Calories burned in activity

[Belle]

Having been to the Mike Mentzer site I hit a thread that was titled:

BODY FAT: HARD FACTS ABOUT SOFT TISSUE

I found it fascinating and here is a coupls of paragraphs from it. The rest can be found by going to the url below and clicking on articles. It's the link at the top of that list.

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.


by M. Doug McGuff, MD

http://www.mikementzer.com/

What was most interesting going back to the first paragraph was this sentence:

"If a person persisted in 7 day a week steady state training they could easily lose about 5 pounds of muscle tissue."

All the more reason to cut the weights down and rest more inbetween them.

[Brother Phil]

"If a person persisted in 7 day a week steady state training they could easily lose about 5 pounds of muscle tissue."

All the more reason to cut the weights down and rest more inbetween them

This sounds like to me that it's the steady state type of training to avoid if you want to retain muscle, as, according to this article, there are less muscle fibers used in this type of exercise and your body perceives this as a waste of muscle and will catabolize muscle. I would think that you would want to perform exercise that uses a lot of muscle fibers, ie. heavier weight training, to retain muscle fibers. I do agree that rest is vital to keeping muscle fibers.

[HankC]

I have to take this with a huge grain of salt...

**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.**

Is that supposed to be a fact? You need a certain amount of muscle mass to do your daily activities, be it weight training or whatever you usually do. It doesn't make sense that steady state activity is going to negate whatever else you've done to achieve the mass in the first place.

**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.**

I thought this had more to do with specific muscles used, angles of muscle movement, etc. Two different exercises, two different results.

**The main difference for most people is that they have less muscle in adulthood than they had in their late teens and early twenties.**

Not in my experience. Most people don't fill out until their early-mid twenties. I personally went from about 140@18 to about 180@25.

I could go on but I won't. I think most of us understand the importance of resistance training but claiming muscle will melt away (and cause a resulting fat increase) from doing cardio is too much to swallow.

[Belle]

Originally posted by HankC
I have to take this with a huge grain of salt...

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.

Is that supposed to be a fact? You need a certain amount of muscle mass to do your daily activities, be it weight training or whatever you usually do. It doesn't make sense that steady state activity is going to negate whatever else you've done to achieve the mass in the first place.

They are aiming this at people that over train by working out 7 days per week and also people who do cardio. Mainly people who do cardio for any length of time as they are doing long steady exercise which target's the slow twitch fibre muscle. It's like anything to do with your body...you either use it or lose it and if you use too much slow twitch and not enough fast twitch you lose the fast twitch obviously. If you do TOO much you fritter away muscle mass just as you would if you didn't take in enough calories anyway. Not only that but if you overwork yourself your not really going to get anywhere anyhow.

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.

I thought this had more to do with specific muscles used, angles of muscle movement, etc. Two different exercises, two different results.

Yes they are talking about slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibre again here I'd say.

The main difference for most people is that they have less muscle in adulthood than they had in their late teens and early twenties.

Not in my experience. Most people don't fill out until their early-mid twenties. I personally went from about 140@18 to about 180@25.

They are talking about people that do nothing at all where fitness is concerned. I.e. people as they age lose muscle mass because they are not as active as they were as a teen. Etc.

I could go on but I won't. I think most of us understand the importance of resistance training but claiming muscle will melt away (and cause a resulting fat increase) from doing cardio is too much to swallow.

Well I feel the article is quite accurate. A calorific deficit can be created by not eating the right fuel OR frittering it away with cardio = your body using it's own muscle tissue for fuel. There is no difference.

Can you tell us how long it takes someone to build 10 lbs of muscle whilst combining it with cardio and then how long it takes to build 10 lbs of muscle without combining it with cardio? I'd be interested actually. I can bet you ten to one it is faster to build LBM without worrying about the cardio. Isn't it counterproductive to try to build muscle and then rob it of nutrients it needs in between working out by doing cardio = fuel and glycogen? Isn't it true that for every 1lb of muscle you gain you burn 45-50 extra calories per day? Yes this is true. Therefore the sooner you build ten pounds of muscle or whatever your goal is where muscle gain is concerned the sooner you can start to burn calories at just your resting metabolic rate without sweating it with the cardio every other day. Having patience with building the muscle and feeding yourself the right amount of food to achieve growth (but not so much you gain fat also) will sort out the fat problem. Then as as you journey towards your goal--you'll save yourself from having to do all that cutting later. Sometimes I read about bulking and cutting and think it just seems silly not to do both things at the same time. It is possible to do if you are careful with what you eat and are patient.

When you do cardio in between working out on off days it batters muscle in my opinion. Sets it back where repair is concerned and exhausts it of glycogen. We know it does this because we have to exhaust mucles of glycogen before they can switch to burning fat in the cardio. So technically as I have said before, rest between one workout and another where your sole objective is to build LBM - means complete rest from any glycogen expending activity of a great magnitude in my opinion.

Also when you reduce you muscle mass, by doing cardio you hamper the progress of gaining mass and your robbing yourself of being able to eat an extra 50 calories per day. If you can eat 50 calories extra by putting on 1 lb of muscle mass, the sooner you get to that status the better is it not? With each 1lb of muscle mass you put on, you can step up 50 calories in theory if this is correct then. So where you cut back 500 before, now you only have to cut back 450 calories and so on and so forth.

In cardio your slowing down the process of repair, growth and LBM gain or even reducing mass already built in some circumstances if the calorie deficit it large enough--especially if they are dieting also and cutting calories too greatly and therefore they reduce their mass not fat stores. Doing this places you automatically in a position whereby you need LESS calories on a day to day level as it points out in the article. I.e. if you lose 1lb of mass, you automatically need to consume 50 calories LESS per day than you were before you lost that 1lb of muscle mass. In other words you need less to maintain the new weight and it shows as a loss alright, but not where you want it to be at all and in fact takes you back a step where speeding up your metabolism was concerned really. In fact for every 1lb of muscle you fritter away, this article is basically confirming most of what we already know in weight training.

As the article is written by a Doctor and he seems to me to know what he is talking about where fat and LBM and metabolism is concerned, I tend to think it is accurate myself. As we're doing body building we're covered if we're eating the right levels of macronutrients (except sometimes we may exceed the cardio and lose LBM just like anyone whom is inactive and not eating enough protein will lose muscle mass) but you need to be very careful in what you consume and make sure it cover's you for ALL the activity you do. Whichever way you choose to reduce fat, make sure it does not exceed 500 calories per day in cardio and food deficit. If you DO overdo the calorie deficit, after reducing the carbs and the fat in your diet, when your body is done using up the carbs and the fat you consumed that day for fuel, it will protect it's fat stores and it will look for other fuel for energy = protein. So say if you ate 160 grams of protein today to cover you for the 160 lbs of LBM you have and to cover you for repair from a work out but didn't eat enough fat or carbs or burned them up as fuel when doing cardio, in the tally up as you go through your day, if there is not enough of those for fuel, it will take the extra protein you consumed instead. If there is NO protein floating around at the time (reason we should eat 2-3 hourly) it will sabbotage the protein in the muscle. That is how your LBM is reduced whether you are body building, sedentary or whatever. The body values fat over protein and will preserve fat stores and reduce muscle mass as a means to enable you to get by on LESS fuel on a day to day basis if it has to as a means of survival. That's because if it reduces muscle mass and holds onto fat in the process, it achieves that perfectly.

[HankC]

**They are aiming this at people that over train by working out 7 days per week and also people who do cardio.**

I don't think so - read the paragraph leading up to the comment in the main article. He's specifically stating burning a measured 300 cal's/day on a stepper or treadmill.

**Yes they are talking about slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibre again here I'd say.**

Check the quote, he specifically says "perform ANOTHER steady state activity"

**as they age lose muscle mass**

This I agree with. The average peak of muscle mass being "late teens and early twenties" I don't.

**because they are not as active as they were as a teen**

And what type of activities do typical non-fat kids and teens do? I think much more aerobic type than resistance type exercise.

**Well I feel the article is quite accurate. A calorific deficit can be created by not eating the right fuel OR frittering it away with cardio = your body using it's own muscle tissue for fuel. There is no difference. **

I'm no expert but I'm not prepared to agree that there is no difference. About the only evidence I can offer is anectodal - people that just diet usually look like crap. People that diet and do cardio usually look pretty good. I guess the main point in dispute is if cardio will disentegrate muscle fibers that aren't used during the exercise. I'd really like to know the amount of LBM lost from a diet induced calorie deficit vs. cardio induced. You seem to be implying that a diet induced deficit does not result in loss of LBM.

Again, I agree with the importance of resistance training. I agree that you can build more bulk by avoiding cardio. There's just too much wrong with that article, though, for me to buy that cardio is a muscle destroying activity that ultimately leads to fat retention.

[Belle]

Originally posted by HankC
They are aiming this at people that over train by working out 7 days per week and also people who do cardio.

I don't think so - read the paragraph leading up to the comment in the main article. He's specifically stating burning a measured 300 cal's/day on a stepper or treadmill.

If your on a treadmill burning 300 calories it is cardio. The rest of the article also makes references to people who are sedentary also.

Yes they are talking about slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibre again here I'd say.

Check the quote, he specifically says "perform ANOTHER steady state activity"

That is ALSO cardio. Steady state means not going above a certain heart rate --the fat burning zone they call it. That can be achieved by doing weight training just as well as cardio. Cardio and some form of weight training, i.e. fast reps with light weights (especially7 days per week) = increasing and exercising slow twitch muscle fibre I'm afraid. Same difference in other words.

as they age lose muscle mass

This I agree with. The average peak of muscle mass being "late teens and early twenties" I don't.

So where does it says otherwise? I'd love to read it actually.

because they are not as active as they were as a teen.

And what type of activities do typical non-fat kids and teens do? I think much more aerobic type than resistance type exercise.

Yes and as adults generally people do less of it and they become unfit don't they? Kids have higher levels of dhea up to a certain age too, they would barely twitch and they gain muscle mass actually at some points during their childhood--they are growing after all. At full height and growth you have therefore reached your "peak" where muscle mass is concerned and from there on out it is declining if you don't work at keeping it. Simple. Your not growing like kids do anymore, the GH level drops off and therefore you need to work harder at keeping LBM. use it or lose it again... Most people don't use it so they lose it.

Well I feel the article is quite accurate. A calorific deficit can be created by not eating the right fuel OR frittering it away with cardio = your body using it's own muscle tissue for fuel. There is no difference.

I'm no expert but I'm not prepared to agree that there is no difference. About the only evidence I can offer is anectodal - people that just diet usually look like crap. People that diet and do cardio usually look pretty good. I guess the main point in dispute is if cardio will disentegrate muscle fibers that aren't used during the exercise. I'd really like to know the amount of LBM lost from a diet induced calorie deficit vs. cardio induced. You seem to be implying that a diet induced deficit does not result in loss of LBM.

Yes people who "just diet" look like crap but they arn't talking about people who just diet are they for the most part here? They are talking about people that diet, do weight training and then cardio and work out 7 days a week without rest. There is a difference here. People who just diet lose fat but also lose LBM too--especially if it is the induction (20 grams carbs per day)phase of Atkins for about 4 months or something like that--depends what diet they are on. People who do a 40:30:30 or 40:40:20 (500 calorie deficit) diet and do weights achieve weight loss and can gain mass because they are eating right. Many people on diets go low fat and don't concentrate on their protein intkae. They don't care really what they eat as long as they stay within their recommended calorie intake. They may eat lot's of carbs and low fat, and very low protein---total disaster really as they get deficient in various nutrients. On the other hand the people who do the same macronutrient diet (40:30:30 or 40:40:20) diet and whom weight train and then do cardio do three things:

They lose fat, gain muscle, but in doing that ocaasionally they hamper their progress where gaining LBM is concerned due to the raise in cortisol and the catabolic state that cardio creates in between working out days. That is set back where gaining mass is concerned in my opinion. That is what this article is all about here.

Why would just diet induced deficit with good food (and cutting no lower than 500 cals) and weight training x3 days per week result in loss of LBM if cardio doesn't? The point is you need to balance things so that your not exceeding that kind of deficit. I'd have to ask of most people that do all three: Do you know how many calories you truly burn doing the choice of cardio you do? Do you believe what it says on the machine? How do you KNOW you didn't exceed the 500 calorie's deficit for that day, if you don't know exactly how many calories you burned? You'd know by your diet if you just cut back 500 or 250 calories, but there is no way you could know exactly what you "consumed or burned" in calories in my opinion? This is where the confusion occurs half the time---things get messed up and people lose track of what calories they have consumed and therefore don't know if they have made a dent in their LBM or their fat stores. It doesn't show on a scale what as happened. It just shows as a number.

There is no difference between creating a deficit by burning calories or eating less calories--they both amount to the same thing at the end of the day = calorie deficit. The body picks up any deficit larger than 500 and hangs onto fat if it senses too much energy is being expended and not enough is being consumed or more than 500 calories less is being consumed. I think dieting, working out AND cardio plus taking fat burner's also will make this much more confusing somehow.

I don't think it helps half the time NOT knowing where you are where losing calories are concerned. I used to look at tables that told me how many calories I burned doing this or that and thought "Sheesh, how the hell do they know how many calories I burned doing that," because everyone is different. As a huge person with lots of LBM and a faster metabolism or heavy weight, you could burn MUCH more than someone who is used to doing that type of exercise or who does nothing but cardio and has sod all in the way of LBM. If your used to that amount of exercise, you would burn a lot less because your body becomes used to a certain level of exercise and they suggest when this happens to make that steady exercise longer. This is well illustrated in Bill Phillips Body For Life with his 20 minutes of High Intensity cardio versus the 30 minutes and longer low intensity cardio theory. He says that eventually you'd be in the gym doing cardio all day to achieve the same effect you did when you first started out doing cardio if you continued doing "low intensity cardio" the way they suggest you should. I.e. when you get used to 30 mins and your weight loss stalls do 45 mins and so on and so forth. I much prefer the KISS method in all this myself...weights and diet.

Again, I agree with the importance of resistance training. I agree that you can build more bulk by avoiding cardio. There's just too much wrong with that article, though, for me to buy that cardio is a muscle destroying activity that ultimately leads to fat retention.

Well I would say you must have read differently into it because everything I have touched on outside of it was within the article and just put forth in a different way. It was one of the best ones I have read in quite a while and confirms my thoughts about cardio doing more harm than good when your a body builder. The right diet and weights are fine and all you really need half the time.

[Hibiscus09]

I think everyone should do some cardiovascular exercise. I don't exercise just with the intention of building mass. My heart is a muscle also & I want it to be strong. I believe a balance between strength & endurance is important for overall health.

[Eye2_Man]

This is a good post. More stuff to consider.

[HankC]

Belle, just to make sure it's understood, I'm interested in this topic like many others looking for the balance between lbm gain, fat loss, body building, and fitness. I'm not intentionally trying to be antagonistic

I think we can agree that:

- cardio hinders lbm gain
- increased lbm creates a bigger calorie expenditure
- you can lose fat by creating a calorie deficit by either eating less or burning more

I hope we can agree that a calorie deficit will result in both some fat and some lbm loss. So, with whatever approach you are probably either going to gain both fat and lbm or lose both fat and lbm. I think adding lbm without fat is the Holy Grail of this sport/hobby.

Personally, I'm with Hib. - I want to gain lbm but ultimately I'm more interested in my overall well-being than just "getting huge." A little cardio right when I wake up has a fat burning effect and makes me feel great the rest of the day. I much prefer this than feeling creaky and sluggish all day as I often did before I began training.

As for the general merit of the article, I guess we can agree to disagree. Interesting how perspectives/interpretations differ. I'm guessing that I may be pre-disposed to disagreeing because I kind of enjoy cardio. Maybe it's the opposite case for you.

HC

[tracyb555]

I don't know how much of this I buy, but my opinions are mostly based on my own experience.

I do a lot of distance running, probably more cardio than most folks here do. Part of it is to keep my heart healthy, part of it is because it's something I really enjoy. If you were to look at people who are generally featured in Runner's World or similar magazines, you would see that they are pretty lean/gaunt, many I would even consider unhealthy looking. But as many miles as I run (and I also lift weights), I have a pretty muscular build and don't seem to lose muscle mass or fit the mold of a "runner's build", especially not a distance runner. I guess I just live to defy the stereotypes!

When I go out for a trail run, I might go for 90 or more minutes. So when I hear folks talk about cutting out their 20 minute cardio sessions for fear of losing muscle, I have a hard time buying it. I'm guessing that most folks who are primarily into doing weights are not doing anywhere near enough cardio to worry about losing muscle mass. This may not be true for those who are naturally lean, but for the rest of us...

Now, many years ago, when I was just running (not lifting weights or doing any other types of resistance exercises), I still built up pretty large calves & hamstrings. My upper body was much skinnier than it is today, but like I said, I didn't do anything to work out this part of the body.

Doing both, I'm about 15 lbs heavier than I was back then, but I feel healthy and my more muscular upper body gives my body more of a balanced look, instead of the "pear shape" I had with running alone. Also, my quads are more muscular from doing leg weights. I pretty much cut back on doing calf work with weights, because my calves already have a lot of definition and I don't want them getting any bigger!

I know this is just another anecdotal experience, but I need to base my own decisions on what's right for me on my own experiences - not just changing my routine everytime I read something like the article presented.

[Hibiscus09]

Tracy, that's how I tend to think my legs would do with running also. I have a sister who is built like me who runs & she has some pretty built legs!

[tracyb555]

Yep - no one seeing me on the street would peg me as a runner!
I'm probably built more like a speed skater or soccer player.

I once (while wearing shorts) had a total stranger come up to me at Panera Bread and comment on my legs - she asked if I was a cyclist. That was a weird experience.

It's only in the past few years that I've become more appreciative of my calves, but I still HATE that I can't find a pair of knee-high boots that fit

[Hibiscus09]

I have trouble with that too!! You have to get the ones made out of that stretchy microfiber type material. They're more comfy anyway! I do have a pair of brown zip ups that are bigger on the calf but they're almost too big -- I feel like a swashbuckler! My black leather ones are too tight -- I always think I'm going to zip up skin. Yuck!

[Belle]

Originally posted by Hibiscus09
I think everyone should do some cardiovascular exercise. I don't exercise just with the intention of building mass. My heart is a muscle also & I want it to be strong. I believe a balance between strength & endurance is important for overall health.

Well from what I read about heightened cortisol...(and this would have a ring of truth about it I suppose being that the heart is one big muscle) cardio may exercise the heart muscle if done in moderation, but exercising every day of the week is not moderation and may in fact weaken the heart muscle. If you do too much and cortisol levels are too high, like any other muscle in the body, it weakens it. Not good. Some is good I guess, but if your plugging at stuff day after day and not giving yourself chance for the heart muscle to recover from weights and cardio, it is not good for the heart either. To much stress on it.

(In fact if you do that and take something like a stack you could be asking for trouble. Weakened heart muscle + ephedra = Very badly over taxed heart.)

I'm all for getting fit and if it means the odd session of cardio then thats fine, but only in place of a weight session. To my mind weight are exercise too. In fact the best exercise you can do because as it says, you are building muscle that will eventually step up your metabolic rate. Cardio sends you in the opposite direction. I'd like some slow twitch fibres, but I don't think I need that many that I'd want to lose all the mass I am working hard to acquire. It's a touchy situation really, but I'd rather trust the way my body feels after doing a month an half of just weights. I feel heaps stronger without cardio setting me back.

[Belle]

Originally posted by tracyb555
But as many miles as I run (and I also lift weights), I have a pretty muscular build and don't seem to lose muscle mass or fit the mold of a "runner's build", especially not a distance runner. I guess I just live to defy the stereotypes!

This is fine and I'm not disputing that that can't happen..eventually. In fact I don't really want to get into a dispute with you guys at all...but I read, study and I take this stuff in and then sometimes I find parts of it I cannot accept are remotely anything like what we should be doing to build muscle. It seems contraindicative should I say to body building. I'm just saying that it hampers progress and will do in anyone. So as muscular as you may be right now, had you not run and run all those miles, you may have built a bigger frame of muscle than you have currently and possibly of had a more efficient metabolism--so efficient, you would not need to jog or run. You would have gained LBM faster. Anyone would (male or female) as in theory, you are allowing muscle to repair from the tears that you cause in it when you lift weights. It has been proven that you need up to 5-7 days rest and that that can make a muscle recovery much better (and muscle in fact increases more in size). So anything you do on top of every day stuff running at a normal basal metabolic rate (i.e. cardio) that robs that muscle of glycogen between working that muscle group again will hamper the amount that that muscle can make recovery. I mean we are taking protein shakes with carbs and stuff to replace the glycogen immediately before and after a workout, then the next morning we get up and run a mile or two and deplete them again before they have even had chance to repair. This in itself is contraindicative to me.

[tracyb555]

An opposing viewpoint (that supports mine, so I'll stick with it )

http://www.femal************/nutrition/aerobics.html

Excerpt:
Sure, it's possible for you to lose muscle from doing too much cardio, but it's highly unlikely. Shying away from cardio completely because you think you'll lose muscle is a huge mistake. Only excessive amounts of cardio would cause you to lose muscle. Extreme amounts of aerobic work, such as the type of training done by competitive endurance athletes, could be considered over-training. Over-training tips the scale towards the catabolic side. Just look at the slight, wiry physiques of any distance runner or triathlete if you need proof of that. It's difficult to generalize and pinpoint one specific amount as too much, but a safe maximum guideline would be 45 -60 minutes of cardio a day, 6 to 7 days a week. Within these limits, you shouldn't worry about losing any muscle - as long as the proper nutritional support is provided. Beyond 60 minutes a day, you hit a point of diminishing returns and you may increase the chance of injury, over-training and muscle loss.

Side note: "Over-training tips the scale towards the catabolic side. Just look at the slight, wiry physiques of any distance runner or triathlete if you need proof of that."

OK - still waiting for my slight, wiry physique. It ain't happenin' LOL

[tracyb555]

Originally posted by Belle
This is fine and I'm not disputing that that can happen. In fact I don't really want to get into a dispute with you guys at all...but I read, study and I take this stuff in and then sometimes I find parts of it I cannot accept are remotey anything like what we should be doing to build muscle.

No desire to get into a dispute, and you obviously are doing your homework and studying all of this. I *DO* enjoy running, just for running's sake, not to keep the weight down, etc. And I'm happy with the amount of muscle mass I have currently. So I can't really say how efficient my metabolism might be or how muscular I would be if I didn't run. It's not something I'm willing to give up, so I guess I'll never know. I'm sure though that the yo-yo dieting I had done in the past did more damage to me than my running. And I do eat more to compensate for the running I do.

[Belle]

Originally posted by tracyb555
An opposing viewpoint (that supports mine, so I'll stick with it )

http://www.femal************/nutrition/aerobics.html

Excerpt:
Sure, it's possible for you to lose muscle from doing too much cardio, but it's highly unlikely. Shying away from cardio completely because you think you'll lose muscle is a huge mistake. Only excessive amounts of cardio would cause you to lose muscle. Extreme amounts of aerobic work, such as the type of training done by competitive endurance athletes, could be considered over-training. Over-training tips the scale towards the catabolic side. Yeh I thought as much....I think this person here doesn't know what overtraining is really. Overtraining in my vocabulary is doing anything on the off days that takes glycogen out of a muscle that is in repair mode. They seem to think cardio won't do that here...Just look at the slight, wiry physiques of any distance runner or triathlete if you need proof of that. It's difficult to generalize and pinpoint one specific amount as too much, but a safe maximum guideline would be 45 -60 minutes of cardio a day, 6 to 7 days a week. Within these limits, you shouldn't worry about losing any muscle - as long as the proper nutritional support is provided. Beyond 60 minutes a day, you hit a point of diminishing returns and you may increase the chance of injury, over-training and muscle loss.

Side note: "Over-training tips the scale towards the catabolic side. Just look at the slight, wiry physiques of any distance runner or triathlete if you need proof of that."

OK - still waiting for my slight, wiry physique. It ain't happenin' LOL

I suppose it is ok if your wanting to achieve a wiry physique Tracy. I am looking for something between Hib and Misfit and leaning more towards the Misfit physique. I don't think I will get that far, but I don't want to be wiry along the way to it. I guess a lot of body builders don't either. I mean we had hawk post pictures yesterday and all the guys complimented him on how huge he was. That's because secretly, that is what they want to achieve I am fathoming. LOL! (Gee ya don't say!)

*joking*

[Belle]

So hard with this formatting code. I keep wanting to spell color as colour being English and it doesn't work.

[tracyb555]

Originally posted by Belle
I suppose it is ok if your wanting to achieve a wiry physique Tracy. I am looking for something between Hib and Misfit and leaning more towards the Misfit physique. I don't think I will get that far, but I don't want to be wiry along the way to it.

Oh - that was totally meant in jest. I don't desire, nor do I have the genetics (even if I did desire) to have a wiry physique. I'm not aiming for a specific body type, just trying to make the most of what I have, enjoy what I do, and keep healthy

[Hibiscus09]

Originally posted by Belle
I suppose it is ok if your wanting to achieve a wiry physique Tracy. I am looking for something between Hib and Misfit and leaning more towards the Misfit physique. I don't think I will get that far, but I don't want to be wiry along the way to it.

ummmmmmm, I'm kind of shooting for that Hibiscus09 figure but about 5lbs smaller. LOL

[tracyb555]

Oh Belle - one other point:

Yeh I thought as much....I think this person here doesn't know what overtraining is really. Overtraining in my vocabulary is doing anything on the off days that takes glycogen out of a muscle that is in repair mode. They seem to think cardio won't do that here...

Not sure of his qualifications, though he has written quite a few bb articles, books, etc., but he sure looks damned good, and that's got to be worth something :

http://www.femal************/nutrition/tom.html

[Hibiscus09]

Thanks for the link Tracy -- I'll save it. I always like his articles & yes, he's looking mighty fine.

[Belle]

Originally posted by tracyb555
Oh Belle - one other point:



Not sure of his qualifications, though he has written quite a few bb articles, books, etc., but he sure looks damned good, and that's got to be worth something :

http://www.femal************/nutrition/tom.html

LOL! How long did it take him to look good? Only if I can do this in half the time, I would rather do it this way. The best way it seems for me to explain what is happening to your body after you do 20-30 minutes of cardio inbetween your weight workouts is this:

For a time your burning the glycogen in your muscles (first ten minutes) and then you start burning fat. Remember the fat? The stuff you want to burn... well after ten minutes of totally depleting your body (muscles) of all the glycogen you enter catabolism and your body switches from burning glycogen to burning fat for fuel. It doesn't matter if you were only in that catabolic state for 20 minutes or 30 minutes..whatever, it was catabolism. Imagine how long it takes for your body to repair from that situation now. It isn't immediately. Typically we don't drink protein shakes after a session of cardio do we as body builders? Well this seems to be the trend anyway. we just seem to take them pre and post workout and no one talks about drinking one after cardio and it would seem a little counterproductive to what your trying to achieve anyway according to BFL.

At the stage above you have deprived what must be injured muscles (if you worked out right the night before) of what they need for repair and just set yourself back many hours in the repair process because those muscles cannot go any further in that repair process until you replace what you took out of them and become anabolic again. How long is that going to be? Some people on BFL go all night without anything--their blood sugar levels are low first thing in the morning--glycogen is sort of low...then they do cardio on an empty stomach when muscles are what must be very low on reserves anyway. Not only this but they do high intensity cardio which can continue that catabolism for hours because it is worse than just doing 30 minutes of steady low intensity cardio. It taps into adrenalin. When you do that as described in the book accurately, you continue to burn fat and stay in catabolism far longer after that session than you would with low inteisty cardio. Most people don't drink a protein shake after that cardio... In fact--much worse they delay breakfast for a further hour. Muscles must by this time be absolutely crying out for glycogen. They are burning fat alright but it is at the expense of muscle mass being knocked left right and center for several hours after what was a hefty session of tearing up muscle and have a huge delay ahead of them where repair of this muscle is concerned now.

I can only wonder what is happening to that muscle of theirs with the tears in it for the best part of a day. Then.... they have what is technically three nights only to try and recuperate from that before they start battering the heck out of the same muscle group again with weights. In some cases if someone is working the same muscle group less than five days apart, they are doing even worse damage technically. Given this scenario, it sets you back where gaining mass is concerned and repair. If you were to do nothing until 5-7 days later, you would grow much more prolifically than if you sabbotaged your muscles in this way. that's about the best way I can explain it right now to your guys. As much as I admire Bill Phillips and what he has done for other people, I am surprised that he suggests people do this when in scientific terms it is holding you back from increasing your metabolic rate and takes longer for you to get to that place where your burning more fat at resting metabolic rate.

If people posted a thousands links to pictures here of guys or girls that "look" good, the questions would be the same.

How long did it take for them to achieve that physique? The answer:

A lot longer than it should have. They would have reached their LBM goal a lot sooner without the excess training (cardio) on the off workout days and they would have "cut" as they developed larger mass due to the way more muscle burns more fuel.

[Hibiscus09]

Some people on BFL go all night without anything--their blood sugar levels are low first thing in the morning--glycogen is sort of low...then they do cardio on an empty stomach when muscles are what must be very low on reserves anyway.

You could take in some protein before this to help prevent muscle loss. If you're taking in sufficient protein during the day, I don't think 20 minutes is going to cause muscle loss & the idea here is to burn more fat than you would if you had injested carbohydrates already.

Not only this but they do high intensity cardio which can continue that catabolism for hours because it is worse than just doing 30 minutes of steady low intensity cardio. It taps into adrenalin. When you do that as described in the book accurately, you continue to burn fat and stay in catabolism far longer after that session than you would with low inteisty cardio.

The high intensity interval training is meant to keep your metabolism going faster for a longer period of time than steady state cardio would. It's meant to burn fat longer -- that's the point.

Most people don't drink a protein shake after that cardio... In fact--much worse they delay breakfast for a further hour. Muscles must by this time be absolutely crying out for glycogen. They are burning fat alright but it is at the expense of muscle mass being knocked left right and center for several hours after what was a hefty session of tearing up muscle and have a huge delay ahead of them where repair of this muscle is concerned now.

I do eat following morning cardio -- I can't wait too long because I'm hungry.

I just don't think of cardio as tearing up muscle & don't know many bodybuilders who can achieve the level of bodyfat that they do without it. If you're eating right, you should be able to utilize cardio to help burn more fat. It's about calorie deficits & cardio burns calories. I guess it all depends on your goals. I know I can't go without the cardio & feel cardiovascularly healthy or maintain a fat level I'm happy with.

[tracyb555]

Originally posted by Hibiscus09
Some people on BFL go all night without anything--their blood sugar levels are low first thing in the morning--glycogen is sort of low...then they do cardio on an empty stomach when muscles are what must be very low on reserves anyway.

You could take in some protein before this to help prevent muscle loss. If you're taking in sufficient protein during the day, I don't think 20 minutes is going to cause muscle loss & the idea here is to burn more fat than you would if you had injested carbohydrates already.

This is typically what I do. And if I'm doing a long run, I don't skip breakfast or I'd never have the energy to complete the run

Most people don't drink a protein shake after that cardio... In fact--much worse they delay breakfast for a further hour. Muscles must by this time be absolutely crying out for glycogen. They are burning fat alright but it is at the expense of muscle mass being knocked left right and center for several hours after what was a hefty session of tearing up muscle and have a huge delay ahead of them where repair of this muscle is concerned now.

I do eat following morning cardio -- I can't wait too long because I'm hungry.

Same here - I eat following morning cardio

I just don't think of cardio as tearing up muscle & don't know many bodybuilders who can achieve the level of bodyfat that they do without it. If you're eating right, you should be able to utilize cardio to help burn more fat. It's about calorie deficits & cardio burns calories. I guess it all depends on your goals. I know I can't go without the cardio & feel cardiovascularly healthy or maintain a fat level I'm happy with.

Yep - I think it's obvious that we might all be looking at this based on our own goals. If your goals are strictly related to gaining strength/mass, perhaps you might want to avoid cardio. But I think most of the bodybuilders (both male & female) I've seen interviewed do at least as much cardio as most of us here, and pre-contest, even more

[Belle]

Originally posted by Hibiscus09
Some people on BFL go all night without anything--their blood sugar levels are low first thing in the morning--glycogen is sort of low...then they do cardio on an empty stomach when muscles are what must be very low on reserves anyway.

You could take in some protein before this to help prevent muscle loss. If you're taking in sufficient protein during the day, I don't think 20 minutes is going to cause muscle loss & the idea here is to burn more fat than you would if you had injested carbohydrates already.

The point here is, if you DO take in a protein drink your undoing the 20-30 mins of cardio you just did Hib. Burn 250 calories and put 250 calories back in? Seems silly. Why bother getting yourself into the state in the first place when if you allow muscles to grow they will burn more calories at resting rate if there are enough fast twitch muscle fibres? If your muscles consist of lots of short twitch muscle fibres, and you stop cardio for a week you will gain much more than someone who has developed lots of fast twitch muscle fibre and avoided the cardio also. Which means, you have to go for severl runs to get rid of whatever you gained that week. Someone who only did body building and developed the right muscles fibres only need do ONE weight training session (HIT) and they would be fine and back on track. No sweat.

Not only this but they do high intensity cardio which can continue that catabolism for hours because it is worse than just doing 30 minutes of steady low intensity cardio. It taps into adrenalin. When you do that as described in the book accurately, you continue to burn fat and stay in catabolism far longer after that session than you would with low intensity cardio.

The high intensity interval training is meant to keep your metabolism going faster for a longer period of time than steady state cardio would. It's meant to burn fat longer -- that's the point.

Yes Hib that is my point here. To be burning fat for longer, you have to be starved of glycogen. Some thing you would not be if you drank a shake right after doing it huh? In fact if you were burning fat for longer your in "ketosis" and "catabolism" and for muscles to repair you need to be in anabolism. So what I am saying is it is bad to be burning fat for longer here and that High Intensity is worse than low intensity in that sense because in low intensity you are only burning fat for as long as you do it and a little longer if you don't eat. Still a set back but high intensity is much worse. So Bill thinks he is doing everyone a favour by advising them to do cardio the morning after weights, but you ain't doing muscle a favour.

Also what I forgot to mention is he doesn't just suggest ONE cardio session like this in your 5 day break (on day two the first one) from working the same muscle group, he suggests yet another HIGH intensity workout on day four on the Thursday which is also within your rest days for muscles. With cardio it depletes ALL muscles in the body of glycogen not just some. So the ones you worked on Monday are still taking longer to repair and then as at Thursday, the ones you worked with weights on Wedensday are stuffed also. It goes from bad to worse in other words.

I can see you guys are passionate about your cardio, but you have been doing this stuff for quite some time. From what I understood Hib you have been doing this for 7 yrs? I just don't feel that that is a good time frame at all. That is waaay to long when it can take some folks 12 months to gain 5-10 of muscle and be burning 45-50 calories per pound they put on = 225 - 500 per day without scratching their butt. LOL!


Most people don't drink a protein shake after that cardio... In fact--much worse they delay breakfast for a further hour. Muscles must by this time be absolutely crying out for glycogen. They are burning fat alright but it is at the expense of muscle mass being knocked left right and center for several hours after what was a hefty session of tearing up muscle and have a huge delay ahead of them where repair of this muscle is concerned now.

I do eat following morning cardio -- I can't wait too long because I'm hungry.

Thats good. But reading the BFL book, 90% of folks were trying to cut and lose fat and would have been following that regimen and his ideas. I was too and after 8 weeks I had to ask myself why? Why am I hammering muscle here and starving it like this for the best part of the cardio days I do? But even if you eat after cardio, you still need to realise that the whole point of that was to burn fat and you created catabolism for an hour and set your muscles back when you could have made bigger gains and left it for a full five days without depriving the muscle heaps. Well if you eat after cardio with a mind to replace glycogen then as glycogen brings you back to anabolic quickly, technically you created a catabolic state for nowt IMHO.

I just don't think of cardio as tearing up muscle & don't know many bodybuilders who can achieve the level of bodyfat that they do without it. If you're eating right, you should be able to utilize cardio to help burn more fat. It's about calorie deficits & cardio burns calories. I guess it all depends on your goals. I know I can't go without the cardio & feel cardiovascularly healthy or maintain a fat level I'm happy with.

You cannot do both. If mother nature takes five days to repair a muscle, whatever you do thereafter between day one and five to set back progress is wrong. Not only wrong but as I pointed out, exercising the wrong muscle fibres and depleting fast twitch muscle fibres in the process. You WILL eventually get there but it will be like taking two steps forward and one step back all the time--it takes longer because of the disturbance you create in the muscle each time you do cardio. Also the heart is just a muscle like abs, quads, bi's etc. You would not work those any more often than every 5-7 days so why work your heart more than that??? Also, an hour is more than enough actually per week. Over that and your doing the same as working any other muscle group in your body for more than an hour. Cortisol levels will weaken it and weaken every other muscle in your body.

They recommend you do 3-4 sessions of exercise per week. Let's not forget weight training for an hour (not 30 minutes guys like cardio)is an exercise in itself here. This means if your work out three times per week, you need only do one session of cardio, which is just about right where exercising your heart muscle is concerned. Doing weights--if done right--depletes your muscles of glycogen also, and anything you do after that session is burning fat too. Just like cardio. Not if your lifting farty little 2lb dumbells, but if your deadlifting huge weights, you DO need to count that as exercise.

It is obvious that you are firm believers in cardio, and nothing I have said here as made one jot of difference to you views on that. I'm looking forwards to putting my philosophies to the test. It has only been 4 months for me, but this time next year I expect to see results and prove the theory for you all.

[Hibiscus09]

Wow.

I've been exercising for 7 years, Belle. That means both cardiovascular exercise & weight training. Before that, nothing. If I had been following a strict diet along with that, I'd probably be just about perfect with the muscle development, bodyfat level and cardiovascular health. However, I haven't been. There have been ups & downs on my part with the diet and, at times, the exercise. I'm sure this is the case with most people. It's not like I've been slaving away on the precor for 7 years. LOL

You said you'd like to achieve MsFit's look. Well, she does cardio.

originally posted by Belle

It is obvious that you are firm believers in cardio, and nothing I have said here as made one jot of difference to you views on that. I'm looking forwards to putting my philosophies to the test. It has only been 4 months for me, but this time next year I expect to see results and prove the theory for you all.

You could look like a perfect example of lean muscle mass by next year & that wouldn't necessarily mean you have cardiovascular health.

I disagree with your theory. You go for it. We have different opinions about cardiovascular exercise, fat loss, etc.

[Belle]

Originally posted by Hibiscus09
You said you'd like to achieve MsFit's look. Well, she does cardio.You could look like a perfect example of lean muscle mass by next year & that wouldn't necessarily mean you have cardiovascular health.

I disagree with your theory. You go for it. We have different opinions about cardiovascular exercise, fat loss, etc.

I like Misfit's look yes. I would not quite go to that extreme but it is admirable. I said something between your and her's. In fact I, I haven't read her book, so I don't know how much cardio she does. However, it would mean nothing to me in terms of what can be achieved that way and the other way since I would not know if she has tried the other, and if she had, I'd still feel need to carry on with what I am doing until it proves to be wrong. She has been doing weights for a very long time religiously--hence the physique.

In these cases it is hard to tell how long anyone would have acquired much the same without cardio because no one seems to want to believe it can be done it seems. They want to believe that weight training alters your metabolism, but not to the extent you burn more calories and don't need therefore to do cardio. Looking at most people such as Bill Phillips and perhaps even Misfit for example, they may do cardio Hib. However, it hardly discounts my theory in reality, because simply put, no one really knows that somethings works until they have stuck with it and proved it do they? So just because they did cardio, doesn't make doing cardio right where building mass quickly is concerned. Couldn't really unless someone disproved it. No one seems to have and if they did they haven't recorded it it seems. That you or other's disagree with the theory is no surprise. It will take 12 months and me posting on here with an awesome physique to change your mind anyway won't it? Even then folks may disbelieve it, just as some folks who hate weights and think they cause you to look bulky will never believe in Bill Phillips or any other guru.

I don't expect to prove it all at once and in one day. I have just explained in the most basic way why cardio batters the bodies natural levels of anabolic steroids. It seems most of the folks here are desperate to increase their anabolic steroids and asking why their levels are low. Ironically if they are doing cardio, it certainly isn't helping their anabolic hormones and in addition it is slowing down their gains. However, the people whom are recommending various anabolic pills and potions on the one hand are then also recommending that folks shoot their muscles with cardio on the other hand and cardio kind of stomps all over anabolic hormone levels. In reality a pill may never have even been needed in the first place had they just done one thing. That is to stop the one thing that is anti anabolic--->Cardio.

It just amuses me more than anything. Why? Well some folks are popping pills to give them energy so they can get more done which reduces their anabolic hormone levels and then they feel they realise later they are low in anabolics so they feel the need then to pop a pill because they stomped all over their hormones and are not seeing enough growth in muscle. they think they are deficient in anabolic hormones but in most cases it is quite literally within their own control. In other words again...three steps forwards and two steps back back again most the time. So I will just say here we will have to agree to disagree on this given that scientific explanation/theory.

Even if Misfit does cardio, then it could possibly be that she is not as big as what she could be naturally and genetically. Who knows here? If my theory is correct, she could be much larger. LOL!

I would say this much, when I'm posting 12 months from now--or however long it takes for me to do this within that 12 months *pretty confident here* then I would ask all to cast their minds back to my posts in this thread about cardio please---I'd like some credit, but only where it's due like anyone else in life. I'd like it to be quite clear how I did it. That's all...

Had you come from 185 lbs in the last 4 months to 144 lbs at todays date you would be as confident as I am in this theory. I have reduced 40 lbs in the last four months down to 144 lbs. When I'm finished I'll be about 115-120 lbs. That will means that the majority of my weight loss will have been achieved without cardio. You can't exactly discount that here, and given a few months time, I don't think anyone else will be able to either. Each to his own. I didn't come up with the theory out of ignorance by any means, but rather with an insight into all that I have studied and read thus far and also personal experiment for two months now. I know what is happening when cardio is done--and what happens when you stop it, maintain a good diet and just concentrate on weights. I'm still losing--but it's fat loss only here, not losing the battle.

[HankC]

I don't get exactly what you're trying to prove, Belle. You said:

-So just because they did cardio, doesn't make doing cardio right where building mass quickly is concerned.

I think we're in agreement with that. If I had to guess what your thesis is I would say "The best way to achieve a 'cut' state is to raise LBM because increased LBM will result in more caloric usage and have a fat burning effect." Could you tweak that (or junk it and start from scratch) so that it represents what you're thinking?

BTW - excellent results over the past 4 months! You should be damn proud of yourself.