Cardio: Good or Bad for Fat Loss?

A problem I have had with cardio is that I wasn't approaching it correctly, physically or mentally. I would run a lot, but I've been a runner for the past six years, and I didn't do any speed workouts, just long, slow running. I would also think, "Since I ran four miles today, I can eat as much as anything I want."

I have since switched up my workouts and added variety. I also take nutrition very, very seriously. Not a lot of scientific info, just thought I'd share my experience.
 
Corn, I used to train for years in a gym. You'd be surprised how many people IT and HIIT are applicable for. Once you have a baseline level of fitness established, the sky's the limit. You don't have to look like a genetic freak to exercise at the anaerobic thresholds.

And since this is all about weight loss for the most part, you will have a hard time changing my views since IT and HIIT elicit the largest energy expenditure in the long run.

I also hope I am not mis-representing my own personal views. I think SS cardio holds its place too, in almost any exercise program.

And lastly, doing anything active, IMO, is great. If you are into biking, hiking, or whatever have you.... go out, do it, enjoy yourself, and live the lifestyle. I hate the rigidity of this stuff. I guess people look to me for my advice around here, which I am fine with. But my word is NOT the bible. Nor to I believe in a "one-shoe-fits-all" approach.

Oh, and I know you are not personally attacking me. Trust me, I am extremely thick skinned.
 
Manipulating your metabolism

Curvie Girlie - Great alias! Makes me want to come up with something more clever.

I'm just getting started and have been doing quite a bit of research. Recently, I found an article explaining metabolic rates. I found it very helpful. Hope you do too.



Congratulations on your success already!
 
Christy - Thanks for the great article explaining metabolism!:) It put all the advice I've been getting into perspective. Somehow understanding the mechanics behind metabolism has made it easier for me to change my eating and exercise habits.
 
corndogggy said:
I'm not real sure that I am suggestiong this. Maybe I have been subconsciously. I mean, I'm really big on mountain biking, and I'm trying to get into trail running and swimming for Xterras. I would consider my trail time a cardio workout, yet, it's far from steady state since it's kind of hard to blast up a hill without spiking your heart rate, and I'm not sure I'd classify it as an interval workout since it's not really structured. But, with that in mind, maybe I really am leaning towards intervals, or at least a combination. I guess what I mean is that most HIIT workouts that I hear people doing are really short, and I can't imagine that most people here are pushing the envelope to get the benefits they're expecting in that amount of time, yet most "aerobic" workouts I hear about are often 45-60 minutes, doing the exact same thing every day. There's got to be a middle ground there.




But, I think that normally this process would take so long that most people would run out of serious weight to lose before they got to the point that they cannot progress in this manner anymore. I think the bigger problem is that most people who need to lose weight simply don't progress, they do the same thing day in, day out.




Based off of things that I've read on this forum, yes, I do have that assumption. Hell, there's even evidence of it on this very thread from Llamabean.




I totally agree with this. I am just not convinced that most people make the transition in this manner. That's my problem with preaching the HIIT stuff. I truly don't think that most people, at least here, are incrementing in order to "graduate" to HIIT.

Maybe the problem is that I think my idea of HIIT is a little different than others here. I mean, read the last two issues of Men's Health. When I think of HIIT, I think of L.L. Cool J and the guy from the new "300" movie. I can't imagine that this is applicable to most people on this forum.
Click to expand...

This was bumped up so I thought I'd add my two cents.

I may not be doing HIIT, but on certain days (like twice a week) I do an interval routine on the treadmill that is pretty intense- for me. I walk at 3.8 mph for 2 minutes, then jog @ 5.2 mph for 1 minute, and so on, at a 1.5% incline. During the walking, my HR is at about 136 bpm, and when I'm done with the jog minute, my HR is up to 165 (that's 90% of my max!) You may not be impressed with the workout, but given my heart rate, am I not getting the same benefits as someone more fit doing HIIT?

Now, after two weeks of adding this to my routine, my HR is not up as much, so it's time to increase the jog duration. I plan to do this by adding overall time on the treadmill so I'm still walking for 2 minutes, and then jogging for 1:15 each cycle. I will only add jog time once more after that, then I will increase incline, speed, or a little of both.

On other days, I do other forms of cardio, such as one day of 45 SS (heart rate at about 138-140) , and another day of 50 min IT on the Elliptical ("resting" rate at about 135 and higher intensity at about 160). This is in addition to strength training 3x/week.

My point is, you make HIIT sound so elitist. High intensity is high intensity. You can have a high intensity workout and be obese- it's just a different workout for me than someone who is physically fit would have to do to reach the same target HR zones.

I mean, is it so hard to believe a gal who's 227 and considered very obese could do a 30 minute workout that got her heart rate up to 90% of max, and stick with this interval training session the entire 30 minutes?? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this thread and all who've input. I've been stuck with the idea that I must do cardio to change my body I'm very relieved to see that I'm wrong.
 
Weight has always been an issue for me and this article was a great way to learn about how to manage it... Thanks! I also found some great recipes for low cal food on the site!
 
corndogggy said:
I just think that the low intensity cardio is in fact a bunch of crap, but I just don't understand why the general term "cardio" HAS to mean "low intensity steady state". Why do so many people think that you either have to do this type of cardio, or else immediately bump up to HITT?
Click to expand...

The problem is we have generalized the term cardio to mean this. Cardio is short for cardiovascular (Im sure you know this) exercise, which LISS, IT, HIIT, and resistance training fall into. Anytime you increase your heart rate through physical activity or the like, you're essentially performing "cardio" as it has been coined.

To speak more directly would be aerobic or anaerobic cardiovascular activity. Its the nature of the media education I'm afraid.
 
Thanks to running, I have gone from 252 to 227 and still going down.

I am 6'2 so I figure I should lose another 20 or so pounds before I hit my regular size
 
A question for someone more knowledgeable on the subject than I:

Just how possible is it to lose fat with no cardio, and not much of any other kind of exercise? Is JUST cutting 500 calories a day enough to lose you that pound a week that you're going for? Also, what are the consequences? Will all of your weight lost come straight from whatever lean body mass you have?
 
Easier Said said:
A question for someone more knowledgeable on the subject than I:

Just how possible is it to lose fat with no cardio, and not much of any other kind of exercise? Is JUST cutting 500 calories a day enough to lose you that pound a week that you're going for? Also, what are the consequences? Will all of your weight lost come straight from whatever lean body mass you have?
Click to expand...

First let me say that proper nutrition AND exercise (cardio and resistance training) work in synergy.

Good nutrition = A
Resistance training = B
Cardio = C
Total Health and Good Physique = D

A+B+C=D

Take A, B, or C out of the equation and you are operating sub-optimally and giving up unique benefits associated only with the dropped variable.

Can you lose weight without exercise?

Certainly. Losing weight is a function of being in a chronic/consistent energy deficit, meaning, more calories out than in. This deficit can be established however you see fit.... less food, more activity, a combo, etc.

Will you look good only eating less without exercising?

Probably not, unless you are genetically blessed. And if you were, you probably wouldn't be asking this question. :)

If the number on the scale was all that mattered, this would be a VERY simple process. Unfortunately for some, total health and appearance matter more than the scale and those things require exercise.
 
Steve said:
The problem with steady state cardio is simple. In the early stages it is great. However, your body gets more efficient with it, meaning you get less out of it, the more adapted and better your body gets at performing the task. So you need to keep running harder and further. Eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns. Or, and similarly, you reach a point where, to get something out of the exercise of any significance in terms of fat loss, you need to run for a period of time that far outweighs what the average person is willing or able to allot to exercise, especially when resistance training should be thrown into the mix too.

And with fat loss, total energy expenditure is what matters, so why not pick a form of exercise that creates the largest energy expenditure?

Keeping in mind that our bodies become more and more efficient with steady state cardio, recommending to a general population to run for hours on end is just ludicrous IMO. I could see if you were speaking to a room full of endurance athletes.... but you are not.
Click to expand...

Good post Steve.

I was wondering though, in the case of a newbie, doesn't it take a while for the ' point of diminishing returns ' to kick in for a newbie starting steady state cardio ?

For example, let's say you had a newbie client who could handle 30 minutes on a treadmill with a very low training heart rate zone - i.e a low incline and mph . Over weeks and months the newbie's " body gets more efficient " so they're able to remain aerobic at higher speeds of mph on the treadmill. And as a result , the amount of calories burned over the same 30 minutes goes up as their aerobic mph goes up. So, the harder they can train aerobically over 30 minutes the more " significance in terms of fat loss " - i.e you simply are burning more calories over 30 minutes the harder you run.

For example, I assume you would burn more calories running 30 minutes at a 6 mile a minute pace than a 14 minute mile pace - the former has the " largest energy expenditure " ( or is this the " total energy expenditure " including the afterburn effect ....as with HIIT ? ) . So, so long as you keep improving the calories burned over 30 minutes, when does the point of " diminishing returns " kick in if you go faster and faster on higher and higher inclines on the treadmill while never exceeding 30 minutes of exercise ?

Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding the point you were trying to make.:confused:

Welcome your thoughts.
 
No Wrangell....

I didn't even read my original post.... short changed on time.

However, your words are right.

My usual recommendation is to start out with steady state and ride it until it's no longer optimal.

All of my programming works like this.

Keep it simple until simple stops working.
 
Steve, I'm sure you get these kinds of questions all the time and if you don't feel like answering it, just don't. My feelings won't be hurt:). I figured I'd ask here since I don't really know who else to ask, as I've heard a million different things - none of which seem to be quite healthy. Anyway, I'm 17 years old, 5'10" and approximately 165 lbs. Normal, right? Not quite. My body fat, according to one of those scales which claims to measure it, is anywhere between %22 to %24. If I'm trying to lose that body fat, what kind of cardio should I be doing? Is SS going to do the trick or should I do HIIT? I'm certainly capable of HIIT, it'll just take that much more motivation..but that's a discussion for another time. Basically, I was just wondering if intense cardio is going to diminish whatever little lean mass I have. Furthermore, does weightlifting have a place in my routine if I'm trying to lose the fat? As I said, if this isn't something you feel like you have the patience or time to answer, don't worry about it.. don't go out of your way. In any case, I appreciate the help and information you've given so far. Thanks and take care,

Ted
 
Steve said:
First let me say that proper nutrition AND exercise (cardio and resistance training) work in synergy.

Good nutrition = A
Resistance training = B
Cardio = C
Total Health and Good Physique = D

A+B+C=D

Take A, B, or C out of the equation and you are operating sub-optimally and giving up unique benefits associated only with the dropped variable.

Can you lose weight without exercise?

Certainly. Losing weight is a function of being in a chronic/consistent energy deficit, meaning, more calories out than in. This deficit can be established however you see fit.... less food, more activity, a combo, etc.

Will you look good only eating less without exercising?

Probably not, unless you are genetically blessed. And if you were, you probably wouldn't be asking this question. :)

If the number on the scale was all that mattered, this would be a VERY simple process. Unfortunately for some, total health and appearance matter more than the scale and those things require exercise.
Click to expand...

Easier said, your questions are answered right here in this post. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top