Why am i finding so many people show disapproval of cardio in losing fat?

[Obese2Beast]

Because people are lazy and fat. Making wrong food choices can take you from a 500 calorie deficit to a 1k surplus. It may not be necessary, but it can definitely enable you to continue consuming macronutrients in the later half of your cut without sacrificing food...

[Vigilante_Inc]

MSM isnt gonna be showing his face in this thread. He knows better now lol. He didn't contribute anything what so ever to this argument because he wasn't arguing about the same topic.

Were saying cardio isn't required, and he's saying that it's good for a healthier lifestyle. Both of which are true and I dont think you'll find many people who will refute either.

The problem he ran into was mystifying excess amounts of cardio. He wants everyone to believe that if you do X amount of cardio you can pretty much eat whatever you want to. His evidence is his friends that train for marathons and seem to always be eating and not gaining any weight. He didn't like my argument that the average person would have to run around 35 miles to lose a pound (if that persons diet would have otherwise been at maintenence before the cardio)

I was watching Espn the other day and they're having an hour special about a man who ran a marathon every day for some crazy amount of days until he had run either 2000 or 3000 miles. Anyone see that.... The guy is tubby hahaha.... MSM's anecdotile evidence refuted by marathon runner being overweight. lol

[midcoastking33]

MSM isnt gonna be showing his face in this thread. He knows better now lol. He didn't contribute anything what so ever to this argument because he wasn't arguing about the same topic.

Were saying cardio isn't required, and he's saying that it's good for a healthier lifestyle. Both of which are true and I dont think you'll find many people who will refute either.

The problem he ran into was mystifying excess amounts of cardio. He wants everyone to believe that if you do X amount of cardio you can pretty much eat whatever you want to. His evidence is his friends that train for marathons and seem to always be eating and not gaining any weight. He didn't like my argument that the average person would have to run around 35 miles to lose a pound (if that persons diet would have otherwise been at maintenence before the cardio)

I was watching Espn the other day and they're having an hour special about a man who ran a marathon every day for some crazy amount of days until he had run either 2000 or 3000 miles. Anyone see that.... The guy is tubby hahaha.... MSM's anecdotile evidence refuted by marathon runner being overweight. lol

Sounds like crossfit

[Josh81]

i've halved my bodyfat without doing a single day of cardio, nothing but lifting

do cardio if you want, but it isn't necessary by any means for losing fat...

[msm00b]

MSM isnt gonna be showing his face in this thread. He knows better now lol. He didn't contribute anything what so ever to this argument because he wasn't arguing about the same topic.

Shameless bump, but I had to toss one more well-deserved "lol" in Vigilante's face.

He's got his frilly pink knickers in a twist for being negged and called out on his idiocy. Unfortunately, at every point along the way ... he failed at reading comprehension.

He mad.

[Vigilante_Inc]

Shameless bump, but I had to toss one more well-deserved "lol" in Vigilante's face.

He's got his frilly pink knickers in a twist for being negged and called out on his idiocy. Unfortunately, at every point along the way ... he failed at reading comprehension.

He mad.

Yes because your single Neg really effected me... even though like 6 people repped me for calling you out on your BroScience

My reading comprehension is just fine MSM as well as my ego. Both are still intact. You're credibility in this thread however is a completely different story. You can bump this thread as much as you'd like but it will never make you right.

[msm00b]

My reading comprehension is just fine MSM as well as my ego.

Is it? Then why have you so hopelessly misunderstood every point by point rebuttal and post I've made? By the by, thanks for the (+) reps, it goes quite nicely with the other 2 dozen greens I got in this thread with my replies to you.

For the record, I'm still waiting to hear your rationale on the umpteen broscienceologisms of yours I specifically addressed. I'll even make it easy for you, you can start with the first post of mine you ignored. You can find it here:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...3&postcount=42

Cheers!

[Vigilante_Inc]

[QUOTE=msm00b;642301493]
"Originally Posted by Vigilante_Inc
But if you're already in a deficit + already lifting + doing cardio... how do you expect your body to recover? What do you expect it to recover with... there is nothing there. "


How about fat (assuming you have stores)? It's not like your body is limited to a specific rate of fat loss. As long as you feed your body the necessary requirements (protein/fats etc) to rebuild the muscle you damage during exercise ... you forgo a lot of the risks (in terms of muscle loss) associated with a calorie deficit. People tend to forget that fat exists for one ultimate reason in our bodies: to supply us with energy when exogenous energy is scarce. Your body will preferentially use sugar and fat to run its metabolism over protein. Supply your body with adequate protein and you'll be amazed at just how efficient your body is at using it's stored fat for ongoing energy demannds.QUOTE]

Your bodies fat stores are used to fuel your body in times of deficits. It stores fat because gram for gram it's obviously more dense than either protein or any type of carbohydrate. Do you honestly believe that when you are in a deficit and you tear down muscle fibers through lifting and then you further plunge yourself into a deficit by doing extra cardio... do you honestly believe your fat stores are going to go towards repairing the muscle tissue?

You cannot feed your body the necessary requirements of protein/fats/and carbs to fully repair damaged muscle tissue because you were in a deficit to begin with. Between digestion and regular physical activity etc. you have already sank yourself into a deficit. The only thing left for your body to pull from is its fat and muscle stores. It is highly unlikely (without gear) that your body will decide that in this time of famine that what you need is more of something that uses energy and less of something that is energy.

And if you got repped 2 dozen times for your posts I would absolutely love to see a screen shot of that because I'm not buying it.

[Vigilante_Inc]

Originally Posted by Vigilante_Inc
Cardio is not as effective as you may think... go run 5 miles... you just burned 500 calories. Instead of running 5 miles I'll just opt out of that small piece of cake lulz

Posted by MSM
"As has been discussed ad infinitum, simply not eating calories is not as beneficial as burning them through physical activity. From an athletic, aesthetic, and total wellness perspective, it's better to eat more and train more than eat less and train less. Besides, simply cutting 500 calories from your diet is fine and dandy if you're eating 2500-3000 per day. Cutting 500 calories from your diet when you're eating 1500-1800 isn't realistically possible."

Ok sorry for the odd way of quoting you, but you had like 10 different quotes in one post so I have to do it this way so people can see what you're attempting to refute. So excuse the mess I'm about to create.

Back to the question at hand. First I never advocated exclusivle cutting out 500 calories from your diet. It works far better to use a percentage of your maintenence because of situation just like this. Someone who's maintence was 1500 calories would cut out 10-20 percent. So they would subract 150-300 calories.

Now no where in my threads did I say doing cardio is bad. Nor did I say that it's not healthy. I said it's not as effective of a weight loss tool as people think. You are talking about something completely different than I am. I am talking about losing weight you are talking about overall health.

Is doing cardio and physical activity healthier than opting out of it... hell yes it is and Ive said that like 15 times. But I'm talking about weight loss. I've seen numerous studies that say the #1 thing you can do to improve your health... is lose weight. Doesnt matter how why or where. You just need to drop some pounds. It's a stress on your heart and your other organs and cuts years off of your life.

I've also seen numerous studies that compare types of diets and their effectivness on cholesterol levels. Some high in fat some low in fat etc etc. Every type you can imagine... they all had one thing in comme... when you lost weight your health (and cholesterol) improved dramatically. Some participants exercised some did not. The key factor was weight loss.

You can stand on your soap box and preach about how if you dont do cardio you're lazy and it's just an excuse etc etc... but in the real world not everyone wants to do cardio. Some people would rather be fat than do tedious cardio. Some people dont know its possible to lose weight without cardio and since they hate it they usually stay ****ing fat... because of the things you and people like you say! Because you spew half truths.

Now I will advocate to anyone the benefits of doing cardio in some form or the other... but in reality... it's more important to most people to lose the weight in general

[Vigilante_Inc]

Ok I must get back to work now. I'll respond to any others you'd like me to respond to tomorrow.

[B_Nelley35]

I forced myself to run the tredmill at a nice jog for 10 minutes 3x a week. Ive absolutely hated cardio all my life. Oddly enough Im now on my 4th week and I can go longer and faster already, and when I'm done my sessions I feel absolutely incredible...I now love cardio and I thought I'd never say that lol.

[msm00b]

Your bodies fat stores are used to fuel your body in times of deficits. It stores fat because gram for gram it's obviously more dense than either protein or any type of carbohydrate. Do you honestly believe that when you are in a deficit and you tear down muscle fibers through lifting and then you further plunge yourself into a deficit by doing extra cardio... do you honestly believe your fat stores are going to go towards repairing the muscle tissue?

First of all, your body doesn't 'store engery because it's the most dense available option. You've put the cart before the horse. It's not like your body says "hrm ... self ... I need to store energy! I could use carbs, protein, alcohol (yeah 7kcal per gram buddy) and fat as my available options ... I'll choose fat!" Fat exists because (as you said) it's a highly efficient way the body ultimately evolved to store energy. In extreme circumstances (starvation and famine) your body can fall back on other sources for harvesting energy, but all of these are way down on the preferential ladder relative to fat. Hell, your body can and will even eat organ meat to supply energy in times of crisis, yet we don't sit around going "ZOMG I'm scared my body is eating my liver!". Why do we assume this drastically a different case than muscle? The one big difference is that muscle has a good amount of protein in it. If your dietary protein is inadequate, your body will harvest protein from your muscles to run more important parts of your body that requires amino acids: your immune system (hi there immunoglobulin!) is a prime example. After all, what good is all that muscle going to do you when you're dieing of septic shock from a compromised immune system.

In lay speak, the fat provides you with the energy, your diet helps provide the building blocks. You fail to acknowledge that our bodies exist in a constant homeostatic balance of lipolysis and lipogenesis throughout the day. It's not like there's some magic switch you flip that turns on global catabolism or global anabolism. While you sit at your desk several hours after consuming a meal, part of what continues to supply you with energy is some scant lipolysis. Fat is simply stored energy ... it exists largely for the exclusive purpose of giving your body energy when no exogenous source (food) exists for the body to utilize. Yeah it also provides a measure of insulation and padding, but the primary purpose remains: stored energy. Your body is far more efficient at using it's energy stores than you seem to think is possible.

You cannot feed your body the necessary requirements of protein/fats/and carbs to fully repair damaged muscle tissue because you were in a deficit to begin with.

Durr? Oh really? So if I:

1) supply my body adequate protein to build immunoglobulin, synthesize albumin, repair damaged actin/myosin in the myofibrils of my muscle, and support ongoing growth
2) supply my body with adequate dietary fat to support ongoing hormonal synthesis
3) supply my body with adequate micronutrients (vitamins/minerals)
4) supply my body with enough simple sugars (carbs) to comfortably maintain parts of my body that more or less require predominantly sugar to operate (rbcs, CNS ... etc)

If I supply my body with sufficient building blocks, you don't think your body will figure out how to repair damaged muscle cells? What a crock of hogwash! By the same notion, your body shouldn't be able to do the other umpteen-billion fckin things it needs to do that are a lot more complicated than muscle repair while in a deficit. Are you really so wildly misinformed to assume that your body can't function at a deficit?

Between digestion and regular physical activity etc. you have already sank yourself into a deficit. The only thing left for your body to pull from is its fat and muscle stores. It is highly unlikely (without gear) that your body will decide that in this time of famine that what you need is more of something that uses energy and less of something that is energy.

Ah that's right, because that inch I added to my biceps circumference over the last 4 months of hard cutting despite fat loss in those areas was just my imagination? And I suppose you'll also tell me that the 60lbs I gained to my bench press, 40lbs I added to my bicep curl, and massive gains I made with weighted dips, weighted pullups, bent barbell rows ... I guess I pulled all of that out of my ass?

For the record, during this time I was averaging 4 miles of running a day 4 trips to the gym a week for 60-90 minutes a pop, and averaging 1800-1900 dietary calories a day. My RMR is 1650. By your assertion, I should have withered away to nothingness.

And if you got repped 2 dozen times for your posts I would absolutely love to see a screen shot of that because I'm not buying it.

For your viewing pleasure, there's a few of them in the associated attachment at the bottom of this post. Unfortunately the first 10-12 got bumped off the immediately viewable page. I trust you can connect the dots.

Sorry charlie.

Back to the question at hand. First I never advocated exclusivle cutting out 500 calories from your diet.

Actually you did. Do I need to repost your quote where you said: "why should I go out and burn 500 calories when I could just not eat that one cupcake (or was it "a small piece of cake")". I do believe you even said "lulz" in there somewhere.

Now no where in my threads did I say doing cardio is bad.

Oh that's right, you only said this:

"Cardio is not as effective as you may think..."

and this:

"cardio will actually retard your metabolism by making your heart more effecient"

and this:

"I'm just arguing that cardio will not improve your metabolism through some magical means."

As an example for the record, just because a person doesn't understand how a lamp works doesn't mean it's powered by magic. Similarly, just because you're ignorant doesn't make the impact cardiovascular exercise has on your metabolism "magic" either. Come now, we're living in 2011 ... "magical means" is soooo 1311.

But I'm talking about weight loss. I've seen numerous studies that say the #1 thing you can do to improve your health... is lose weight. Doesnt matter how why or where. You just need to drop some pounds. It's a stress on your heart and your other organs and cuts years off of your life.

We're all talking about weight loss. Diet is paramount, exercise is a powerful adjunct.

You can stand on your soap box and preach about how if you dont do cardio you're lazy and it's just an excuse etc etc...

Reading comprehension is clearly not your friend. I addressed that point here:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...&postcount=123

Because you spew half truths.

I'm the one who spews half truths? These nuggets of awesomely true broscience brought to you by Vigilante_Inc:

-But if you're already in a deficit + already lifting + doing cardio... how do you expect your body to recover? What do you expect it to recover with... there is nothing there.
-cardio will actually retard your metabolism
-Basically what you're saying is If I drive my car faster more often then my car will use more gas at idle than before <--- I love how you wildly missed the point here.
-It does but you return to your resting heart rate quite quickly. And your resting heart rate actually improves the more cardiovascular exercise you perform.Lance Armstrong had a resting heart rate in the 30's.... most obese individuals have one in the 90+ range. <--- this is supposed to be evidence that more cardio = slower metabolism.


Rather than re-type it all over again, this pretty much sums it up:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...3&postcount=91


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

Vigilante_Inc, before you reply again, I'd like for you to don your thinking cap and carefully read this entire post. After you've done that, sit quietly and meditate for an hour or so - let your brain marinate on the topic. Then re-read it again.

Once you've done that, feel free to rebut.

[nondualism]

So when do we start measuring our c*cks here?

When I cut with a lot cardio, and this is admittedly anecdotal, I lost muscle mass and strength. When I cut without it, I increased my strength and my muscle mass remained as near constant as I can determine.

[Ryanast]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to msm00b again.

Darn.

[Vigilante_Inc]

Posted by MSM
"Ah that's right, because that inch I added to my biceps circumference over the last 4 months of hard cutting despite fat loss in those areas was just my imagination? And I suppose you'll also tell me that the 60lbs I gained to my bench press, 40lbs I added to my bicep curl, and massive gains I made with weighted dips, weighted pullups, bent barbell rows ... I guess I pulled all of that out of my ass?

For the record, during this time I was averaging 4 miles of running a day 4 trips to the gym a week for 60-90 minutes a pop, and averaging 1800-1900 dietary calories a day. My RMR is 1650. By your assertion, I should have withered away to nothingness."

What you acheived is called recompositioning. The basics of it: Calorie surplus some days followed by calorie deficits some days. Hence your use of words "AVERAGING 1800-1900 calories"

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...ng-fat-qa.html
Lyle McDonald's Thoughts

[Vigilante_Inc]

Originally Posted by Vigilante_Inc
Back to the question at hand. First I never advocated exclusivle cutting out 500 calories from your diet.

MSM Posted
Actually you did. Do I need to repost your quote where you said: "why should I go out and burn 500 calories when I could just not eat that one cupcake (or was it "a small piece of cake")". I do believe you even said "lulz" in there somewhere.

Vigilante
I was simpley refering to a scenario where instead of running and burning 500 calories through some form of exercise, I would just opt out of that amount of food. I wasn't actually saying all diets need to be a deficit of 500 calories... that was just an example. Strong jumping to conclusions there sir lulz

[Vigilante_Inc]

P.s. I'm not going to argue this subject any more because it's not getting anywhere. If either you or I made a valid point the other one wouldn't listen anyways so what exactly is the point. I can find none. What I will do instead is leave some great articles and research review links on subjects that pertain to our argument. Hopefully you find them enlightening. These are all from Lyle McDonald who is one of the best in the industry and I if I can find my flash drive I may post some of Alan Aragon's stuff on here too (nothing from his research review because that's a subscription area and I wouldn't want to take money from Alan's pockets because I admire the guy. I would think you would find it interesting though so you should look into it. Everyone should it's an amazing review and I look forward to it every month.... end my endorsement lol)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-equation.html (A great humbler in the mid article review. When most people talk about gaining X amount of muscle they assume that it took the standard 3500 calories to gain 1 pound of muscle. But in reality it only takes 600 calories to gain 1 pound of muscle. But we obviously dont just gain or lose pure muscle it's accompanied with fat gains so it could be a 50/50 split or any other numerous combinations to yield an odd number)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...o-much-qa.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html (Off topic but an interesting read... thought you might like it lol)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...nsumption.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-calories.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...different.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...fficiency.html (This is where I got my Lance Armstrong reference from earlier. I really should have specified that I wasn't talking about the average person and their ability to improve but was talking more about the well conditioned athelete... but in all reality I was just trying to be an ass and get under your skin lol... So I may have spewed one half truth... this being one of them. There is evidence that improving cardiovascular system can actually lower your RMR (the study on Lance) but the overall effect was almost negligble and more than likely not acheivable by anyone who would actually read this. Oopsie)

[breadstick1234]

For me it's pretty simple. Say I'm cutting 500 calories per day.

If I burn 300 calories, I get really hungry and need to eat 300 more calories than I would have. So even though I burn 300 calories, I still only come in at 500 under maintenance.

Conversely, if I don't do any cardio, I don't eat those 300 extra and I'm still 500 under maintenance.

If I enjoyed cardio I might do more of it, but cardio ****ing sucks.

[msm00b]

What you acheived is called recompositioning. The basics of it: Calorie surplus some days followed by calorie deficits some days. Hence your use of words "AVERAGING 1800-1900 calories"

Rofl ... check my before/after photos. You call that a recomp? Bear in mind that on my heaviest of calorie intake days (2500 aside from the very rare glut), I was still eating under my exercise-corrected maintenance expenditure.

Watching you chase your tail has been quite entertaining.

P.s. I'm not going to argue this subject any more because it's not getting anywhere.

Maybe it would have gotten somewhere for you if you'd bothered to educate yourself before you attempted to tell others what's what?

[HeLiu]

wow i had no idea this question was going to amount to 6 pages lol. thanks for the info this will take a while to read.

[Vigilante_Inc]

Rofl ... check my before/after photos. You call that a recomp? Bear in mind that on my heaviest of calorie intake days (2500 aside from the very rare glut), I was still eating under my exercise-corrected maintenance expenditure.

Watching you chase your tail has been quite entertaining.



Maybe it would have gotten somewhere for you if you'd bothered to educate yourself before you attempted to tell others what's what?

I love how you argue lol. A lot like most women I know. Contribute nothing to the actual debate but assume your winning and then hang on to that thought and idea desperately. To the outside world you may even appear right and your credentials only make you that much more believable. But in all honesty you didn't make any sense. I hope you had a chance to read through those articles etc I posted. I'll continue to post things to help you educate yourself but I'm done arguing with you.

[Cronie]

Cardio makes you healthier overall...and I used to hate cardio but 2 months into my cut it got easy and now I actually enjoy it.

[asdfman123]

When I cut with a lot cardio, and this is admittedly anecdotal, I lost muscle mass and strength. When I cut without it, I increased my strength and my muscle mass remained as near constant as I can determine.

This is the kind of opinion I've been looking for (expecting really), which gives me the confidence to know how best to approach a cut.

[PerpetualMotion]

Rofl ... check my before/after photos. You call that a recomp? Bear in mind that on my heaviest of calorie intake days (2500 aside from the very rare glut), I was still eating under my exercise-corrected maintenance expenditure.

Watching you chase your tail has been quite entertaining.



Maybe it would have gotten somewhere for you if you'd bothered to educate yourself before you attempted to tell others what's what?

I have a very interesting question and one that makes perfect sense to me: why not rebut Alan Aragon's point regarding cardio?

"I can’t really stand either one, to tell you the truth. Cardio is grossly overrated, and is not an absolute necessity for everyone who wants to lean down. For the most part, a calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. Weight training can easily cause the cardiovascular adaptations that people seek through cardio, with the added benefit of supporting lean body mass & strength. I’m a strong proponent of doing the least amount of formal cardio as necessary to reach the goal, starting with zero."

http://www.simplyshredded.com/nutrit...edded-com.html

I think I understand what Vigilante is saying. Simply put, to elicit a change in body stores you need to expend more energy than you take in. Saying that cardio does something beyond calories being expended (in terms of weight loss) is what Vigilante is referring to as "mystifying." You haven't shown (adequately) otherwise. He isn't debating whether it is healthy or not but simply that not eating a piece of cake (expending 500 calories) and running for 5 miles that burns 500 calories is the exact same thing (and this can be deduced from his analogy that he used for cake).

By the way, according to Martin Berkhan's research (creator of Lean Gains), moderate-to-intense cardio blunts AMPK which in turn blunts muscle protein synthesis. Also, straight from his mouth (or should I say fingers?):

In conclusion, if conditioning is not terribly important for you, if your goal is really about getting shredded while keeping your muscle, I highly suggest limiting moderate to high intensity cardio on a diet - or ditch it completely. Save it for some other time when your recovery is good and not limited by your diet.

His idea of low intensity cardio is walking, by the way. So, there seems to be a benefit of skipping moderate-to-high intensity cardio while on a deficit.

[ispoody1243]

Some people love cardio, others hate it.
It isn't needed so many will just avoid it.
I personally like doing cardio because not only does it help weight loss you also feel great after it.(well i do lol)

[msm00b]

I love how you argue lol. A lot like most women I know. Contribute nothing to the actual debate but assume your winning and then hang on to that thought and idea desperately. To the outside world you may even appear right and your credentials only make you that much more believable. But in all honesty you didn't make any sense. I hope you had a chance to read through those articles etc I posted. I'll continue to post things to help you educate yourself but I'm done arguing with you.

Vigilante_Inc:

have a very interesting question and one that makes perfect sense to me: why not rebut Alan Aragon's point regarding cardio?

I'll preface this with: unlike random anonymous ingrates like Vig you find on the internet, I actually have a good deal of respect for Mr Aragon. He obviously have his bias, but that's ok ... we all do. The only part of that statement I could possibly refute is this bit:


"Weight training can easily cause the cardiovascular adaptations that people seek through cardio, with the added benefit of supporting lean body mass & strength."

Not because it's blatantly wrong, but because it fails to fully connect the dots. Can weight training cause the same cardiovascular adaptations? Yeah it can, but it's fairly dependent on HOW you accomplish your weight training. For the vast majority of gym goers, this won't apply (myself included). Short sets of reps, longish recovery periods. Basically you have quick bursts of anaerobic activity followed by longer periods of rest ... not really the kind of conditioning your cardiopulmonary system experiences when you look at moderately high intensity cardiovascular exercise that places a continual strain on your body for 10, 15, 30+ minutes at a time. This isn't to say that you don't have loads of health benefits from conventional weight training, it just doesn't serve as a surrogate stimulus for your cardiopulmonary system. If you were to look at a high volume, rapid turnover circuit based weight training system (which in the very well conditioned athlete could till be completed with reasonably high weight), you could get that stimulus ... but be honest with yourself ... is that how you personally exercise? It's now how I do it. Nor do I ever really see people in the gym doing it either.

So yeah, it's not because the statement is wrong, it's just somewhat misleading. Without clarification, such a point coming from a trusted individual like Alan Aragon could pretty easily be taken out of context (and it frequently is).

I think I understand what Vigilante is saying. Simply put, to elicit a change in body stores you need to expend more energy than you take in.

And this point isn't where Vigilante_Inc and basic intelligence parted ways. If he had left it at that and followed up with: I hate cardio so I don't do it, that'd have been fine. It was all the other crap (the laughable broscience) that I have addressed point by point. How that all devolved into incorrectly preaching about Lance Armstrongs low resting metabolism or drawing pointless analogies with internal combustion engines still baffles me.

Saying that cardio does something beyond calories being expended (in terms of weight loss) is what Vigilante is referring to as "mystifying."

Do you disagree that it improves your endurance, boosts your metabolism (nominally), contributes to general athleticism, and makes it easier to perform further cardiovascular activities? If you don't, then I fail to see what the problem is

He isn't debating whether it is healthy or not but simply that not eating a piece of cake (expending 500 calories) and running for 5 miles that burns 500 calories is the exact same thing (and this can be deduced from his analogy that he used for cake).

Except that it's not "the same thing" in terms of end result body composition. Assuming that you were to balance an exactly equal amount of calories through intake vs calories through more exercise (whether it's weight lifting or cardio), the superior end result of body composition will always be the one that ate more ad exercised more. Lets he and I were the same weight, the same height, and of the same general composition, with similar trips to the gym every week and the same daily diet. Lets then say that every other day I ate an extra 500 calorie piece of cake and I ran an extra volume of miles that directly countered (but did not over-compensate for) that extra piece of cake. At the end of the month we might have burned the exact same amount of fat, but who do you think ended off the better for it? Who's healthier? Who's got more endurance? Who's developed stronger joints/ligaments and who's capable of sustaining stressful activity for longer periods of time.

By the way, according to Martin Berkhan's research (creator of Lean Gains), moderate-to-intense cardio blunts AMPK which in turn blunts muscle protein synthesis. Also, straight from his mouth (or should I say fingers?)

Yes and according to hordes of successful bodybuilders from the 80s and 90s, dairy and animal fat is what makes you fat.



^ Those guys probably cry themselves to sleep at night because of the impact intense cardio has on their ability go gain lean mass.

Bear in mind that not everyone here has this as the their endpoint goal:



Not that his results aren't impressive (though likely the result of juicing) ... it's just not what most people realistically strive for - nor do they have the kind of time it takes to devote to getting there. So yeah, simply saying that moderate to high intensity exercise gets in the way of muscle growth is asinine. For normal people with realistic goals, it will do nothing but help them reach their goals.

This is the kind of opinion I've been looking for (expecting really), which gives me the confidence to know how best to approach a cut.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, it's wildly unpredicatable. Other anecdotal experiences on the subject such as my own exist: I had pretty large strength and reasonable lean mass gains on a cut even while doing a bunch of cardio.

[Pronobis]

Interesting read.

I'm going to star cardio today just so I can run outside and have people mirin my fitness. Feels good.

[PerpetualMotion]

...

tl;dr. Just kiddin'.

Do you disagree that it improves your endurance, boosts your metabolism (nominally), contributes to general athleticism, and makes it easier to perform further cardiovascular activities? If you don't, then I fail to see what the problem is

I don't disagree. I think the problem is that it was difficult to distinguish what the argument was essentially about. I felt like I wasn't confused and now I am! The tyranny!

At the end of the month we might have burned the exact same amount of fat, but who do you think ended off the better for it? Who's healthier? Who's got more endurance? Who's developed stronger joints/ligaments and who's capable of sustaining stressful activity for longer periods of time.

Touche. Though, I have some deduce that copious quantities of long-distance running causes there is more bodily harm from overuse.

^ Those guys probably cry themselves to sleep at night because of the impact intense cardio has on their ability go gain lean mass.

Sprinters are rarely trying to create a caloric deficit through diet since they feed to keep up with the high intensity of being an Olympian/elite athlete. He is against it because, in his words, "A calorie deficit is a recovery deficit. Avoid deficit spending."

Am I against cardio on a cut? Heck no. I was just simply pointing out some of the deductions Martin made from his research.

[msm00b]

Studies have shown that even in extreme endurance athletes, though they may have more frequent minor joint aches, there is a lower incidence of serious debilitating arthropathy.

[BHall1991]

since no one answered your question yet....

while you are cutting your two goals are lose body fat, and maintain muscle mass. cardio is catabolic, meaning it breaks down muscle for energy.

Catabolic means fat burning...

Anabolic is muscle building...