Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
moderate intensity cardio VS hIgh intensity for fat burninig
- Thread starter missyd143
- Start date
My End Over Mad her
New member
having 40 grams of carbs and not doing cardio
is not the same as doing cardio and not eating the carbs
it might werkout like that mathematically
but our bodies are more complex than that
the cario will boost your metabolism as well as eating
the carbs throughout your day so i would
do both. i personally hate cardio
so i jerk off more often.
is not the same as doing cardio and not eating the carbs
it might werkout like that mathematically
but our bodies are more complex than that
the cario will boost your metabolism as well as eating
the carbs throughout your day so i would
do both. i personally hate cardio
so i jerk off more often.
DONALDuckY
New member
^BUMP
I'm curious too. Which one is better for maximum weight loss and muscle preservation? 15 minutes of sprinting and HIT cardio? or 30 minutes of continuous moderate cardio?
I'm curious too. Which one is better for maximum weight loss and muscle preservation? 15 minutes of sprinting and HIT cardio? or 30 minutes of continuous moderate cardio?
30 minutes of moderate intensity cardio is best for muscle preservation. If you're heart rate raises over 70% of th max. heart rate.....your body will go into an aneorbic state which means it will be in depletion of oxygen therefore turning to the muscle cells for energy rather than fat cells. Your heart rate during cardio should be between 55-70% of the max heart rate.
Hoffmeister
New member
bigmag said:
Yes, it goes into aneorbic state.
Just as weight training does. Does that mean weight training is bad for muscle preservation?
For the original poster, check out:
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/HIIT.htm
VooDoo Lady
New member
No one caught this?
VDL
VDL
CrystalChick
New member
MMMMMM
Bad Boys on here LOL
CC
Bad Boys on here LOL
CC
jersey boy
New member
This is pretty much it. 60-70% for fat loss. 70-80% for cardiovascular health.bigmag said:
fat loss-fat for energy
cardiovascular workout-minimal fat , more glucose/glycogen for energy
C
Cuts
Guest
I just recently read in last month's MM about a study that was done about this very topic. Supposedly, although the longer duration, lower intensity cardio sessions burned approximately the same # of calories as the shorter duration, super intense sessions, the difference came in the hours FOLLOWING the cardio. According to the article, a significantly higher # of calories were burned during the 4-6 hours after the cardio for the short super intense session than for the longer lower intensity ones. Apparently the conclusion was that short, intense bursts of cardio were not catabolic to muscle, and successfully upped one's BMR for the next few hours to allow them to shed more fat. What followed was the rest of the article about "Guerilla Cardio..." a prescription for crazy intense, 4 minute cardio sessions that are specifically designed to maintain muscle and burn fat (and lessen the torcher of 30-40 minutes of boredom). If ya'll want more details, I suppose I could scan the article and post it. Let me know. Oh yeah, please give me some Karma... I don't like that "Cuts has only a little Karma" shit. Thanks.
Hoffmeister
New member
Cuts:
Read the link above. I'm pretty sure it is the study you are referring to.
Bigmag:
Again, read the studies. High Intensity Intervals are much better for fat loss than moderate-low-intensity cardio. What they show is that the "fuel" used during exercise (fat or glycogen) is pretty much irrelevant to actual fat loss. It's what happens afterwards (as Cuts mentioned).
Look at it this way. It supposedly takes you what, 15 minutes of low-moderate cardio to get into the "fat-burning" zone? A 30-minute session burns maybe 300 calories, so say 150 calories are burned in the "fat-burning zone". At that rate, it would take you 23 sessions to burn a lbs of "fat". Post Exercise calorie burn is virtually non-existent with low-moderate cardio.
Read the link above. I'm pretty sure it is the study you are referring to.
Bigmag:
Again, read the studies. High Intensity Intervals are much better for fat loss than moderate-low-intensity cardio. What they show is that the "fuel" used during exercise (fat or glycogen) is pretty much irrelevant to actual fat loss. It's what happens afterwards (as Cuts mentioned).
Look at it this way. It supposedly takes you what, 15 minutes of low-moderate cardio to get into the "fat-burning" zone? A 30-minute session burns maybe 300 calories, so say 150 calories are burned in the "fat-burning zone". At that rate, it would take you 23 sessions to burn a lbs of "fat". Post Exercise calorie burn is virtually non-existent with low-moderate cardio.
Hoffmeister
New member
bigmag said:
No, it doesn't explicitly say that.
What it does say is that, per MJ expended during exercise, HIIT was 9 times more effective at actual fat loss. This was due to raised BMR the rest of the day, when at rest, when about 70% of the calories burned are fat.
Any time you actually exercise, muscle will be broken down. Even low-moderate cardio will be catabolic. And based on the study, you would have to expend 9 times the work actually exercising at low-moderate cardio to get the same fat loss.
Seriously, which do you think will result in more muscle preservation to get the same level of fat loss?
DONALDuckY
New member
soooo...does this mean that i should drop the moderate cardio and go HIT instead for maximum fat loss AND maximum muscle preservation?
None of those studies look at long term affect of one type of cardio over another. They only look at fat oxidation over 24 hours. If you look at studies that follow obese folks over MONTHS, you will find there is little difference between the two approaches with regard to fat loss, but the interval group usually have more LBM at the end of the trials. It is not clear if this applies to lean people, but I would think a mixture of both types of cardio would be prudent. I personally consider weight training to be a type of anaerobic interval training, so I do weights, a little bit of sprinting and lots of walking/hiking.
Hoffmeister
New member
MS, I don't know for sure what you consider long term. But the Tremblay study ran for 20 weeks (endurance) and 15 weeks (intervals). The results were reported over the duration.
I'm with MS.....a mixture of both is probably the best way to go. Check this site out:
http://www.janatrains.com/intensity.htm
this goes along with what my point was. It explains it a little better than I did.
http://www.janatrains.com/intensity.htm
this goes along with what my point was. It explains it a little better than I did.
C
Cuts
Guest
Here's something to chew on:
1) Look at professional sprinters
2) Look at professional marathon runners
Although this may be over simplified somewhat, it is kind of an interesting comparison...
1) Look at professional sprinters
2) Look at professional marathon runners
Although this may be over simplified somewhat, it is kind of an interesting comparison...
cleverlandshark2001
New member
Yeah, but champion runners at the Olympic level have that great genetic makeup anyway.
There is so much more that goes into that.
I say, if you are already doing HIT with the weights, do some moderate intensity cardio to burn mostly fats for fuels. High Intensity cardio will burn a greater amount of fat, but also a greater amount of stored muscle glycogen and protein.
Whatever......
I am just as confused.
There is so much more that goes into that.
I say, if you are already doing HIT with the weights, do some moderate intensity cardio to burn mostly fats for fuels. High Intensity cardio will burn a greater amount of fat, but also a greater amount of stored muscle glycogen and protein.
Whatever......
I am just as confused.
cleverlandshark2001 said:
Yeah, so why do champion marathoners at the Olympic level have virtually no muscle in their upper bodies then? They are supposed to have great genetics right? We are not talking about athletic ability here were are talking about 2 different training methods, and clearly long duration low intensity aerobics are highly catabolic. You body wants to lose mass so that it can run farther easier, so it breaks down the muscle for energy.
so if HIIT burns gylcogen for energy and not fat would it be ok to do on an empty stomach 1st thing in morning? what will we be burning since our glycogen is depleted? should we sprint after weight training? i mean how bout running on 5.5 incline and speed 5.0 for 25 minutes?? ithat shouldn be catabolic right?? help me out here lolol
CUTS is the only one who looked at real world results for the answer. Sprinters have better musculature and lower body fat levels than endurance athletes, who often times look like AIDS victims.
While Olympic level sprinters are the best of the gene pool, non-Olympic level sprinters still look better than endurance athletes. Take a look at the next major marathon participants, they do not have anywhere near the low bodyfat or musculature that sprinters do. This is a direct correlation to the type of exercise they do. Long distance endurance training eats up stored protein to a much greater degree than high intensity training, plus requires less calories per unit time than high intensity.
Also, why exercise for an hour and not benefit from a post training BMR elevation? High intensity exercise elevates BMR for hours, while low intensity does not.
While Olympic level sprinters are the best of the gene pool, non-Olympic level sprinters still look better than endurance athletes. Take a look at the next major marathon participants, they do not have anywhere near the low bodyfat or musculature that sprinters do. This is a direct correlation to the type of exercise they do. Long distance endurance training eats up stored protein to a much greater degree than high intensity training, plus requires less calories per unit time than high intensity.
Also, why exercise for an hour and not benefit from a post training BMR elevation? High intensity exercise elevates BMR for hours, while low intensity does not.
Do HIIT training in the morning on an empty stomach. This will maximize your results. Do not eat for 1 hour following your HIIT training. Your blood sugar will be very low so your body will be using energy from it's fat stores. I recommend building up to 10-15 100 meter sprints. Be sure to warm up with about a 400 meter jog before sprinting. Do your 1st sprint at 60% of your top speed, your second sprint at 70%, your 3rd at 80%, and the remaining at 90% of your top speed. sprint 100 meters and jog back 100 meters then sprint again etc. Start out with maybe 5 sprints and work your way up to 15. I have gotten great fat loss results with this method, not to mention improved speed for the various sports I am involved in.
C
Cuts
Guest
I'm in agreement with theShit. In my opinion and experience, AM-empty stomach HIIT is the way to go for fat loss without muscle catabolism.
Hoffmeister
New member
I don't know, guys.
The idea behind AM empty-stomach cardio is the whole "fat-burning zone" thing. That after an overnight fast, your glycogen is pretty much used up, and that doing low-moderate cardio "fat burning" cardio at that point will get into the "fat-burning zone" faster.
HIIT will almost definitely use glycogen for actual "fuel". I would think that doing it in the AM on an empty stomach would probably be the MOST catabolic to muscle.
Again, what the studies above show is that the actual "fuel" used during exercise is pretty inconsequential to actual fat loss. Your body adapts; use more "fat" during cardio, and the body will burn more glycogen the rest of the day, etc. It's the rise in your BMR that HIIT can produce that is really effective.
The idea behind AM empty-stomach cardio is the whole "fat-burning zone" thing. That after an overnight fast, your glycogen is pretty much used up, and that doing low-moderate cardio "fat burning" cardio at that point will get into the "fat-burning zone" faster.
HIIT will almost definitely use glycogen for actual "fuel". I would think that doing it in the AM on an empty stomach would probably be the MOST catabolic to muscle.
Again, what the studies above show is that the actual "fuel" used during exercise is pretty inconsequential to actual fat loss. Your body adapts; use more "fat" during cardio, and the body will burn more glycogen the rest of the day, etc. It's the rise in your BMR that HIIT can produce that is really effective.
DanielBishop
New member
Sprinters vs Marathon runners....
There's a reason for that. And the reason is, a bigger framed, mesomorphic person wouldn't be good at long distance running. They have too much weight to carry, and naturally more musclar people wouldn't be competetive against slighter, slimmer people.... and so smaller-framed people tend to become involved in and be successful at long-distance, while bulkier types try another sport.
It's not that marathon running makes you LOSE muscle.... I doubt any of the marathon runners we see on TV were ever big, and lost their muscle from running long-distance.
The way I see it, sprinters are usually pretty muscular.... they can maintain their muscle mass while doing intense cardio for short bursts, and they don't even do as much weight training as a bodybuilder. So I don't see why a bodybuilder would lose a whole lot of muscle from intense cardio if sprinters can keep it.
There's a reason for that. And the reason is, a bigger framed, mesomorphic person wouldn't be good at long distance running. They have too much weight to carry, and naturally more musclar people wouldn't be competetive against slighter, slimmer people.... and so smaller-framed people tend to become involved in and be successful at long-distance, while bulkier types try another sport.
It's not that marathon running makes you LOSE muscle.... I doubt any of the marathon runners we see on TV were ever big, and lost their muscle from running long-distance.
The way I see it, sprinters are usually pretty muscular.... they can maintain their muscle mass while doing intense cardio for short bursts, and they don't even do as much weight training as a bodybuilder. So I don't see why a bodybuilder would lose a whole lot of muscle from intense cardio if sprinters can keep it.
cleverlandshark2001
New member
Dear TheShit,
When I said great genetics I meant toward their specific endeavors, including marathon runners. They have great genetic potential to be great cardiovascular monsters. I think you should take time to try and understand what someone is writing before you get big-headed and act like a smart-ass.
Do you think these silly marathoners were EVER muscular? What did you think they started training in that manner and just lost all that huge mass they used to have? You know you feel dumb right now.
Either way of training for fat loss would work. The higher the intensity, the more glucose you'll use for energy - but you'd burn more totaly calories.
With the low intensity, you'd preserve more muscle mass cause it's easier work...plain and simple. Now don't go and get that twisted. Of course it's possible to do too much low intensity cardio...I would expect you'd lose lots of muscle mass if you did a slow jog for 10 miles at a clip!!!!
If you're training intensely with the weights...why would you do high intensity cardiovascular training. There are purposes for doing that, but you'd have to cut back on one or the other or else, yeah, you'd lose muscle from overtraining.
Enough.
When I said great genetics I meant toward their specific endeavors, including marathon runners. They have great genetic potential to be great cardiovascular monsters. I think you should take time to try and understand what someone is writing before you get big-headed and act like a smart-ass.
Do you think these silly marathoners were EVER muscular? What did you think they started training in that manner and just lost all that huge mass they used to have? You know you feel dumb right now.
Either way of training for fat loss would work. The higher the intensity, the more glucose you'll use for energy - but you'd burn more totaly calories.
With the low intensity, you'd preserve more muscle mass cause it's easier work...plain and simple. Now don't go and get that twisted. Of course it's possible to do too much low intensity cardio...I would expect you'd lose lots of muscle mass if you did a slow jog for 10 miles at a clip!!!!
If you're training intensely with the weights...why would you do high intensity cardiovascular training. There are purposes for doing that, but you'd have to cut back on one or the other or else, yeah, you'd lose muscle from overtraining.
Enough.
"Sprinters vs Marathon runners.... "
"There's a reason for that. And the reason is, a bigger framed, mesomorphic person wouldn't be good at long distance running. They have too much weight to carry, and naturally more musclar people wouldn't be competetive against slighter, slimmer people.... and so smaller-framed people tend to become involved in and be successful at long-distance, while bulkier types try another sport. "
While you are correct that some people base their sport on their body type, you are ignoring the training effect. Every training style causes specific adaptations....weightlifting increases overall muscular mass, sprinting induces hypertrophy also, mainly in the legs, but there is a transference effect also, and endurance training increases the body's ability to mobilize fuel and reduce fatigue.
Your are asserting that a power sport, such as sprinting (which is very similar to weight training) does not induce muscular hypertrophy. Sprinters did not look like sprinters before they started the sport, their physique is a direct effect of their training. This would be like assuming that bodybuilders are big and muscular before they start training.
"It's not that marathon running makes you LOSE muscle.... I doubt any of the marathon runners we see on TV were ever big, and lost their muscle from running long-distance."
Actually endurance sports are not conducive to muscular hypertrophy. Cortisol levels are high, testosterone levels are low, insulin levels are low, the body becomes very adept at mobilizing and utilizing all fuel sources...protein too.
Genetics can be potentiated and modified, a big person can become a bigger person, as a big person can become a smaller person. Training for a sport makes one adapt to that training.
"The way I see it, sprinters are usually pretty muscular.... they can maintain their muscle mass while doing intense cardio for short bursts, and they don't even do as much weight training as a bodybuilder. So I don't see why a bodybuilder would lose a whole lot of muscle from intense cardio if sprinters can keep it."
"There's a reason for that. And the reason is, a bigger framed, mesomorphic person wouldn't be good at long distance running. They have too much weight to carry, and naturally more musclar people wouldn't be competetive against slighter, slimmer people.... and so smaller-framed people tend to become involved in and be successful at long-distance, while bulkier types try another sport. "
While you are correct that some people base their sport on their body type, you are ignoring the training effect. Every training style causes specific adaptations....weightlifting increases overall muscular mass, sprinting induces hypertrophy also, mainly in the legs, but there is a transference effect also, and endurance training increases the body's ability to mobilize fuel and reduce fatigue.
Your are asserting that a power sport, such as sprinting (which is very similar to weight training) does not induce muscular hypertrophy. Sprinters did not look like sprinters before they started the sport, their physique is a direct effect of their training. This would be like assuming that bodybuilders are big and muscular before they start training.
"It's not that marathon running makes you LOSE muscle.... I doubt any of the marathon runners we see on TV were ever big, and lost their muscle from running long-distance."
Actually endurance sports are not conducive to muscular hypertrophy. Cortisol levels are high, testosterone levels are low, insulin levels are low, the body becomes very adept at mobilizing and utilizing all fuel sources...protein too.
Genetics can be potentiated and modified, a big person can become a bigger person, as a big person can become a smaller person. Training for a sport makes one adapt to that training.
"The way I see it, sprinters are usually pretty muscular.... they can maintain their muscle mass while doing intense cardio for short bursts, and they don't even do as much weight training as a bodybuilder. So I don't see why a bodybuilder would lose a whole lot of muscle from intense cardio if sprinters can keep it."
DanielBishop
New member
Wrong.
A person who is sprinting for the first time, obviously isn't going to look like Maurice Green or any other elite sprinter. But for the sake of their sport, they do weight training to increase their power and subsequently, they increase muscle mass.... sprinting DOES increase muscle mass, as my legs have increased by 2.5" in the past year and a half from sprints, and I don't train my legs in the gym. Upper body, I'm not sure because I train my upper body with weights so it's impossible to tell.
The point I was trying to make, is that a natural mesomorph won't get very far as a marathon runner. Sure, he might do it as a hobby.... but his frame, size and weight is not ideal for long distance running, and as such, he won't be competetive amongst other marathon runners who are more slight and smaller framed. And that's why even if a bigger-framed mesomorph is passionate about marathon running, we won't see him in the professional circuit.
Certain bodytypes are ideal for certain sports. Rarely do you see an athlete competetive in his field, with a noticably different somatotype. That's because sprinters without the musculature and power, aren't explosive and powerful enough to be successful in the higher ranks. Just like the average sprinter is too heavy and bulky to be efficient at running a marathon. As athletes rise through the ranks, the elite weeds out those who don't have the ultimate body for the sport.... which is why most athletes in a certain sport have the same body-type. An example of an exception, would be Australian long-distance runner Robert De Castella.... who was considerably more mesomorphic than the average long-distance runner, but still pretty small-framed and slim by every day standards.
The training effect when talking about the sprinting/running itself, I believe, would have little to do with the physique we see today.
If a Maurice Green stopped sprinting and took up the marathon, I don't think he'd look like that little Etheopian guy.... and vice versa if the little Etheopian guy took up sprinting.
Sorry if you got lost in all that. To sum it up: The bodytype of the athlete is 95% reponsible for which sport he ends up in, and the sport itself is responsible for changing 5% of his body once he's there.
A person who is sprinting for the first time, obviously isn't going to look like Maurice Green or any other elite sprinter. But for the sake of their sport, they do weight training to increase their power and subsequently, they increase muscle mass.... sprinting DOES increase muscle mass, as my legs have increased by 2.5" in the past year and a half from sprints, and I don't train my legs in the gym. Upper body, I'm not sure because I train my upper body with weights so it's impossible to tell.
The point I was trying to make, is that a natural mesomorph won't get very far as a marathon runner. Sure, he might do it as a hobby.... but his frame, size and weight is not ideal for long distance running, and as such, he won't be competetive amongst other marathon runners who are more slight and smaller framed. And that's why even if a bigger-framed mesomorph is passionate about marathon running, we won't see him in the professional circuit.
Certain bodytypes are ideal for certain sports. Rarely do you see an athlete competetive in his field, with a noticably different somatotype. That's because sprinters without the musculature and power, aren't explosive and powerful enough to be successful in the higher ranks. Just like the average sprinter is too heavy and bulky to be efficient at running a marathon. As athletes rise through the ranks, the elite weeds out those who don't have the ultimate body for the sport.... which is why most athletes in a certain sport have the same body-type. An example of an exception, would be Australian long-distance runner Robert De Castella.... who was considerably more mesomorphic than the average long-distance runner, but still pretty small-framed and slim by every day standards.
The training effect when talking about the sprinting/running itself, I believe, would have little to do with the physique we see today.
If a Maurice Green stopped sprinting and took up the marathon, I don't think he'd look like that little Etheopian guy.... and vice versa if the little Etheopian guy took up sprinting.
Sorry if you got lost in all that. To sum it up: The bodytype of the athlete is 95% reponsible for which sport he ends up in, and the sport itself is responsible for changing 5% of his body once he's there.
Last edited:
BISHOP, I agree with alot of your arguments, but I think that you are fixated on champion level athletes, who constitute a very small portion of the entire sport. For these individuals, I agree their genetics is the difference in their abilities.
"The training effect when talking about the sprinting/running itself, I believe, would have little to do with the physique we see today. "
This is where I disagree. Why are sprinters more muscular and lean, and runners are thinner, asides from genetics, it is because the training is conducive to these body types. Take an average person, who is not champion material, and train him/her as a long distance runner...do you think that he/she will maintain his/her pre-training physique? If they are overweight, they will lose bodyfat, along with a reduction in muscle size, whether from catabolism or fiber-type switching. Likewise, just as you have experienced, if we did this same thing with sprinting, there would be a compensatory hypertrophy of muscle mass.
I do pray that we are not locked into our genetics to the degree that you are talking about, because I am wasting my time then with weighlifting and dieting (and I know that I often feel this way).
To end this debate, I originally stated that higher intensity training was better than lower intensity training, for fat loss, because the evidence shows that it utilizes more energy and it can help prevent muscle loss. If you would care to ignore the analogy that I made, that is fine, the science still supports my original idea.
"The training effect when talking about the sprinting/running itself, I believe, would have little to do with the physique we see today. "
This is where I disagree. Why are sprinters more muscular and lean, and runners are thinner, asides from genetics, it is because the training is conducive to these body types. Take an average person, who is not champion material, and train him/her as a long distance runner...do you think that he/she will maintain his/her pre-training physique? If they are overweight, they will lose bodyfat, along with a reduction in muscle size, whether from catabolism or fiber-type switching. Likewise, just as you have experienced, if we did this same thing with sprinting, there would be a compensatory hypertrophy of muscle mass.
I do pray that we are not locked into our genetics to the degree that you are talking about, because I am wasting my time then with weighlifting and dieting (and I know that I often feel this way).
To end this debate, I originally stated that higher intensity training was better than lower intensity training, for fat loss, because the evidence shows that it utilizes more energy and it can help prevent muscle loss. If you would care to ignore the analogy that I made, that is fine, the science still supports my original idea.
DanielBishop
New member
I agree with your main point, don't get me wrong. I think higher intensity IS better than lower intensity for fat loss/muscle retension.
But the analogy pointed at professional/Olympic runners. I don't believe that the training effect of their respective sports would be primarilly reponsible for their physiques as we see them today.
But the analogy pointed at professional/Olympic runners. I don't believe that the training effect of their respective sports would be primarilly reponsible for their physiques as we see them today.
C
Cuts
Guest
DanielBishop said:
When I initially made that point comparing sprinters to marathon runners, that is exactly why I closed it off by saying that "This may be oversimplified somewhat..." Seems like a classic case of the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy... "if after that, therefore because of that..."
15-20 mins! that's a very long time. i can get off in about 1 1/2.
I can't see why this topic is so controversial. HIIT can be sprinting OR heavy low rep weight training. They are metabolically the same thing. Sure weight training is catabolic in the short term just like sprinting. They both use predominantly glycogen for fuel as well. But the overall picture is what's important, and sprinting/weight training is metabolically superior for fat loss and mass gain IN THE LONG TERM compared to moderate intensity continuous cardio.
Take a look at Olympic sprinters from 30 years ago and compare them to modern Olympic sprinters. Aside from ergogenic supps the main increase in mass/leaness seen in modern sprinters is because they also spend a LOT of time weight training. Sprinters of yesteryear did not do this because they were afraid that all that bulk would slow them down. There is no comparison in training style or diets between sprinters and marathoners. I'll bet ya a million bucks that if you took a marathoner and convinced them to stop running, eat lots more protein and hit the weights big time that they would not look anything like a marathoner in 5 years time.
However, as I've said before on a different board, there is a time and place for moderate cardio. When you're dieting for a comp etc...and you've dropped your carbs down so that you have just enough to maintain your weight training, but you still need to lose more fat, then I go for the low/moderate stuff. This is when I don't have enough glycogen to do everything HIIT, and I'm already down to pretty low %bf.
I also like to hike, so I incorporate some cardio into each week so that I can stay fit enough to enjoy hiking.
And I think HIIT with fasting blood glucose is a bad idea. I'll reiterate what cockdez1 said-it's not the fuel source, it's the total calories. To burn the most calories and raise your metabolism maximally you should train when your muscles have peak glycogen storage.
Take a look at Olympic sprinters from 30 years ago and compare them to modern Olympic sprinters. Aside from ergogenic supps the main increase in mass/leaness seen in modern sprinters is because they also spend a LOT of time weight training. Sprinters of yesteryear did not do this because they were afraid that all that bulk would slow them down. There is no comparison in training style or diets between sprinters and marathoners. I'll bet ya a million bucks that if you took a marathoner and convinced them to stop running, eat lots more protein and hit the weights big time that they would not look anything like a marathoner in 5 years time.
However, as I've said before on a different board, there is a time and place for moderate cardio. When you're dieting for a comp etc...and you've dropped your carbs down so that you have just enough to maintain your weight training, but you still need to lose more fat, then I go for the low/moderate stuff. This is when I don't have enough glycogen to do everything HIIT, and I'm already down to pretty low %bf.
I also like to hike, so I incorporate some cardio into each week so that I can stay fit enough to enjoy hiking.
And I think HIIT with fasting blood glucose is a bad idea. I'll reiterate what cockdez1 said-it's not the fuel source, it's the total calories. To burn the most calories and raise your metabolism maximally you should train when your muscles have peak glycogen storage.
Well, to debate the training/genetic issue, look at top basketball players--I would say 95% of them are VERY tall--because that height gives them an edge. They didn't get taller by playing basketball. Same with other sports--sprinters have a higher percentage of fast-twitch fibers, which are the ones that make them good at sprinting, and also the ones that make big muscles. Endurance athletes generally have smaller bone structures, and also have more slow-twitch fibers, which don't get all that big even with training. I'm sure you all remember when you were kids, there was always one kid that could outsprint anyone, and there was always another that always blew everyone away in the mile during P.E. They weren't training for that specific event, but they had natural gifts.
C
Cuts
Guest
Just one afterthought... I have a friend who's been trying to lose his gut for months now... swimming 30-40 minutes many times per week. Just a few weeks ago, I loaned him a recent copy of MM, in which there was an article about Guerilla cardio (basically the same as HIIT). Well, he's been doing that instead now for about 3 weeks... 3 12 minute super-high intensity sessions per week. I spoke to him about it today; I quote "This shit is badass man! It's damn tough, but it's working... I'm already seeing fat loss like I've never seen before, AND I'm actually spending LESS time doing cardio!"
Everyone is different. That's very true. But, for the naysayers, at least give HIIT/Guerilla sessions a try for a while before extolling the virtues of slow-go cardio. See for yourself. Later.
Everyone is different. That's very true. But, for the naysayers, at least give HIIT/Guerilla sessions a try for a while before extolling the virtues of slow-go cardio. See for yourself. Later.
riskybizz007
New member
i like to do both, but find better results from HIIT style as well. But every now and then i'll do the lower intensity just for a change.
