Cardio Misconception #1

[2Thick]

A lot of people seem to be pushing themselves very hard to lose fat during a cardio session.

The truth of the matter is that your body does not use fat as a primary fuel when you push your body past a certain level of moderate exertion. If your heart rate goes too high, then you will be using carbohydrates as your fuel and not fat.

Therefore, jogging (or equivalent) during a cardio session should never let you get out of breath. You should be at a level where you are above a normal heart rate but not too high. As long as you keep your heart rate up for 20 minutes, then you have burned off some fat.

 

[latinus_spicticus]

So what? If you go on a walk and keep your heart rate elevated _just enough_ to burn fat for 45 minutes, the total caloric (fat only) expenditure will be very low because you did not do hard enough activity to cause a lot of energy expenditure. So you might as well just read a book or stare at the ceiling while burning fat at an extremely low rate.

On the other hand, you can expend huge amounts of energy (and thus, calories) via high-intensity cardio like sprinting, sled-dragging, any type of interval training. Of course, you will burn some carbs along with the fat, but the overall caloric loss (and hence, fat loss) will be much greater. This type of training also continues to elevate metabolism for hours after cessation of whatever activity performed.

Getting lean at any level is a function of calories in vs. calories out. Low intensity cardio may expend mainly fat kcals, but relatively few ones. High intensity cardio expends fat and carbohydrate kcals, and at a much higher rate. Keeping intensity low makes the process slower and more boring, but less painful. Perhaps that is why many prefer it?

 

[slobberknocker]

What's cardio?

 

[bicepts101]

Keeping intensity low makes the process slower and more boring, but less painful. Perhaps that is why many prefer it?

i definatly agree!

 

[The_Eviscerator]

Getting lean at any level is a function of calories in vs. calories out. Low intensity cardio may expend mainly fat kcals, but relatively few ones. High intensity cardio expends fat and carbohydrate kcals, and at a much higher rate. Keeping intensity low makes the process slower and more boring, but less painful. Perhaps that is why many prefer it?

Very true... but doing high intensity cardio all the time will make you weak and defeat the purpose of what you are trying to accomplish.

I see a lot of people go balls out on cardio and guess what? Most of them look like shit. I will stick with the longer, slower fat burning method.

 

[latinus_spicticus]

Very true... but doing high intensity cardio all the time will make you weak and defeat the purpose of what you are trying to accomplish.

I see a lot of people go balls out on cardio and guess what? Most of them look like shit. I will stick with the longer, slower fat burning method.

What population sample are you talking about? The people at your gym?

When was the last time you've seen someone dragging a sled, doing interval training or sprinting? I rarely, if ever see it. Most of the joggers, walkers, treadmillers, etc., on the other hand, are flabby and weak looking.

And it (high intensity cardio) only takes 10-20 minutes 2 to 4 times a week max, so it does not "make you weak or defeat the purpose..." This would only be true if the caloric deficit caused was so great that calories in the form of muscle were burned. At the same time, try eating a hypocaloric diet and walk for 6 hours a day and tell me you don't lose muscle. Owned.

 

[manny78]

2Thick: I think you just made a new friend called "Nelson Montana".

 

[2Thick]

So what?

Go read a book on human physiology and come back when you are finished.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Anybody here lift weights?

**edited**

You are pushing it, kid.

2Thick

 

[variation]

what's with all the editing of Nelsons posts, I want to read them ;(

 

[papucho]

But the bigger your cardio capability the faster you recover...Right?
(and before you quote me, I mean cardio capability as in overall cardio-pulmonar perfomance, I ain't saying sprint, mount biking, high impact,sex; hold that last comma)

 

[poantrex]

WHO CARES WHAT YOUR HEART RATE IS DURING EXERCISE.

You rarely burn a signifigant amount of fat *during* exercise...what matters is raising your metabolism to an extent
that you burn fat and clear glucose more efficiently *following* exercise. High intensity jogging/running does this much more effectively than plodding along a treadmill half-assed.

I can't believe people think that doing something lazily will be more effective than busting your ass.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

And it (high intensity cardio) only takes 10-20 minutes 2 to 4 times a week max.

You are correct right here. I thought you were referring to 60 minute bouts of this. Now that would defeat muscle gain for sure.

 

[2Thick]

Some of you are missing the whole point of this post.

Your body does not burn fat at a high heart rate. It burns carbos at high rates because of the perceived need for extra fuel.

Moderate cardio at least 20 minutes burns more fat than "high intensity" cardio for the same amount of time. You might burn more calories with the "high intensity" cardio, but then you are hurting yourself by reducing calories without directly reducing fat stores.

Aerobic exercise burns fat while "high intensity" cardio (anaerobic) exercise burn carbos first (and then glucose stores).

 

[Kaksback]

2thick is right on this one folks.

the main source of energy is oxidative fat stores when intensity is low. why? when doing low intensity prolonged exercise, the heart begins pumping more, more blood is being pumped to send oxygen throughout the body. O2 is the substrate needed for ATP production (energy) the first cell broken down for atp production will be fat because the low intensity will not require precious glycogen stores to be burnt up.

less "calories" are burned per se, but the calories burned will be pure bodyfat (well close to 75-85% of those calories


during high intensity, glycogen will be burned first, then once glycogen stores are burned, then fat will be burned.

 

[Kaksback]

on a side note, many who know me on this board know i dont do cardio and get down to 5-6% bf. hheheheheheh

eat me ya fuckers...j/k

 

[rager2500]

The HIT (15-20 min) type of cardio does not burn more calories than slower steady state cardio(45-60 min), nor does it burn more fat calories DURING the cardio session. HIT cardio burns more efficiently because of its after effects, meaning it raises your metabolism after the session is done where as slower steady state cardio emphasizes the cardio session itself. In MY OPINION, I think that slow cardio burns too much muscle due to the duration of the activity,ie. 45 minutes where the HIT type of cardio preserved muscle due to its duration of activity ie.15min. The only problem is that HIT relies on the fast twictch muscle fibers, the same you use during your leg training, so you would have to curtail your leg training to fit the HIT type of cardio. I got much better result doing HIT, than slower state cardio. I had my bf measured where I did slow state cardio and lost alot of muscle along with the fat, switched to HIT the next year, and compared the results with every other factor being the same. Kept most of my muscle during HIT cardio and lost mostly fat, not to mention my lifts did not go down.

 

[Kaksback]

The HIT (15-20 min) type of cardio does not burn more calories than slower steady state cardio(45-60 min), nor does it burn more fat calories DURING the cardio session. HIT cardio burns more efficiently because of its after effects, meaning it raises your metabolism after the session is done where as slower steady state cardio emphasizes the cardio session itself. In MY OPINION, I think that slow cardio burns too much muscle due to the duration of the activity,ie. 45 minutes where the HIT type of cardio preserved muscle due to its duration of activity ie.15min. The only problem is that HIT relies on the fast twictch muscle fibers, the same you use during your leg training, so you would have to curtail your leg training to fit the HIT type of cardio. I got much better result doing HIT, than slower state cardio. I had my bf measured where I did slow state cardio and lost alot of muscle along with the fat, switched to HIT the next year, and compared the results with every other factor being the same. Kept most of my muscle during HIT cardio and lost mostly fat, not to mention my lifts did not go down.

hence me personally getting down to 5-6% bodyfat without cardio.

i keep strength training sessions extremely high for 45 mins each day, keep my diet in order and wah lah (plus some genetic advantage heheh)

but if you take 2thick for what he's saying he's right:

low intensity cardio burns more fat in terms of ratio of fat calories to total calories burned.

high intensity has a lower ratio of fat calories burned to total calories burned.

Percentage is higher with low intensity. doesnt mean its the best but he's right

 

[manny78]

on a side note, many who know me on this board know i dont do cardio and get down to 5-6% bf. hheheheheheh

eat me ya fuckers...j/k

lol......sounds like you dont know what 5% is.... stop using those Walmart caliper.

 

[Shallow Hal]

low intensity cardio burns more fat in terms of ratio of fat calories to total calories burned.

high intensity has a lower ratio of fat calories burned to total calories burned.

But wouldn't more total fat colries be burned in the high intensity scenario?

 

[2Thick]

But wouldn't more total fat colries be burned in the high intensity scenario?

More calories would be burned, not necessarily fat.

 

[beastboy]

Good post...have always felt this way.

 

[CLEMDOG]

an important factor is your diet status. Low carb diets when the bodies liver and muscle glycogen stores are low, of course any type of physical expenditure is going to rely on adipose tissue for energy

 

[BrothaBill]

Its all based on the hormonal situtation youve got going. Insulin by hi gicarbs will screw up everything.

 

[WelshInjectable]

The way I was taught and the way I teach it is that at
60% max HR, you burn 60% fat 40%carbs
80% max HR, you burn 40% fat 60%carbs

Thing is at 80% maxHR you burn alot more cals so even though the percentage is lower ther is still more fat burnt than at a lower intensity.

 

[poantrex]

Some of you are missing the whole point of this post.

Your body does not burn fat at a high heart rate. It burns carbos at high rates because of the perceived need for extra fuel.

Moderate cardio at least 20 minutes burns more fat than "high intensity" cardio for the same amount of time. You might burn more calories with the "high intensity" cardio, but then you are hurting yourself by reducing calories without directly reducing fat stores.

Aerobic exercise burns fat while "high intensity" cardio (anaerobic) exercise burn carbos first (and then glucose stores).

JESUS CHRIST, NO JOKE. Which one burns more fat/calories overall *after* exercise?

 

[rager2500]

Losing weight is as simple as calories in vs. calories out. Keto diets vs. regular diets, its a matter of calories and macro's such as protein indigested. Thats why ECA, clen, T3 work so well because they speed up your metabolism to burn more calories. I dont think its reasonable to compare protein calories against carb or fat calories, when you are trying to decipher burned calories. If that was the case, then would one assume that raising the metabolism would be a bad idea to burn fat. Example: Sprinters, lean, and muscular. Marathon runners, skinny, bony, and flabby, not fat, but not ripped like sprinters. I thought the slow state cardio myth was debunked along time ago.....

 

[2Thick]

Which one burns more fat/calories overall *after* exercise?

It depends if you are asking about calories or fat.

 

[2Thick]

Losing weight is as simple as calories in vs. calories out. Keto diets vs. regular diets, its a matter of calories and macro's such as protein indigested. Thats why ECA, clen, T3 work so well because they speed up your metabolism to burn more calories. I dont think its reasonable to compare protein calories against carb or fat calories, when you are trying to decipher burned calories. If that was the case, then would one assume that raising the metabolism would be a bad idea to burn fat. Example: Sprinters, lean, and muscular. Marathon runners, skinny, bony, and flabby, not fat, but not ripped like sprinters. I thought the slow state cardio myth was debunked along time ago.....

We are not talking about losing weight.

Read the post and try to comprehend before posting.

We are talking about burning fat via cardio.

 

[2Thick]

The way I was taught and the way I teach it is that at
60% max HR, you burn 60% fat 40%carbs
80% max HR, you burn 40% fat 60%carbs

Thing is at 80% maxHR you burn alot more cals so even though the percentage is lower ther is still more fat burnt than at a lower intensity.

Burning calories and burning fat are two different things because your body's first choice of fuel is carbos, then glycogen, then eventually fat deposits. Why waste your body's glycogen stores when you can burn the fat directly?

 

[bicepts101]

Why waste your body's glycogen stores when you can burn the fat directly?

I definatly like this idea!

 

[OXANDRIN]

Anybody here lift weights?

**edited**

You are pushing it, kid.

2Thick

nelson=owned

 

[white boy]

JESUS CHRIST, NO JOKE. Which one burns more fat/calories overall *after* exercise?

WTF, I was under the impresion that you did'nt tolerate disrespectfull posts

 

[shape]

Fellas-

there is an article in this months Fitness -RX that will sum up this entire thread -i will see if i can grab it online and copy it-

but in short hi-intensity is the only way to go-to lean up and maintain muscle-sounds contadictory but when you read the article you will understand

if you are not pushing yourself -you are kidding yourself and just going through the motions

i tried both`-low intensity for about 6 months-lost the weigth i wanted but could not get hard

i have been doing hi intensity for about 6 weeks now-I am losing the weight-getting harder and keeping size

 

[riptorn]

I think you have to try various methods and find which system works for you.I do cardio anywhere between 20-50 mins per session 3 times per week tues,thurs,sun depending on how I feel,then weights Mon,wed,fri and Sat when cutting.If the cardio starts to affect my weights workouts ie loss of strength I will cut back.It has taken me a year or two to find what works for me I think it would be wrong to say x amount of time at x amount intensity burns x amount of fat,there are too many factors involved.While dieting I use every trick I can to keep the muscle full of water,creatine,glutamine,vanadyl,rehydration salts etc.I have a set of body fat scales which lets me know when I am around 6-7%bf,how much total body water,fat free mass and how many pounds of fat my body has,it gives me a rough idea that when my weight is falling that it is due to loss of body fat.

 

[bicepts101]

i think what we all forget is everybody is different and not all the same things apply to everybody. So all this scientific stuff doesnt always matter. It comes down to what works best for your body and your body alone. Now if examples and scientific methods are a part of this exploring process to find and figure out these techniques, than so be it.
Bottom line everbody is different.

 

[serge]

what do you thing about high intensity intervals?

 

[XBiker]

what do you thing about high intensity intervals?

They are great for building power and muscle mass, but they're not going to get you thin like a what is being discussed.

Especially if you are talking anything that follows a high to max output for a short period of time (high intesity intervals or sprints).

 

[JokerJimmy]

http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/hiit.htm

 

[serge]

They are great for building power and muscle mass, but they're not going to get you thin like a what is being discussed.

Especially if you are talking anything that follows a high to max output for a short period of time (high intesity intervals or sprints).

high intensity intervals have been shown to increase caloric expenditure for hours after the training session was over, low intensity cardio however tends to burn more fat while its performed

 

[XBiker]

high intensity intervals have been shown to increase caloric expenditure for hours after the training session was over, low intensity cardio however tends to burn more fat while its performed

Both will create a calorie deficit. However, the high intensity intervals are going to force the body to use up the immediate energy stores that are in the blood stream.

 

[NJextreme]

This is true, in fact when myself or anyone I know prepares for a show all we do is walk on the tread mill, no one ever jogs or runs, it will simply burn muscle, and make you look flat as hell.

The common misconception is "if I run everyday I will be shredded"...Wrong! Good luck running probobly the only thng you will be doing is increasing your stamina and getting a good heart workout.
Also Cardio has no place in the off season, This has been proven by many trainers such as Charles Glass and Chris Aceto

Excellent Post @Thick I have been meaning to touch up in this subject for a while now

 

[lamp24]

what about this? Yes low intensity cardio will draw from fat stores more directly than high intensity during the exercise....but if you do high intensity and burn all those carbos after your workout you will have less carbohydrates for energy for basic functions therefore your body will have to dip into its fat stores later so wouldnt it basically come down to when you want to use which source for energy......on a different note i think high intensity is more catabolic...just based on personal experience

 

[Nelson Montana]

This is all kinda funny. 2Thicks comments about carb expenditure while at an elevated heart rate is a direct excerpt from my book -- you know, the one he says isn't worth having.

 

[rager2500]

Serge,

Love Interval High intensity cardio sessions. Yes they are effective in burning more fat in the long run while you preserve your muscle.

2Thick is right about the amount of fat being burned during the session...that was his point so yea, I agree. I was just merely stating that HIT type of cardio, meaning high intensity interval cardio sessions burns more in the long run, post training. Not a guru in this at all, just stating what I believe and what most of us at our gym our doing. There have been several studies on this in the U.S. and on Japanese speed skaters. Not going to cite them however, because I did not read the whole study, just the conclusions and important facts.

 

[poantrex]

Burning calories and burning fat are two different things because your body's first choice of fuel is carbos, then glycogen, then eventually fat deposits. Why waste your body's glycogen stores when you can burn the fat directly?

YOU DONT UNDERSTAND, DO YOU. YOU *DO* BURN MORE FAT *DIRECTLY* with higher intensity cardio, JUST NOT DURING EXERCISE.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? K THX

 

[2Thick]

YOU DONT UNDERSTAND, DO YOU. YOU *DO* BURN MORE FAT *DIRECTLY* with higher intensity cardio, JUST NOT DURING EXERCISE.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? K THX

No, you burn more calories.

 

[2Thick]

This is all kinda funny. 2Thicks comments about carb expenditure while at an elevated heart rate is a direct excerpt from my book -- you know, the one he says isn't worth having.

That would mean something if you had not plagerized that from someone else.

 

[OXANDRIN]

if i run 4 miles in 30 mins or less is that high intensity?

 

[2Thick]

Are you insinuating that I'm a plagerist? Now you are REALLY out of line!

I can prove I wrote what you said long before you posted it. Show me were I plagerized something?

You are out of control dude. You steal something and then defend yourself by saying I stole it first?

I can't believe the gaul, not to mention the stupidity of this person.

Yes, you plagerized basic scientific info and are trying to pass it on as your own.

You do not strike me as a genius, so figuring out basic science is probably not your strong suit.

 

[Nelson Montana]

That would mean something if you had not plagerized that from someone else.

Are you insinuating that I'm a plagerist? Now you are REALLY out of line!

I can prove I wrote what you said long before you posted it. Show me were I plagerized something?

You are out of control dude. You steal something and then defend yourself by saying I stole it first?

I can't believe the gaul, not to mention the stupidity of this person.

 

[2Thick]

You developing a concept from scientific evidence is plagerism?

You haven't got a clue, do you?

Pretending like you made up the concept is plagerism.

You know, like what you do.

But then again, your opinions are not really grounded in science.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Yes, you plagerized basic scientific info and are trying to pass it on as your own.

You do not strike me as a genius, so figuring out basic science is probably not your strong suit.

You developing a concept from scientific evidence is plagerism?

You haven't got a clue, do you?

 

[Nelson Montana]

Pretending like you made up the concept is plagerism.

You know, like what you do.

But then again, your opinions are not really grounded in science.

............................................
So I'm a plagerist for using science but my opinions are not grounded in science. I see.

Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways.

Your arguments are really weak minded -- not suprisingly. I hope at least you can bench a lot because logic is obviously not your strong suit.

 

[2Thick]

............................................
So I'm a plagerist for using science but my opinions are not grounded in science. I see.

Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways.

Your arguments are really weak minded -- not suprisingly. I hope at least you can bench a lot because logic is obviously not your strong suit.

Nice comeback....

 

[rager2500]

Round 2????

 

[poantrex]

Whatever you say 2thick - you're right that high intensity cardio is more likely to use carbohydrates and glucose as fuel and less fat, but ultimately you will not burn much fat during exercise anyway no matter what you're doing.

Anyways, I maintain that short duration high intensity cardio is far superior for minimizing muscle wasting and increasing fat loss - I believe there are numerous studies showing that this type of cardio is more beneficial in terms of fat loss over long duration low intensity cardio, as well.

I'll tell you this - with my heart monitor, my heart rate and metabolism stays stoked well after my exercise session with HIIT cardio, which isn't true at all for low intensity cardio.

 

[latinus_spicticus]

2Thick,

What is the point of cardio for bodybuilders? To lose fat, right? We are not talking about anything else here, correct?

Since fat loss depends primarily on caloric deficit, then the more calories lost = more fat loss.

HIIT causes much greater caloric loss than low-intensity cardio. I don't care if low-intensity cardio preferentially burns fat calories-- that does not matter nearly as much in the overall picture as total caloric expenditure. You lose more calories and thus, more bodyfat when implementing HIIT vs. low-intensity cardio, all else being equal.

2 to 4 20-30 minute sessions of HIIT will not burn muscle unless you are lacking adequate nutrition and anabolic hormones. Neither will 2-4 60minute sessions of lowintensity cardio, ceterus parabus. However, since you burn more calories with HIIT-- it will cause more caloric/bodyfat loss.

Conclusion: HIIT is more effective for fat loss than low-intensity cardio. Owned.

 

[2Thick]

What is the point of cardio for bodybuilders? To lose fat, right? We are not talking about anything else here, correct?

Since fat loss depends primarily on caloric deficit, then the more calories lost = more fat loss.

As bodybuilders, we want to cut fat without cutting calories. If we go into a caloric deficit, then we sacrifice our muscle building. If you want to cut muscle growth along with fat then go ahead and do you HIIT program.

Your body uses fat stores last, hence, going into calorie deficit will deplete your carbos and glycogen stores first (which reduce muscle building). Low impact cardio avoids depleting carbos and goes straight to the fat. It may take a little longer but you keep more of your muscle.

Conclusion: HIIT is more effective for fat loss than low-intensity cardio. Owned.

LOL... the only thing you 'own' is a vivid imagination.

 

[poantrex]

You're almost as stubborn in your views as Nelson, 2thick.

If I were really anal, i'd dig up a dozen studies showing that HIIT is more effective at reducing bodyfat than low intensity cardio...but I doubt that even that would convince you.

 

[2Thick]

You're almost as stubborn in your views as Nelson, 2thick.

If I were really anal, i'd dig up a dozen studies showing that HIIT is more effective at reducing bodyfat than low intensity cardio...but I doubt that even that would convince you.

Maybe I am not being clear enough.

This is not a HIIT vs. low intensity thread.

This is pointing out that going high intensity is not burning fat directly. It is just burning calories (which might burn fat depending on your diet and training).

As a person who keeps a very healthy diet, burning fat with low intensity is most beneficial.

Using HIIT is counterproductive for people with a well-rounded healthy diet that is low in saturated fats and high in O-3 fatty acids.

 

[Bulldog_10]

This is nothing new people...I don't even know why people are arguing about this...maybe it's just the demeaning attitude of certain posters that makes people want to argue things like this.

Low intensity = higher percentage of fat oxidized during the session.

High intensity = higher percentage of carbohydrate oxidized during session.

 

[rager2500]

2Thick,

Losing weight without the aid of anabolics, is a mere calorie in vs. calorie expenditure. It's really as simple as that. Considering you are not a beginner trainer, you cannot grow if your body does not have the calories to facilitate the growth. And, you cannot lose the weight if your body is not in a calorie deficit, and again, this is predominantly why we use fat burners, to raise our metabolic rate of burning throughout the day. If this wasnt the case, then we wouldnt be using ECA, clen, DNP, etc. Comes down to old school thought v. current studies. Old habits and myths are hard to void.

 

[rager2500]

This is nothing new people...I don't even know why people are arguing about this...maybe it's just the demeaning attitude of certain posters that makes people want to argue things like this.

Low intensity = higher percentage of fat oxidized during the session.

High intensity = higher percentage of carbohydrate oxidized during session.

Bulldog is right here and so is 2Thick about the burning of calories during the session. The only thing we disagree on is the method to which burns the most fat over the long haul. Flames are flying all over the place

 

[kidkoala]

I agree with latinus. I definitely noticed more a "leaning out/muscle sparing" effect when i was skating(w/sprints) vs. low intensity treadmill work.

 

[latinus_spicticus]

2Thick,

This is my last response.

If you simply saying that low-intensity cardio burns a higher percentage of fat calories than high-intensity, then you are correct.

But, above, you say that this is not a High-intensity vs. low-intensity thread, then state

"As a person who keeps a very healthy diet, burning fat with low intensity is most beneficial.

Using HIIT is counterproductive for people with a well-rounded healthy diet that is low in saturated fats and high in O-3 fatty acids."


I'll sum it up for you.
HIIT will lead to quicker, greater fat-loss than doing low-intensity cardio because it causes a greater loss of calories, which leads to a greater loss of bodyfat.

HIIT will not burn muscle b/c of glycogen expediture. If this were true, then lifting weights would cause muscle loss. We know this is not true. Just as we (minus a few) know that HIIT will not cause muscle loss as long as the caloric deficit is not too great.

Cardio is unneccessary for dieting, since fat-loss is a function of calories in vs. calories out. Thus, cardiovascular exercise is not a requirement for fat loss. If one does implement cardio for fat-loss, however, HIIT is more effective than low-intensity, as it is much more efficient (burns many more calories in a much shorter time as well as causing a sustained elevation in metabolism) than the low-intensity variety.

Your assertion that low-intensity cardio burns a higher PERCENTAGE of fat calories vs. HIIT is correct. However, the total amount of calories that low-intensity cardio burns are much lower vs. HIIT. Hence, HIIT is a more effective means of fat-loss. It is not counterproductive unless taken to extremes. Such as doing interval training for an hour every day. Low intensity, similarly, can be counterproductive (i.e. walking at 3mph for 8 hours per day). In conclusion, if one is to do cardio-- HIIT is more effective than low-intensity.

You may want to test out the new AF neuro supplement before pondering this subject any further.

 

[flexed1]

My body only responds to low intensity cardio 25-30 minutes this is how i get cut. high intensity in me causes pain in joints, ankles and shins and it my bodies way of saying no. I listen to my body on all I do.

 

[WannaImpress]

2Thick,

This is my last response.

If you simply saying that low-intensity cardio burns a higher percentage of fat calories than high-intensity, then you are correct.

But, above, you say that this is not a High-intensity vs. low-intensity thread, then state

"As a person who keeps a very healthy diet, burning fat with low intensity is most beneficial.

Using HIIT is counterproductive for people with a well-rounded healthy diet that is low in saturated fats and high in O-3 fatty acids."


I'll sum it up for you.
HIIT will lead to quicker, greater fat-loss than doing low-intensity cardio because it causes a greater loss of calories, which leads to a greater loss of bodyfat.

HIIT will not burn muscle b/c of glycogen expediture. If this were true, then lifting weights would cause muscle loss. We know this is not true. Just as we (minus a few) know that HIIT will not cause muscle loss as long as the caloric deficit is not too great.

Cardio is unneccessary for dieting, since fat-loss is a function of calories in vs. calories out. Thus, cardiovascular exercise is not a requirement for fat loss. If one does implement cardio for fat-loss, however, HIIT is more effective than low-intensity, as it is much more efficient (burns many more calories in a much shorter time as well as causing a sustained elevation in metabolism) than the low-intensity variety.

Your assertion that low-intensity cardio burns a higher PERCENTAGE of fat calories vs. HIIT is correct. However, the total amount of calories that low-intensity cardio burns are much lower vs. HIIT. Hence, HIIT is a more effective means of fat-loss. It is not counterproductive unless taken to extremes. Such as doing interval training for an hour every day. Low intensity, similarly, can be counterproductive (i.e. walking at 3mph for 8 hours per day). In conclusion, if one is to do cardio-- HIIT is more effective than low-intensity.

You may want to test out the new AF neuro supplement before pondering this subject any further.

latinus_spicticus, thanks for the very informative post. I'm a big fan of HIIT cardio and now by reading your post you have just re-assured me!

 

[pharmguy]

Go read a book on human physiology and come back when you are finished

Can you recommend one?

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Some of you are missing the whole point of this post.

Your body does not burn fat at a high heart rate. It burns carbos at high rates because of the perceived need for extra fuel.


Aerobic exercise burns fat while "high intensity" cardio (anaerobic) exercise burn carbos first (and then glucose stores).

This would be true if the only muscles exercised during cardio were skeletal, but the heart is a huge muscle that uses exclusively fat for fuel no matter what your heart rate is. I'm unsure what fuels smooth muscle tissue.

Also if you are on a ketogenic diet you I would suspect skeletal muscle must be using fat even for short term energy indirectly.

 

[Andy13]

Go read a book on human physiology and come back when you are finished.

Hey Sport, come back after you've read a chapter on thermodynamics..

I suppose you think that AM cardio further increases fat loss, huh?

 

[2Thick]

Hey Sport, come back after you've read a chapter on thermodynamics..

I suppose you think that AM cardio further increases fat loss, huh?

What are you talking about, sport?

 

[2Thick]

Hey Sport, come back after you've read a chapter on thermodynamics..

Okay, I get the game.

Now you go read a book on taoism and come back after reading 2 chapters.

 

[Andy13]

What are you talking about, sport?

You have to ask????

Circuscide had some novel ideas relating BBing to the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.

http://milossarcev.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Health;action=display;num=1039333879

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Nearly everything posted on this thread is incorrect. Look at the thread "some observations about cardio" for an overview.

 

[lil k]

You have to ask????

Circuscide had some novel ideas relating BBing to the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.

http://milossarcev.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Health;action=display;num=1039333879

jesus citrus, how many boards do you post at...lol....what a whore...hahaha

 

[2Thick]

You have to ask????

Circuscide had some novel ideas relating BBing to the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.

http://milossarcev.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Health;action=display;num=1039333879

What you are missing is the fact that we are not talking about caloric deficits. We are talking about burning fat while gaining lean body mass. In this case, we do not want to go into a deficit because we need the 300 or so extra (clean) calories to allow our protein intake to focus primarily on muscle repair and growth.

That is the difference between the marathon runner and the 200-800 meter runners. The marathon runner is constantly pushing the limits of their caloric balance, while the 200-800 meter runners are going to more likely be in surplus (even it is only a couple hundred calories). Hence, marathon runners usually have a very flat and less massive frame while it is the opposite for the 200-400 meter runners.

 

[abc 1]

heres where i get confused.

i have tried hiit the last 3 weeks, mixed in with "lower intensity" cardio.

my heart rate during hiit gets up to 162/168 beats per minute, these sessions last about 20 minutes, in which 5 minutes is warmup/5 minutes cool down. so my heart is racing for @ 12 to 13 minutes overall.

on the low intensity days i go 30 minutes keeping my heart rate between 126 and 138 for @ 26 minutes.

am i lead to believe that there is a major difference between the 2? my low intensity cardio is an extremely brisk walk (4.2 to 4.7 mph, sometimes higher). i mean if you look at the 2, my average heart rate is higher for the hiit, but over the duration of the low intensity my heart rate stays higher longer.

this is where i am confused. is there that much of a difference? is my low intensity really more like moderate intensity, therefor more beneficial?