roughly 180 extra calories burned.


According to Dr. Darden, superhydration helps fat loss in another way. If you are well hydrated most of your body's waste products can be eliminated through the kidneys. When you are underhydrated much of this burden is assumed by the liver. One of the liver's main functions is the processing of stored bodyfat for use as energy. If your liver is occupied processing waste products it is less efficient at mobilizing bodyfat. Superhydration not only burns calories, it allows your liver to be more efficient at mobilizing fat off of your body.


Plenty of Sleep
Dr. Darden also discovered that plenty of sleep was essential to fat loss. In his research he noted that subjects who were sleep deprived did not lose fat as easily as those who were well rested. It seems that calorie restriction is fairly stressful to the body and any further stressors can result in a protective slowing of the metabolism. My own theory is that a calorie restriction sends a biological signal of starvation and decreased sleep sends a signal that the organism is having to stay up to search for food, or it has to be vigilant because its environment is unsafe. These are probably powerful biological signals that cause a protective slowing of the metabolism.


Simple Dietary Guidelines and Recommended Diets
There are literally thousands of diet books out there. Many of these books make extraordinary claims or involve complex regimines that cannot be carried out long term. By far the best diet books written are those by Ellington Darden, PhD. His books are no-nonsense and have precise regimines that are easy to follow. Most importantly, his diets easily adapt into lifelong eating habits that will keep you lean. Some of Dr. Darden's best books include Soft Steps to a Hard Body, Living Longer Stronger, and A Flat Stomach A.S.A.P. Protein Power by Dr's. Michael and Mary Dan Eades is well written and makes a compelling argument for control of carbohydrate intake. Many of my clients have found that producing a calorie deficit on this program is easier for them than many other diets. The bottom line is that you will need to devise a system of reducing calorie intake that seems to work for you.


My own dietary guidelines for people are actually quite simple. It involves looking at your hand. You have five fingers that represent five meals to eat in a day (3 meals and 2 snacks). The serving size of any food you choose should be either the size of your palm or able to fit in the palm of your hand. Meals can have 4 servings from any categorie of food. Snacks have 2 servings. Your five fingers also represent the 5 liters of water you should drink over the course of the day. If you follow these guidelines you will limit your portion sizes so that you should be able to produce weight loss without excessive attention to detail. If you want a more detailed way of portioning your intake, I also suggest the "Food Mover" sold by Richard Simmons on his informercial (although I do not recommend his aerobics-based exercise program that comes with it).


The Bottom Line
The bottom line for fat loss is as follows: 1) Build some calorie burning muscle through proper exercise. 2) Create a modest calorie deficit through dietary restraint. 3) Superhydration. 4) Get some extra sleep. 5) Avoid over activity or steady-state activities that are popularly thought to "burn calories". If you have the discipline, these simple steps will prove successful beyond your expectations.

Bro, do your fingers hurt? But still, it was good information. Nice effort.
 
Training specificity is where it's at really. What it comes down to is we should train for what our goals are. If doing something -- such as cardio -- takes away or interferes with some aspect of our training goals or goal as a whole, then it is a waste of time and should be modified.

But make no mistake, by what you do by your type of training you are programming your body even at the cellular level and the chemical reactions that take place to deal with the physical demands.

As an example consider a powerlifter and an NCAA wrestler, both of which are elite athletes but on complete opposite ends of the spectrum wrt goals and, therefore, training and abilities.

Not to make more out this than what it is or to state the obvious, I'm simply making the point that you will be what you train yourself to be -- within your genetic potential of course.
 
Last edited:
Fuck, that was a long quote diesal... :)

The main reason I would do cardio is to maintain some cardiovascular shape. Not to lose fat. I am in need of it now, as I walk up 4 flights of stairs I am breathing heavy. That's not a cool feeling. Spriting helps this aspect... sure, I think sprinting is alot less aerobic... but it helps me have better cardiovascular endurance.

HIIT is also good... a 30 second sprint, 30 second jog... works wodners for me. I burned my fat, maintained my muscle, and had TONS of energy (endurance to do things -- like not getting tired from walking!)

C-ditty
 
WantobeDeisal: Thanks bro. You saved me a lot of time.

The truth is, you can't possibly run enough to make a difference in calorie expenditure to induce a significant loss of fat.

Defend aerobics all you want. You still will not burn fat from doing them. Ive seen lots of people crossing the finish line at Marathons with pot bellies.

Brick Girl is correct. There are lots of reasons why aerobics will make you hoarde fat. But I'm going out now.
 
"Resistance training in not effective in improving maximal oxygen uptake. Training with high intensity and low volume results in no change or a decrease in capillary density, no known change in ventilation, no improvement in oxygen extraction, and very high blood lactate concentrations. Conversely, low-intensity, high volume training may increase capillarization and improve extraction."

"Aerobic exercise training results in increased maximal cardiac output and maximal oxygen uptake, slower resting heart rate, increased capillarization, improved ventilation efficiency, increased oxygen extraction, and OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation) occuring at a higher percentage of aerobic capacity."

Both from Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, Beauchle and Earle, Editotrs., 2nd Ed. (NSCA)
 
I personally only do cardio to get past sticking points.When I start a diet program,I alway's drop fat immediately even without cardio.Once I hit a plateu,I start doing cardio and that seems to get the progress rolling again.
 
Dial_tone said:


Running burns approx 100 calories (roughly) per mile so if some clown runs 10 miles a day I'd say he's burning as much fat as some other guy who's in the gym 90 minutes every day.
The calories burned during cycling (I'm talking a real road bike here) vary depending on a host of factors but for someone my size it's about 40 calories per mile. If you don't call doing 25-40 miles at 40 calories/mile leading to significant fat loss maybe I should go for liposuction right now.



Yeah, and I've seen hundreds of pot bellied guys (think powerlifters) training 2 hrs/day in the gym too....what's your point?


Ive seen a shit load more pot bellied guys training in the gym for 2 hrs/day than on the track or bike. So if there is someone who is at 20% bf looking to drop down to 6% bf, no cardio is needed, just a strict diet and weight training, i have trouble believing this.

If you take 2 guys, both at 20%, looking to get to around 6% bf, one has strict diet and only does weight training, the other strict diet, weight training and 20 mins cardio per day. Same drugs involved, what ever they may be. Explain to me how the guy not doing cardio will reach his goal faster. Please.
 
Themachine01 said:
your missing the point here. lets pretend I said 40 mins, how about that.

40 minutes is not necessary... nor is 20 minutes.

12 minutes would be sufficient... doing 30 seconds at a sprinting pace and 30 seconds at a jogging/slow pace... I've used this method with great results... losing fat and keep muscle ... in a rather fast amount of time.

And I'm not the only one... I first read this article by Shawn Phillips... explaining the whole process. 40 minutes of cardio, without the aid of anabolics would be to catabolic to muscles for my liking... HIIT would be much more suitable for both fat burning, cardiovascular conditioning, etc.

Shouldn't this be over in the training section? Would you want me to move it there for you?

C-ditty
 
LOL,after training for 20 years,I think I know what does and does not work for burning fat for me...Anybody who tries to tell me that I would burn fat faster training with weights(or even circuit training)does not have an iota of a clue what the hell they're talking about.That may work fine and dandy for a person with a normal BMR/insulin regulatory system,but it would be an absolute nightmare for someone like myself,and every other endormorph I have known.These things need to be taken into context,as one size does not fit all,not by a long stretch...Is weight training beneficial?Absolutely!Is it the end all solution for every body/metabolic type?Absolutely not.
 
Citruscide said:


Shouldn't this be over in the training section? Would you want me to move it there for you?

C-ditty


Id like to have it stay here, thanks. Only because I am trying to come to a conclusion on how I am going to cut up this season, and it will not be all natural.
 
Playing basketball for hours a day and a good diet made me 7-8% bodyfat once ...

Then came insulin ...

Now I am playing my basketball and going on a good diet again to reach that same bodyfat, maybe even lower, by summer time.

Yea cardio burns muscle too, but what are you gonna do about it? I hate cardio (although playing basketball or other sports can be fun) but it sure is a good way to burn fat. Works better than dnp for me, and I am not joking.

-sk
 
Themachine01 said:



Id like to have it stay here, thanks. Only because I am trying to come to a conclusion on how I am going to cut up this season, and it will not be all natural.

I thought you had a reason for posting it here... I'll leave it over here then. ;)

C-ditty
 
someone define what spatts said for us idiots

brickgirl, nelson- why does running hoard fat?
 
Themachine01 said:



Ive seen a shit load more pot bellied guys training in the gym for 2 hrs/day than on the track or bike. So if there is someone who is at 20% bf looking to drop down to 6% bf, no cardio is needed, just a strict diet and weight training, i have trouble believing this.

If you take 2 guys, both at 20%, looking to get to around 6% bf, one has strict diet and only does weight training, the other strict diet, weight training and 20 mins cardio per day. Same drugs involved, what ever they may be. Explain to me how the guy not doing cardio will reach his goal faster. Please.


thought i would throw this back in here, I would really like for someone to answer this for me.
 
spatts said:
You're right, 20 minutes isn't long enough to get into the fat burning stage, especially since sprinting, like lifting, is fueled by glycogen...hence the musculature. Fortunately, sprinting elevates the metabolism MUCH longer than "cardio," so think of it as 40 mins for the price of 20.

...and you get to keep the muscle, and the efficient heart.


Isn't it all about burning calories? What does it matter how long you do it???

-sk
 
spatts said:
You're right, 20 minutes isn't long enough to get into the fat burning stage, especially since sprinting, like lifting, is fueled by glycogen...hence the musculature. Fortunately, sprinting elevates the metabolism MUCH longer than "cardio," so think of it as 40 mins for the price of 20.

...and you get to keep the muscle, and the efficient heart.


What about 20 minutes of sex at a "sprinting pace" or 40 minutes of sex at a more moderate pace? What would be the fat burning implications of this activity?

c-ditty ;)
 
Huck im with you man. i think for someone with a fast metabolism, simply dropping some calories will suffice. but someone who has had a naturally low meta. their whole life will need to work on cardio.. one size DOES NOT fit all you are right... to each his own.
 
spatts said:

Honestly the best way to lose fat is diet...so I'm talking above and beyond that.

your saying the best way to lose fat is diet, so it is better than diet and cardio put together, i have to disagree.
 
spatts said:
Don't put words in my mouth and then disagree with them. Doesn't work with me.

Both is better, but all the cardio in the world won't help if you stuff your face with too much shit.

If one is stuffing their face with shit... it wouldn't be good for anyone... :)

I agree, if the macronutrient content is heavy on the fats/carbs (i.e., cake, cookies, chips, etc.) -- the effect of cardio would be lessened dramatically.

C-ditty
 
Ive seen a shit load more pot bellied guys training in the gym for 2 hrs/day than on the track or bike. So if there is someone who is at 20% bf looking to drop down to 6% bf, no cardio is needed, just a strict diet and weight training, i have trouble believing this.

Most likely the guys lifting weights with pot bellies are not trying to actually burn fat, more likely they are trying to gain muscle so aren't in a negative calorie balance. As far as marathon runners goes, the point was that if cardio is so incredible for fat loss then no marathon runner should ever have an ounce of fat on them yet they are some of the most "skinny fat" people I've ever seen.

I've posted my before/after pictures on this site before but if you had seen my before pictures you'd know that I have anything but a gifted metabolism. Yet to this day I can reduce my bodyfat rather quickly only using weight training and diet. I have gone the cardio route before and the only difference is I lost weight faster, unfortunately more of it was muscle.

There is no one answer that will work for everyone. People are stubborn and will not change their views even if truth is staring them in the face. I don't theorize my statements, I have lived them so I don't care what study says what. If you truly believe you can't lose fat without cardio then why are bothering asking? It makes it seem as if you just want to stir controversy and never intended to be open minded about others arguements.

I firmly believe that just about anyone that doesn't have some legitimate medical issue(thyroid, etc..) can get down to 10% very easily with just weight training and diet alone. In fact I think they can get lower... the difference being that diet must be in perfect order and the majority of people don't go about it the right way. Cardio can make a sloppier diet work, whereas no cardio requires a spot on diet plan.

You may say that you'd rather spend an hour on the bike to be able to eat a bit more, but that's defeating the purpose of the arguement. The question is whether or not cardio is essentialfor fat loss which I'd have to give a definiate no. Will it make fat loss faster? Perhaps, but nothing that an identical reduction in calories through diet couldn't match. Is it more healthy for your heart? Yes, but again that's not the arguement here... fat loss is.

If you guys believe you cannot burn fat without cardio then most likely you won't. What is it Yoda said... "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.". If you go into a diet with the mindset that you aren't going to lose fat then somehow or rather you won't. If you go into your diet and workout plan with confidence and plan it out accordingly then I think you'd be surprised.

The bottom line is if you want to do cardio then go for it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. However do it for your heart, health, to stare at chicks butts in front of you, whatever... But don't do it for "fat loss" as you're doing it for the wrong reason. Also if you find you can't lose fat without cardio then I suggest you take a long hard look at your diet and weight training regimen as there is most likely something wrong. The most important factor in fat loss bar none is a negative calorie balance. Yes there are many other factors involved, but if you don't get this one right then the others don't matter.

If you achieve that through proper diet and weight training then by the law of thermodynamics you simply can't help but to lose weight. If you are in a severe caloric deficit with no weight loss then perhaps you have compromised your metabolism in which the law of thermodynamics is still not broken. Since your metabolism has slowed in response to the caloric reduction you are still actually not burning more than you consume.

For the record I incorporate refeeds into my diet(which I think is important especially without cardio) so I keep my leptin levels up and metabolism going which keeps my diet is effective for a longer period of time. If I went balls to the wall with my diet I doubt I could go more than 8-12 weeks without hitting a major plateu.
 
spatts said:
Don't put words in my mouth and then disagree with them. Doesn't work with me.

Both is better, but all the cardio in the world won't help if you stuff your face with too much shit.


I didnt put words in your mouth. You stated that the BEST way to loose fat is diet, I was taking that statement as you saying that diet alone is the best since you didnt state both diet and cardio. If I misunderstood than I apologize, no need to smack me around. I agree with your statement if you are stating that diet is the more important of the 2.
 
spatts said:
...especially since sprinting, like lifting, is fueled by glycogen...

Lifting is fueled mainly by the Phosphagen Energy System. Sprinting (assuming it's approximately 10s in duration), also depends mainly on the phosphagen system. Only beyond 20s to 30s of intense activity does the Glycolysis Energy System play a major role in supplying energy.
 
I'm not saying cardio doesn't have it's place. Of course it does. I am naturally a fat ass, really big, but when I am cutting down for a contest, I let the diet do most of all the work, i save the cardio for the last 4 weeks or so. I don't understand why people would start a cutting diet for like a contest and start cardio at the same time as there diet, that makes no sense to me, let your diet do most of the work and when you hit platues THEN add in cardio to get you lower, if someone hasn't dieted down extremely low, then it's really hard to understand that when you are real low, taking off just a little bit more takes a lot of work, that is why for most, cardio is best applied AFTER your diet has done most of the work. You don't want to get low with diet AND cardio and then have to get lower, because once my diet is set and then the cardio is set, then i can add in the clen for the last little bit. For me, clen is only noticable when I am under 7% or so. Thats another thing, I don't know why people would start clen/diet/cardio at the same time. You are using up individual weapons all at once, instead of letting each one do there job alone. I think that made sense ;) :)
 
spatts said:
The phosphagen system is used by the muscle for power surges of a few seconds, and the aerobic system is the one used for prolonged athletic activity. The glycogen lactic acid system is in the middle and is important for giving extra power during intermediate races like the 200 to 800 m runs.

Nice synopsis. :) I've read, however, that weightlifting utilizes mainly the Phos Sys. and not much at all the Anaerobic Glyco. Sys. or the Oxidative Sys.
 
Last edited:
I'll put one more quote in here...

"Resistance training is an anaerobic form of exercise. Despite some contentions that it can directly improve aerobic metabolism when performed alone, this has not been shown to be true except in individuals with low levels of fitness at the start of the program. In one study by Kraemer et. al. resistance training performed by itself was shown not to alter VO2max, despite a shorter-rest, bodybuilding-type component in the program. When a resistance training program is used in combination with aerobic endurance training, however, enhancements of aerobic metabolism have still been observed. This appears to be accomplished by enhancing mechanical efficiency and muscle force capabilities at VO2max."

From Essentials of Strenth Training and Conditioning, Baechle and Earle, Editors, 2nd Ed., (NSCA)
 
If weight lifting does not utilize glycogen, then why drink a post-workout carbohydrate drink to replenish glycogen stores? The ATP system is only available for so long...
 
SofaGeorge said:
I worked out at Gold's Venice for years and years... it was always interesting to me that I almost NEVER saw any pros doing cardio.

Seeing a pro on the treadmill was a huge rarity. Why?

Cause they got treadmills at home and do it in front of their tv. Watch the Ronnie video and you'll see him on the treadmill 2x a day for 30min each.


I used to also believe that cardio was a waste of time, but that's just an excuse for not doing it. I recently started cutting and this time I added 30min AM cardio and the difference is definitely there. Sure it's just another 3-400cals burned, but that's almost 2800cals/week EXTRA burned. Plus you feel great after doing it. It definitely makes a difference. Combine that with a good diet and you'll get shredded faster. Try it for 2 weeks and see for yourself.
 
I haven't seen anybody mention the time they do cardio. While on AS, for me, AM cardio keeps the bloat and sides to a min as well as keeping the fat down and energy up not even to mention a way better lipid profile. The AS keeps the catabolism to min and being in the AM burns max fat. I stay moderately paced at 133-140bpm. It's just a tool I use to help manage being a natty fat ass. Evening cardio does not do much for me other than dispose of unessary energy I could have otherwise cut out via diet.
 
spectre-
cadio can be done many different ways, weights, aerobics, basketball, ect. simply. when you do "aerobics" it first burns carbs, then burns muscle then fat. so if you loose muscle in the long run you will store more fat.
try doing your cardio with weghts?????????? you can still do 6-10 reps just limit the time to inbtwn sets to 30 sec. i used to train my clients 10yrs ago like this and it worked on both men and women. nelson goes into this better in his book and explains it.
 
Some quick points.

Aerobics burn carbs. Not fat. The "targeted heart rate" theory has been proven wrong. When subjected to long duration stress your body is more likely to burn protein before it burns fat

Having more muscle burns more fat. Aerobics break down muscle.

The amount of calories used is dependant on your condition. If you can easily run a mile, you aren't burning as many calories as the person who struggles to run a mile. So using "distance" as a gauge is ridiculous.

Sprinting is not aerobic. It's "anrobic."

Aerobics stop burning calories once you stop doing them. As soon as you eat, you just replaced the calories you burned. More muscle allows for calorie burning all day long.

Yes, adding 20 minutes of cardio will burn more calories. So will adding 20 minutes of weight training -- except that weight training will grow muscle, raise GH, improve glucose disposal, and increase strength. Aeorbics will do none of these things.
They are, however, great at wearing out cartlidge in the kness, ankles and lower back.

There isn't a single shread of proof that aerobics will lengthen life span. The only known fact is that EXERCISE will improve cardiac health. In case you haven't heard, weight training is exercise.

The average weight lost in a marathon is 4 pounds -- of which 3 pounds is water and about 10 ounces is muscle. That means you have to run 24 miles to lose a couple of ounces of fat. Now tell me how much fat you burn with 40 minutes on the treadmill!

Wake up folks. The body doesn't know if you're doing squats or jumping up and down on a box. It only knows survival. It isn't going to burn fat just because you want it to or just because SHAPE magazine says so.

Aerobics suck. Just say no.
 
nelson is a fool

unless you plan to do squats for 40 minutes straight and keep your heart rate elevated close to your maximum for the whole time weight training will not strengthen your heart like cardio does. it is duration and elevation of heart rate that counts. i guess nelson knows more than a cardiologist though. the heart is an important muscle dont forget to train it. cardio can lower your bp and increas your efficiancey at using oxygen. who cares what nelson thinks.
 
DepressiveJuice said:


no shit? i was always under the assumption that the pros did hours and hours of cardio. could it be their training (aside from diet and gear) that helps them lose the bf? some of them do claim to train twice a day, six times a week. although when they interview them they always say cardio is a must when cutting...dont they?


yep you are right cardio is a must to get in the 3% BF region and below. Plus when you are a competitve Bbuilder it s not jus about a nice set of abs..........shit I got a better set of abs year round. it s about a striated back , separated quads. shredded hammys . YOU DON T GET THOSE UNLESS YOU DO CARDIO PERIOD .I have a lot of videos ,ronnie dorian shawn ray chris cormier with the exception of dexter and darreem charles all did cardio
 
Nelson Montana said:
The average weight lost in a marathon is 4 pounds -- of which 3 pounds is water and about 10 ounces is muscle. That means you have to run 24 miles to lose a couple of ounces of fat.

I'd love to know where you got these facts. Also a scrawny goat running a marathon will burn much less fat than a fatass or a mascular guy. More you weigh, the more you burn ...
So I don't even know what this has to do with averages.

-sk
 
SIGH! Some things never change! GRIN

Guess all these folks who are testifying to their weight loss with cardio are stupid, dumb, and can not read the scale.

And let's see, the logical statement to support this is, "Ive seen lots of people crossing the finish line at Marathons with pot bellies."

This has been argued ad infinitum, my advice is: if you want to do the cardio, do it! If you are afraid to do cardio because it will cause muscle loss than don't(like dieting does not cause muscle loss, right!)! You can lose weight dieting. We all work out so that is a given so I really do not want to hear anything about that.

It really is a matter of preference no matter what Nelson says, I can quote three studies to every one he quotes(oops, forgot that Nelson does not believe in studies). cardio/no cardio,,,, no big deal, no one is ging to lose sleep over it. Putting all the other arguments aside, I DO CARDIO SO THAT I WILL IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF MY LIFE AND HOPEFULLY LIVE LONGER AND BE FITTER. I really like to climb mountains and backpack as well as walk upstairs.

jb


Nelson Montana said:
WantobeDeisal: Thanks bro. You saved me a lot of time.

The truth is, you can't possibly run enough to make a difference in calorie expenditure to induce a significant loss of fat.

Defend aerobics all you want. You still will not burn fat from doing them. Ive seen lots of people crossing the finish line at Marathons with pot bellies.

Brick Girl is correct. There are lots of reasons why aerobics will make you hoarde fat. But I'm going out now.
 
Nelson Montana said:

The average weight lost in a marathon is 4 pounds -- of which 3 pounds is water and about 10 ounces is muscle. That means you have to run 24 miles to lose a couple of ounces of fat. Now tell me how much fat you burn with 40 minutes on the treadmill!

That is just plain silly.

The act of cardio alone will not magically tap into your fat stores. It is the caloric deficit that it can create that will acheive the desired fat loss. This deficit can be created by diet, weight training, or cardio (aerobics). You just need to decide what works best for you.

For me a clean diet in combination with cardio and weights is what works best. So I will stick to that.
 
Nelson Montana said:
Some quick points.

Aerobics burn carbs. Not fat. The "targeted heart rate" theory has been proven wrong. When subjected to long duration stress your body is more likely to burn protein before it burns fat

>Geez Nelson, this is a classic case of mixing your metaphors, low intensity exercise(cardio) DOES preferentially burn fat! If you increase the intensity or perhaps do it for two hours than you might have a point!

Having more muscle burns more fat. Aerobics break down muscle.

>No kidding! Aerobics does not break down muscle, where's the beef? show me?

The amount of calories used is dependant on your condition. If you can easily run a mile, you aren't burning as many calories as the person who struggles to run a mile. So using "distance" as a gauge is ridiculous.

>Actually it is not so far fetched, yes there are a lot of variables in the calories/mile equation but generally if you struggle to runthat mile it will take you 15minutes to do, if you are in good shape it will take you 8minutes, calories burned-100. I suppose you could make your point if the in shape guy/gal could be convinced to run that slowly.

Sprinting is not aerobic. It's "anrobic."

> OK........

Aerobics stop burning calories once you stop doing them. As soon as you eat, you just replaced the calories you burned. More muscle allows for calorie burning all day long.

>We already covered this but.... sure more muscle=more calories burned,so what, we all work out,we all have muscle. If you did not do the cardio than the food you just ate would be excess to your needs instead of "just replacing the calories you burned"

Yes, adding 20 minutes of cardio will burn more calories. So will adding 20 minutes of weight training -- except that weight training will grow muscle, raise GH, improve glucose disposal, and increase strength. Aeorbics will do none of these things.
They are, however, great at wearing out cartlidge in the kness, ankles and lower back

>If you are already training at peak intensity and duration than adding more weight training is going to be counterproductive. Point well taken on the stress on cartiledge etc, fast walking or a variety of other cardio is available for those with compromised joints, cycling comes to mind. No one here is trying to say "stop working out and do cardio, WE ALL WORK OUT!"

There isn't a single shread of proof that aerobics will lengthen life span. The only known fact is that EXERCISE will improve cardiac health. In case you haven't heard, weight training is exercise.

>Remember, we ALL weight train! Aerobics is exercise the last i checked and if you like I will post the studies on cardiovascular health and life expentancy risk. Wonder why all those savy money grubbing hmo's gladly pay for cardiac rehab including aerobic training albeit low intensity. BTW, WE ALL WEIGHT LIFT.

The average weight lost in a marathon is 4 pounds -- of which 3 pounds is water and about 10 ounces is muscle. That means you have to run 24 miles to lose a couple of ounces of fat. Now tell me how much fat you burn with 40 minutes on the treadmill!

>more than if you did not walk for forty minutes on a treadmill, I can personally attest to that in the winter time when the weather sucks to badly for me to get outside. Why do you keep bringing up marathons?

Wake up folks. The body doesn't know if you're doing squats or jumping up and down on a box. It only knows survival. It isn't going to burn fat just because you want it to or just because SHAPE magazine says so.

> yes, so......?

Aerobics suck. Just say no.

>I believe that a well thought out program of resistance exercise, low-intensity exercise(cardio if you will) and diet will lead to a maximum of good health and muscular developement. It is the complete package.

This is really deja Vu, we really should just agree not to discuss this anymore since we never get anywhere with it and i do agree with you on most things! :)

jb
 
JG1 said:
I'd rather drop my calories by another 400 or so then spend and hour on the treadmill first thing in the morning.

AMEN! I hate cardio so much I believe if I died and went to hell I would spend eternity running on a tredmill listening to country music! I live at 6% with no cardio......its all in the diet!

Quad
 
I've worked with dozens, maybe hundreds of clients who all lowered their fat % by following my methods which included NO CARDIO. That doesn't mean I'm against sports, or walking or dancing or riding a bike or whatever you want to do. But fat loss comes from being in a calorie deficit.

I will bet anyone $1000 right now that if I took two people of comparable genetics and made no changes other than one reduced his calorie intake by 25% and the other did 20 minutes of cardio 4 times a week, that the first guy will have less fat at the end of month. Guarenteed.

It's diet. It's diet. It's diet. Oh, wait a minute; Quad already said that. Is he not big enough to give an opinion too?

The claim that aerobics will lengthen your life is hilareously misguided. Ask Jim Fixx how that's working out for him.
 
I bet not!

And I'd bet that my legs would kick the shit out of 99% of all elite gufus and wannabees. And that's from a woman who has never done a cycle! Put a bitch on a bike for a month and your little plan of a bitch not eating will definitely get the latter embarrassed with her cellulite riddled wt loss method!

There's a reason that chicks who don't eat look like shit and have bad skin and cellulite even though they are a size 1!
 
Hmm, cardio a waste of time?? Well, personally unless I wanted to get down to say 2-3 percent body fat cardio is a waste of my time and energy (for cosmetic purposes). I can sustain between 5-10 percent body fat easily, even when bulking. Cardio is good for your heart and will add tone to muscles, and make them harder. So you tell me, is that a waste of time?? Depends on your priorities I guess.
 
I've come down from a 325 cheese ball (max bench 95 pounds ;) ), to 230 pounds with sum muscle. And in my long experience with this...

I never lost as much weight from resistance training, no matter how intense, even on 1500 calories or less a day, as when I included some intense cardio and upped the calories a bit. The reason is, that on 1500 calories a day, I feel like shit and my workouts suffer. On 2000 calories a day, with intense cardio for 20-30 minutes, with my HR between 160-170, my workouts are much better... and bottom line, I lose fat much quicker than on the workouts and reduced calorie diet alone. And I FEEL good too. Endorphins own me. I put on muscle too, no matter what. That's possible for someone as fat and weak as I was, to cut and bulk at the same time.

Whats more, if I add 500 calories, and burn only 300 in cardio... I still lose weight faster. Reason? Is it not true that while resistance training ramps your metabolism for up to 4-6 days after training... cardio ALSO ramps your metabolism for 24 hours or so after training? I've read this, and its the only way I can explain my results.
 
Last edited:
Nelson and Brick Girl, oxidising fat requires oxygen, because of a larger oxygen intake required, cardiovascular training will assist in burning fat.

As you become fitter, your resting pulse will decrease. This reflects a greater stroke volume of the heart, and means that your heart is pumping more blood with each beat. ie, it becomes more efficient.

The fact this thread has gone to five pages indicates the level of stupidity present on these boards.

I don't know if the two of you are trying to impress the rest of us or not with your cavalier approach, but you're both being pretty fucking irresponsible, particularly you Nelson.

Cardiovascular work is beneficial for both fat loss and overall heath and wellbeing. End of story.
 
BrickGirl said:
I'm not saying cardio doesn't have it's place. Of course it does. I am naturally a fat ass, really big, but when I am cutting down for a contest, I let the diet do most of all the work, i save the cardio for the last 4 weeks or so. I don't understand why people would start a cutting diet for like a contest and start cardio at the same time as there diet, that makes no sense to me, let your diet do most of the work and when you hit platues THEN add in cardio to get you lower, if someone hasn't dieted down extremely low, then it's really hard to understand that when you are real low, taking off just a little bit more takes a lot of work, that is why for most, cardio is best applied AFTER your diet has done most of the work. You don't want to get low with diet AND cardio and then have to get lower, because once my diet is set and then the cardio is set, then i can add in the clen for the last little bit. For me, clen is only noticable when I am under 7% or so. Thats another thing, I don't know why people would start clen/diet/cardio at the same time. You are using up individual weapons all at once, instead of letting each one do there job alone. I think that made sense ;) :)
I totally agree,I hate when I hear people saying they are going to start their cutting cycle when they are 18% bodyfat.
 
Themachine01 said:
Who here believes this? I have been told this more than once by people on this board and others, but have yet to have anyone back it up, or let out their secret. I find that cardio is the only way to drop bf for me. If this is a true statement in some eyes, what can be done in place of it, because im sure we can all agree, cardio is not the funnest shit in the world. If there is a way around this please let me know.

In addition to BF reduction, AAS screw up your blood lipids, HDL goes way down, LDL (bad) goes way up. Cardio is the best and fastest way to bring up HDL (don't recall about the ldl). low levels of HDL over time will allow youyr arteries to gum up. then you'll be the most muscular double bypass patient at your local hospital (just like arnold?)
 
Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002 Nov;34(11):1793-800

Resistance and aerobic exercise have similar effects on 24-h nutrient oxidation.

Melanson EL, Sharp TA, Seagle HM, Donahoo WT, Grunwald GK, Peters JC, Hamilton JT, Hill JO.

Center for Human Nutrition, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, 80262, USA. [email protected]

BACKGROUND: Whether resistance exercise is as effective as aerobic exercise for body-weight management is debated. PURPOSE: To compare 24-h energy expenditure (EE) and macronutrient oxidation elicited by comparable bouts of stationary cycling (BK) and weightlifting (WTS). METHODS: 24-h EE and macronutrient oxidation were measured in 10 nonobese male subjects on three occasions using whole-room indirect calorimetry. BK and WTS days were compared with a nonexercise control day (Con). RESULTS: During BK, subjects exercised for 49 +/- 7 min (mean +/- SEM) at 70% of OV(2max) and expended 546 +/- 16 kcal. During WTS, subjects performed a 70-min circuit consisting of four sets of 10 different exercises at 70% of exercise-specific 1-repetition maximum and expended 448 +/- 21 kcal (P < 0.001 vs BK). 24-h EE on BK and WTS days (2,787 +/- 76 kcal x d(-1), 2,730 +/- 106 kcal x d(-1), respectively, P > 0.05) was elevated compared with Con (2,260 +/- 96 kcal x d(-1), P < 0.001), but 24-h respiratory exchange ratio (RER) was not different. 24-h carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated on the exercise days (BK = 370 +/- 18 g x d(-1), WTS = 349 +/- 23 g x d(-1), P > 0.05) compared with Con (249 +/- 29 g x d(-1), P = 0.04). 24-h fat and protein oxidation were the same on BK, WTS, and Con days. EE and macronutrient oxidation in the periods after exercise also did not differ across conditions.

CONCLUSION: In men, resistance exercise has a similar effect on 24-h EE and macronutrient oxidation as a comparable bout of aerobic exercise. Neither exercise produced an increase in 24-h fat oxidation above that observed on a nonexercise control day.

----------------------------------------------------------------

What the fuck? This ain't what I thought happened.
 
J Appl Physiol 2002 Mar;92(3):1045-52

Effect of exercise intensity on 24-h energy expenditure and nutrient oxidation.

Melanson EL, Sharp TA, Seagle HM, Horton TJ, Donahoo WT, Grunwald GK, Hamilton JT, Hill JO.

Center for Human Nutrition, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado 80262, USA. [email protected]

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of exercise at different intensities on 24-h energy expenditure (EE) and substrate oxidation. Sixteen adults (8 men and 8 women) were studied on three occasions [sedentary day (Con), a low-intensity exercise day (LI; 400 kcal at 40% of maximal oxygen consumption) and a high-intensity exercise day (HI; 400 kcal at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption)] by using whole room indirect calorimetry. Both 24-h EE and carbohydrate oxidation were significantly elevated on the exercise days (Con < LI = HI), but 24-h fat oxidation was not different across conditions. Muscle enzymatic profile was not consistently related to 24-h fat or carbohydrate oxidation. With further analysis, it was found that, compared with men, women sustained slightly higher rates of 24-h fat oxidation (mg x kg FFM(-1) x min(-1)) and had a muscle enzymatic profile favoring fat oxidation. It is concluded that exercise intensity has no effect on 24-h EE or nutrient oxidation. Additionally, it appears that women may sustain slightly greater 24-h fat oxidation rates during waking and active periods of the day.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Son of a bitch... why the fuck am I doing all this HIIT then?
 
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1992 Jun;32(2):128-35 Related Articles, Links


Energy expenditure following a bout of non-steady state resistance exercise.

Melby CL, Tincknell T, Schmidt WD.

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins.

Little is known about the effect of non-steady state resistive exercise on postexercise energy expenditure. Using a counterbalanced design, energy expenditure was measured by indirect calorimetry in six adult males (mean age +/- SD = 24.5 +/- 6.1) for 30 min before and 60 min after a single 42 min bout of weight lifting, and again on a separate day for 30 min before and 60 min after a 42 min control period of quiet sitting. For the exercise condition the subjects performed 4 sets of upper and 3 sets of lower body resistive exercises at weights equivalent to a 12 repetition maximum for each respective lift. Metabolic rate remained significantly elevated at the end of the 60 min recovery period compared to the control condition, although the excess postexercise oxygen consumption accounted for only approximately 19 additional kcal expended. These data suggest that while postexercise metabolic remains elevated for at least one hour following a moderate level of resistive exercise, the caloric cost of this elevation during a one hour recovery period is small and similar to that induced by steady-state exercise of moderate intensity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

According to this study, you don't burn more significantly more calories post workout...
 
Alright, fuck this. I've read abstracts till I'm now totally fucking confused about the effectiveness of cardio, and resistance training in increasing metabolism.
 
Nelson Montana said:
I've worked with dozens, maybe hundreds of clients who all lowered their fat % by following my methods which included NO CARDIO. That doesn't mean I'm against sports, or walking or dancing or riding a bike or whatever you want to do. But fat loss comes from being in a calorie deficit.

>Aerobic exercise =calorie deficit


I will bet anyone $1000 right now that if I took two people of comparable genetics and made no changes other than one reduced his calorie intake by 25% and the other did 20 minutes of cardio 4 times a week, that the first guy will have less fat at the end of month. Guarenteed.


>Of course, let's see, 25% of a 3000 calorie diet is almost 800calories /day-5600calories per week, 20min of of low intensity cardio is what? 200cal/dayX4days equal 800 calories. Your logic here would be nice since your math is nowhere to be found.

It's diet. It's diet. It's diet. Oh, wait a minute; Quad already said that. Is he not big enough to give an opinion too?

>no one said diet was not important

The claim that aerobics will lengthen your life is hilareously misguided. Ask Jim Fixx how that's working out for him.

>To think that cardiovascular health is not a major risk fact is hilariously unguided! The Jim Fixx comment does not even deserve a response.

Still not getting anywhere, if you do not respond, I will drop it and we can all go our own ways. :)

jb
 
Last edited:
Nelson Montana said:

I will bet anyone $1000 right now that if I took two people of comparable genetics and made no changes other than one reduced his calorie intake by 25% and the other did 20 minutes of cardio 4 times a week, that the first guy will have less fat at the end of month. Guarenteed.

With all these clients you've worked with, I would think that you have a pretty good idea to what your doing. Everyone swears that they have the secret to this and to that. I have many friends that compete at different levels and all will argue different ideas like this thread. But, all do there share of cardio.

I will bet you $1000 right now that if you take two people of comparable genetics, one reduce calorie intake by 25% and adds 20 mins of cardio 4 times per week, and the other just reduces his calorie intake by 25%. The one doing both cardio and dropping cals will loose bf at a faster rate.
 
Last edited:
i feel cardio is crucial. It helps me on my bf alot. I know diet is key to but cardio just makes me feel good for some reason. I guess im biased sinced im forced to do it 5 days a week.
 
Themachine01 said:


I will bet you $1000 right now that if you take two people of comparable genetics, one reduce calorie intake by 25% and adds 20 mins of cardio 4 times per week, and the other just reduces his calorie intake by 25%. The one doing both cardio and dropping cals will loose bf at a faster rate.

I agree with that, what I am trying to get across is that after that month is over and the individual wants to get lower, then not doing cardio and using your diet to manipulate your bodyfat is much more productive, since you can add the cardio in at a later date to help you get lower. Once you have used cardio to get low, then when you need to get lower, the cardio will have to be increased and may not even be enough to drop you down further, so you will have to add in clen or T3 or whatever else. It's just that when you get real low, it is extremely hard to take off a little here and a little there, that is why it is best to WAIT on the cardio until you have hit a major sticking point, then you can incorporate it. Sure, in your situtation, I agree, the person would lose body fat faster, THE FIRST MONTH, but after that, the individual that just used the diet will quickly catch up if he knows how to manipulate his diet properly. Then when the other individual is having to start clen to get lower, the other person can THEN add in cardio to get lower. That individual still had clen or whatever else to get even lower after the cardio platue. A lot of people i think don't understand what it is like to get real low, if you want to just get to 10% and don't have other ambitions, then add in the cardio earlier to get you there faster BUT you will have to maintain the cardio to keep you there, where as with diet manipulation, you can just play with you diet to stay there, instead of having to hop on cardio everyday to just maintain what you have got. Again, that is just what works for me and everyone I have been around. I hope that made sense :) The individual that starts off with cardio, will have a much harder time getting extremly lean, than the individual that waits on cardio. IMO, but I have yet to see it any other way. The ones that I see that start off cardio with there cutting diet just don't make it to extremly low, unless they have to go to really hardcore drugs like DNP or something, and then they use the excuse that they have bad genetics. Just My Opionion. :)
 
vinylgroover said:
Nelson and Brick Girl, oxidising fat requires oxygen, because of a larger oxygen intake required, cardiovascular training will assist in burning fat.

As you become fitter, your resting pulse will decrease. This reflects a greater stroke volume of the heart, and means that your heart is pumping more blood with each beat. ie, it becomes more efficient.

The fact this thread has gone to five pages indicates the level of stupidity present on these boards.

I don't know if the two of you are trying to impress the rest of us or not with your cavalier approach, but you're both being pretty fucking irresponsible, particularly you Nelson.

Cardiovascular work is beneficial for both fat loss and overall heath and wellbeing. End of story.


very good post
 
First of all, machine: Your comparison is pretty ridiculous. My example was to show that diet is more effective than cardio in a flat out comparison.

Yes, cardio is more effective for people who are very overweight, because ANYTHING will work. But I can show you hw to lose as much weight without it. And be more muscular.


You know, I first made the statements about cardio in 1998 and a lot of people thought I was out of my mind. Meanwhile EVERYONE who took my advice admitted it was the way to go. Today, the weight traning approach to cardiovascular health has become more accepted.

Today there are more and more studies confirming that my theories were correct. And still, people get downright PISSED at what I say. They call me irresponsible. They call me names -- all because they don't want to open their minds and accept something that goes against their current misconceptions.
 
you say you can show me. thats great. If you could show me for free than I would be more than happy to let you teach me a knew approach because I am open to knew things. I have bought many books before that turned out to be nothing but bullshit, everyone tries to sell there story, yet because you have a few pictures on your website and some posts on a message board, that make it look like you know your shit, you expect me to spend my hard earned money on your book. I have fell for this trick before, maybe you do know your shit and you really do have a great approach to losing fat, but I would be a complete idiot to spend my money on your book. I have a shit load of books at home that all say completely different things, now you want to sell me another one. If you wanted to try and explain your points in detail via email, I would be more than happy to listen. But, since I noticed you wont even answer my specific questions via PMs, Im guessing your taking the business approach to this, and you would rather make money.
 
mechanic; you are typical of the bullshit I must endure on a constant basis.

You've written to me with questions, as have many others, and I've tried to answer them. What I find amazing is that I can answer and explain and recommend and still get the same response form some people.

The progression is something like this...


Help me

Gimme

Gimme

Gimme

Gimme more for free

No more? Fuck you!


Geezusfuckingcriss people. Learn some friggin manners, will you?
 
First of all, im not the Mechanic. Second of all, think about what your screaming. I never asked for your help, I asked for your opinion on something, one time, you act like Ive been bugging the shit out of you for months and months.

Your telling me to learn some manners and making me out to be a piece of shit. You sit here and start debates and give a little info here and there making people think you know your shit, which you might. You are here at this board 100% for business purposes only, nothing else. You want people to think you can help them, they send you PMs asking for your opinion on something, then you say, "well, if you want me to help you GIVE ME MONEY!!!!. Talk about give me, give me, give me.

Sorry bud, Ive been studying this sport myself for quite sometime, and because you have some different views than me, which have me a little interested, Im gonna give you my fucking money. For all I know you might not know dick, I buy your book and its a fucking book on dinosaurs. Plus im not gonna spend the money on your book because Im interested in something, as you stated, is covered in the 1st 5 pages.

keep starting debates and not backing them up with facts. Keep starting debates and when it gets heated stop offering your opinion because its covered in your book. I hope this site helps your business out, really. Good luck with all that. peace.

And for the last time, Im not the fucking machanic.
 
Top Bottom