Cutting out cardio for fat loss

Dyermaker, i can guarantee that i am much more intelligent than you. what i said is very understandable, and maybe i don't care what my sentence structure is on an online weigh forum. Yeah you can eat well and not run, but not wanting to Run means its to hard for you, even though its so good for you, therefor willpower. That is why ppl get fat, they choose a bad option for them due to a lack of power of mind.

Addie----HAHA, you don't know how many calories you burn, i guarantee you burn well over 300 calories in 30 minuets as long as what you are doing is hard for you. That is why heavier ppl lose weight quick, idk why you think you are burning less, and yeah some ppl who are like 760 pounds can still move, saw a show on it.
 
fatmanvsbighill said:
Dyermaker, i can guarantee that i am much more intelligent than you. what i said is very understandable, and maybe i don't care what my sentence structure is on an online weigh forum. Yeah you can eat well and not run, but not wanting to Run means its to hard for you, even though its so good for you, therefor willpower. That is why ppl get fat, they choose a bad option for them due to a lack of power of mind.

Addie----HAHA, you don't know how many calories you burn, i guarantee you burn well over 300 calories in 30 minuets as long as what you are doing is hard for you. That is why heavier ppl lose weight quick, idk why you think you are burning less, and yeah some ppl who are like 760 pounds can still move, saw a show on it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was very understandable... which is why how many people have said you've made even a little bit of sense? Waste your energy if you want in responding, but this is my last post. I can literally feel myself getting dumber corresponding with you... its pretty impressive.

Moderators- there's nothing we can do to kick this 4-year-old out of here?
 
actually cardio is one of important thing we should do. But, we doesn't need to do it everyday lol. because we just need to maintain it.. like once a week. of course this is for us to maintain our fitness. but to stop doing cardio is not a good thing. JUST MAINTAIN IT. in order to get a healthy diet, you also must eat some supplement for your body. why? we need to remove toxin inside our body. Cardio+yoga+weight loss product is a vital thing you need to consider to maintain your fitness and stay healthy my men.
 
Cardio is useful for health - but not so much for fat loss.

Also - HIIT cardio vs steady state cardio, the differences are miniscule in terms of the 'afterburn' effect. For 'fat loss' the whole point of resistance training isn't that you're burning calories from the lifting, it's that you're sending the message to your body that it is not ok to get rid of your muscles, if it needs to pull in calories from somewhere, it should take it from the fat.

As for lack of will power - I don't think that's necessarily the case. Recovery is a huge component of any exercise. Your body takes time to repair damage done when its been put under stress - and high intensity does more damage than low intensity. So if you're lifting at 90% of your 1 rep max, and doing HIIT, it will take you longer to recover or you're going to hurt yourself - and then you're not going to be doing much of anything.

Cutting back your cardio, and focusing on maintaining muscle isn't about will power, it's about prioritizing your resources. And if you're in a caloric deficit because you're trying to lose weight, you have limited resources.

Also - as for healthy fats over protein, all the research I have seen is that protein is the most protein sparing thing out there. You may want to search on Lyle's site because it's one of the places I've seen the idea debunked, but basically even if you're in ketosis because you're getting less than 100 grams of carbohydrates a day and thus are in a 'protein favoring mode' your system still will take protein from your diet over protein in your muscles if it's available. Increasing fat intake won't really change things because you can't get protein from fat - which is the whole problem to begin with ;)

You can make glucose from protein, which is what happens when you don't get enough carbs.

Hopefully that made some sense, but if you're checking out Lyle's site you can probably get more detailed info :)
 
I hope all of you "anti-cardio" people are speaking from personal experience! Cos some of the posts look like they are just written by keyboard jockeys without any actual weight loss experience ( with or without cardio ).

For someone who is actually losing weight and body fat doing consistent cardio , 4 to 5 times a week, I can guarantee you that doing slow/steady-state cardio for 45 mins to an hour is the best way to burn fat.

Add strength training to the mix and you have the optimal solution to retain muscle and get stronger while you get leaner.

I do stregth training for an hour two times a week and currently have opted out of lower body workouts since it takes my legs longer to recover and I cannot fit in my cardio. But that's just me.

Whoever gave the example of not seeing Arnold type of people in a marathon...you are just comparing extremes here. Who says that just because you run, you have to compete in marathons ? And even though a sterotypical marathoner looks too thin, I can show many who are well built and have a proper nutrition and stregth training program coupled with their running routine.

Also, extending it even further, if you have ever had a chance to read the Encyclopedia of Body building by none other than Arnold Shwarznegger himself, he mentions that you must add 30-45 minutes of running 4-5 times a week to your strength training routine!

Sure, for some mesomorphs, it might be easy to lose fat just doing weights alone, but for the rest of us,( regardless of what body type we are ) who got where we are by overeating , cardio is still one of the best options of creating a caloric deficit.

Harsh
 
harshathlete said:
For someone who is actually losing weight and body fat doing consistent cardio , 4 to 5 times a week, I can guarantee you that doing slow/steady-state cardio for 45 mins to an hour is the best way to burn fat.
Click to expand...



There is cardio, and then there is "cardio". Slow, steady-state is very inefficient because it does not involve ballistics. Allow me to break it down in a practical manner:


A 200 lb person running a 13 minute mile (a 13 min mile is being very generous for a 200 lb person with a high body fat percentage) will burn 11 calories per minute (0.055 x weight in pounds). 45 minutes non-stop is required to burn 500 kcal.

A 200 lb person doing kettlebell swings will burn 31.8 calories per minute (0.159 x weight in pounds). 15 minutes non-stop is required to burn 500 kcal. On top of that, it works every muscle group in your body simultaneously with weight resistance.


Now, I'm off to swing my bell. I'll already be finished with my shower when you're (hypothetical person) half-way through with your run. Have fun ;-)
 
harshathlete said:
I hope all of you "anti-cardio" people are speaking from personal experience! Cos some of the posts look like they are just written by keyboard jockeys without any actual weight loss experience ( with or without cardio ).

For someone who is actually losing weight and body fat doing consistent cardio , 4 to 5 times a week, I can guarantee you that doing slow/steady-state cardio for 45 mins to an hour is the best way to burn fat.
Click to expand...
Completely 100% false. In terms of exercise, steady state cardio is BY FAR THE WORST FORM OF EXERCISE FOR FAT LOSS.

However, it is also the easiest to do, and for a good number of out of shape and nonathletic people, the best _for them_.

We are not "anti-cardio" anymoreso than you are "anti weights".. We are however using science to maximize our time for best results. It just makes sense.

And if you want personal experience, adding 5 hours of lifting a week increase my caloric needs by about 35%. I added 1000 calories a day and was still maintaining just from lifting with 0 cardio. steady state will come out nowhere near that number..
 
alphaX said:
There is cardio, and then there is "cardio". Slow, steady-state is very inefficient because it does not involve ballistics. Allow me to break it down in a practical manner:


A 200 lb person running a 13 minute mile (a 13 min mile is being very generous for a 200 lb person with a high body fat percentage) will burn 11 calories per minute (0.055 x weight in pounds). 45 minutes non-stop is required to burn 500 kcal.

A 200 lb person doing kettlebell swings will burn 31.8 calories per minute (0.159 x weight in pounds). 15 minutes non-stop is required to burn 500 kcal. On top of that, it works every muscle group in your body simultaneously with weight resistance.


Now, I'm off to swing my bell. I'll already be finished with my shower when you're (hypothetical person) half-way through with your run. Have fun ;-)
Click to expand...

That is why I said, adding strength training as well as cardio is the right combination. Why limit yourself by either/or mentality ?

Anyway, to each his own. alphax, if you are getting the results that you need by swinging your kettlebells, more power to you! :sifone:
 
harshathlete said:
I hope all of you "anti-cardio" people are speaking from personal experience! Cos some of the posts look like they are just written by keyboard jockeys without any actual weight loss experience ( with or without cardio ).
Click to expand...

I don't know if I came out as anti-cardio or not, however I lost 70 pounds - most of it without doing any cardio, or any exercise at all. I wish I'd done strength training because probably 15+ of that was lean body mass, and I don't gain muscle easily, but it's all spilled milk now.

For someone who is actually losing weight and body fat doing consistent cardio , 4 to 5 times a week, I can guarantee you that doing slow/steady-state cardio for 45 mins to an hour is the best way to burn fat.
Click to expand...

Best is pretty relative. Best for you may not be best for me. Or for anyone else out there. Heck, I lost my weight doing Atkins and I wouldn't say it was 'best' even if it did let me lose the 70 pounds in about 9 months.

Add strength training to the mix and you have the optimal solution to retain muscle and get stronger while you get leaner.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that strength training is more important to body composition than the cardio. Not that cardio is worthless or you shouldn't do it, but if you have only 3 hours a week to work out, prioritize resistance training first, cardio second. (See exception about extremely high body fat % below)

I do stregth training for an hour two times a week and currently have opted out of lower body workouts since it takes my legs longer to recover and I cannot fit in my cardio. But that's just me.

Whoever gave the example of not seeing Arnold type of people in a marathon...you are just comparing extremes here. Who says that just because you run, you have to compete in marathons ? And even though a sterotypical marathoner looks too thin, I can show many who are well built and have a proper nutrition and stregth training program coupled with their running routine.

Also, extending it even further, if you have ever had a chance to read the Encyclopedia of Body building by none other than Arnold Shwarznegger himself, he mentions that you must add 30-45 minutes of running 4-5 times a week to your strength training routine!

Sure, for some mesomorphs, it might be easy to lose fat just doing weights alone, but for the rest of us,( regardless of what body type we are ) who got where we are by overeating , cardio is still one of the best options of creating a caloric deficit.

Harsh
Click to expand...

I don't think it's just an issue of mesomorphs - I think it really is the case that diet plays a greater role in weight loss than cardio. It is far, far easier for me to eat an extra 300 calories than it is for me to burn those calories off. Again, I don't think anyone here is saying "Cardio sucks, never do it!" just that in the context of fat loss strength training can be a big factor, but cardio is just a bit player.

Of course, for really high body fat % even strength training is a bit player because your body holds on to muscle better when it knows you've got an abundance of fat to burn, but that's more of a digression ;)
 
Jynus said:
We are not "anti-cardio" anymoreso than you are "anti weights".. We are however using science to maximize our time for best results. It just makes sense.

And if you want personal experience, adding 5 hours of lifting a week increase my caloric needs by about 35%. I added 1000 calories a day and was still maintaining just from lifting with 0 cardio. steady state will come out nowhere near that number..
Click to expand...


Well said!
 
Jeanette401 said:
I don't know if I came out as anti-cardio or not, however I lost 70 pounds - most of it without doing any cardio, or any exercise at all. I wish I'd done strength training because probably 15+ of that was lean body mass, and I don't gain muscle easily, but it's all spilled milk now.



Best is pretty relative. Best for you may not be best for me. Or for anyone else out there. Heck, I lost my weight doing Atkins and I wouldn't say it was 'best' even if it did let me lose the 70 pounds in about 9 months.



I think the point is that strength training is more important to body composition than the cardio. Not that cardio is worthless or you shouldn't do it, but if you have only 3 hours a week to work out, prioritize resistance training first, cardio second. (See exception about extremely high body fat % below)



I don't think it's just an issue of mesomorphs - I think it really is the case that diet plays a greater role in weight loss than cardio. It is far, far easier for me to eat an extra 300 calories than it is for me to burn those calories off. Again, I don't think anyone here is saying "Cardio sucks, never do it!" just that in the context of fat loss strength training can be a big factor, but cardio is just a bit player.
Click to expand...

I agree. In the end effort cannot be equated to results. Since you are getting the results you want with more stregth training than cardio, and I am getting similar results with more cardio, we should follow what works for us as individuals.

The only thing I am against ( and I am not saying that you guys are saying this ) is when people make broad and sweeping remarks like "Cardio does not work" or "Exercise does not work" ( a la Time magazine article )...
:leaving:
Harsh
 
One thing's for sure - get slim and you will get plenty of cardio as a result. Sometimes all night long.

The same hot women who ignored me before have started sitting right next to me, touching me in their little flirty ways, etc. I already have a girlfriend, but if things go south, there are plenty of fish in the sea!
 
alphaX said:
A 200 lb person running a 13 minute mile (a 13 min mile is being very generous for a 200 lb person with a high body fat percentage) will burn 11 calories per minute (0.055 x weight in pounds). 45 minutes non-stop is required to burn 500 kcal.

A 200 lb person doing kettlebell swings will burn 31.8 calories per minute (0.159 x weight in pounds). 15 minutes non-stop is required to burn 500 kcal. On top of that, it works every muscle group in your body simultaneously with weight resistance.
Click to expand...

Your figures seem severely inflated, especially the second one. Kettleball swings for a 200lb person burning 1908 calories an hour? Get real.

I've been using a bodybugg for a while now and was quite shocked at how much lower my actual burn is compared is to what many online tools and machines say. My calorie/minute burn rate has rarely exceeded 20 for any sort of activity and that's when my heart rate is upwards of 185-190 bpm. I also weigh more than the 200 lb figure you're using. I'm fairly confident in the daily burn numbers I'm getting from the bodybugg since it's been pretty much spot on with my weight loss. I'm all for resistance training (I do it several times a week as well) but your numbers aren't realistic in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I have a Polar heart rate monitor that tells me that I burn 3.4 calories per minute sitting idle...which would be 4,896 per day. In reality, my "idle" burn is only about 1.7-1.9 calories/minute.
 
alphaX said:
A 200 lb person running a 13 minute mile (a 13 min mile is being very generous for a 200 lb person with a high body fat percentage) will burn 11 calories per minute (0.055 x weight in pounds). 45 minutes non-stop is required to burn 500 kcal.
Click to expand...

Not generous at all. I only just started my new regime a few weeks ago and I weigh 245lbs at 6 foot. I can maintain 12 minute mile for an hour. Any my bodyfat % is sky high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top