cardio workout

Frank Bullitt

right so iv finished bulking up and im quite happy with the results,problum is that i have put on a bit of fat as well so im lookin to lose that,i know that i have to cut carbs and im beginning to do that but i need to up the cardio for fat burning,can anyone here help me with a cardio workout to do after weights,id say it should last for about 30 mins or so.

cheers

Clive

Go for a 30 minute run?

g'em

You need to do cardio that will optimise fat burning but maintin as much lean mass as possible. HIIT (high intensity interval training) is considered one of the best ways to do it, and sessions are short, sweet and painful to stave off the boredom that usually comes from doing heaploads of cardio. There's two pretty decent articles about it here and here, which talk about cardio specifically froma cutting pov. enjoy..

Transform

Yes and i would advocate the second of the two articles as they both have completely different approaches in the articles GEM recommends.


This will have much greater effects on fat metabolism than high intensity cardio. If done at an intensity more than 75% of your target heart rate, your body will be using sugars as its' primary source for fuel, not FAT. It is hard for some people to understand that concept after doing cardio for years and seeing no results (because they are burning more sugars) to actually back down the pace.


A longer and slower session eg 45-60mins brisk walking or slow jogging will give better results, i still find it stunning that people continually recommend high intensity exercise when all you get from it is a burnt out body and little results.

ps GEM do you really use HIT and if so are you at the body fat you want as a result of using this method?

g'em

Transform wrote:

ps GEM do you really use HIT and if so are you at the body fat you want as a result of using this method?

hey Transform. personally I use a combination of LIT and HIIT. AS with most people, I've had to play around with my training to see what works best for me, and since I introduced HIIT I've seen a bigger drop in bf than with LIT alone. I'd usually do 3-4 LIT sessions a week, most of them before breakfast and usually 45-55 minutes long (a brisk walk with at least 25 incline) and then HIIT twice a week. I'm still leaning out so I'm not down to the bf I want yet (around 17-18% and I'll figure out how much more to go from there). For me, relying solely on HIIT isn't realistic, as I'd be at the gym twice a day practically every day. But tbh, the one thing that's made a big difference is spearating out my cardio and weights sessions- previously I would do cardio straight after a lifting session, but I'm seeing much better progress since keeping a good 4-5 hours between them.

Dragan

Transform wrote:

A longer and slower session eg 45-60mins brisk walking or slow jogging will give better results, i still find it stunning that people continually recommend high intensity exercise when all you get from it is a burnt out body and little results.

ps GEM do you really use HIT and if so are you at the body fat you want as a result of using this method?

Sorry dude, i know your a good guy and all but the above seems just a little bit "weapons of mass destruction" to me. I have spent the last month doing combined HIIT, along with my kickboxing and 5x5 training and in that month have dropped 13 pounds, added a half inch to my quads, calves and arms, an inch to my chest and shoulder mass as well. I have also seen all my weights go up in the weight room, despite being on a "cut".
Now then, sure i have a nice variance to my training and all that but still, i do regular HIIT, on top of lots of other training and i am far from burnt out!!! and by regular i mean 3 sessions a week, i do more interval stuff that that, but it's at maximum intensity three times a week.

The simple fact is that finding a balance between Diet and Activity is the key to controlling body composition and that HIT definitely has it's place in a fat loss program.

I'm sure you can agree that variety in any excercise program is a good thing?

OP, go for some balance throughout your cardio the same way as you do ( i hope ) throughout your weights program. Remember that cardio is not all about losing weight, but your looking to improving you cardio vascular conditiong and overall health as well, and you should never lose site of this in pursuit of the aesthetic!!!

Mix up HIT and LIT, i always recommend that people take up a martial art as well, as this is very good for helping move unwanted pounds, along with bringing on your balance, coordinationg, cardio and heart health etc.

Finally, be sure you scale back your diet from your bulking stage or else all your hard work will be for nothing!!!

Best of luck.

Frank Bullitt

thanks guys,your really helping me a lot lately.

i got up to 14.3 stone on that bulking diet,all my mates noticed it as well,got somw quality size on me,i wouldnt mind a bit more but ill get the cardio workin and keep the protein nice and high and see how it goes.

thanks all again

t-ha

Transform wrote:

Yes and i would advocate the second of the two articles as they both have completely different approaches in the articles GEM recommends.

This will have much greater effects on fat metabolism than high intensity cardio. If done at an intensity more than 75% of your target heart rate, your body will be using sugars as its' primary source for fuel, not FAT. It is hard for some people to understand that concept after doing cardio for years and seeing no results (because they are burning more sugars) to actually back down the pace.

A longer and slower session eg 45-60mins brisk walking or slow jogging will give better results, i still find it stunning that people continually recommend high intensity exercise when all you get from it is a burnt out body and little results.

ps GEM do you really use HIT and if so are you at the body fat you want as a result of using this method?

Seems to me like we need some clarification/differentiation between HIT (high intensity training) and HIIT (high intensity intervals) the difference being that HIT involves remaining under your anaerobic threshold, while HIIT involves doing several intervals of exercise at maximal effort, one of the main differences being the use of ATP & PC for rapid fuel.

I absolutely agree that HIT is a bit of a disaster for fat burning. I've found personally however that HIIT is very effective for burning fat (the most effective thing I've found apart from dietary manipulation, in fact). I've only really heard good things back from others who've tried it too. I'm curious to know if you have done HIIT (as opposed to HIT) with your clients and found it not to work, as I would find that very surprising.

Transform

My approach is very simple

1. Get VO2 max fitness test done
2. Apply results based on goals

Eg Optimal fat burning zone for most pure beginners in their 1stmonth is 130-140bpm at an age of 30-45years old (most of my clients fall within this range)

I would use HR monitor for all workout and have gotten better results this way than any high intensity approach (yes i have done both). Yes you can drop body fat through High intensity approaches i just would not use it as the exclusive way to train.

Will hopefully clear this matter up more in an upcoming article to be featured in the sunday business post.

Finally for my clients over 45yrs High intensity training is totally out of the question as it is just asking for problems - even my weight sessions with these clients can push their heart rate up very high and would allow more rest between sets

Simple example - client body fat tested today at 23% Triceps 15mm, Hip 16mm 26mm thighs at weight of 56kg. This is down from 26% in just over 4 weeks.

I only care about what gets results for my clients safely and without burnout and at 25-30 one hour personal training sessions per week thats adds up to alot of trial and error experimenting to find the right balance.


ps GEM and Dragan you both represent the minority of trainers i.e. dedicated, excellent nutrition, informed etc therefore higher intensity training may work quite well for those that have built up their fitness and have a balanced program but for the beginner i think its a disaster

t-ha

Makes sense, obviously age, training level & goals will affect what is/isn't suitable. I do think though that many posters on the board are (certaintly) younger, and a few may be better conditioned than most of your clients starting out though, although obviously I'm making alot of assumptions there. I personally will use anything I see as effective. I do a fair bit of LIT at the moment in fact, primarily because I'm temporarily doing bodypart splits, with an emphasis on building up my legs and there's rarely a good time to be doing all out sprints on top of that. As far as I'm concerned fat loss is fat loss, and there are multiple ways of achieving it as long as the complete system you're using makes sense to your own circumstances & goals.

The problem, as I see it, is that the general public thinks that to lose weight they've got to cut their calories to nothing all of a sudden, and run as hard as they can for 30/45 mins (probably starving themselves around the time when they're in the gym with all their motivation, but developing a viscious hunger that night and raiding the cookie jar!), and we all know that this is the last way you want to approach weight loss. As far as I'm concerned, any complete approach to fat loss which actually works is better, so any efforts to spread the word that 'starvation + HIT + (probably some binging)' is not how it's done is welcome by me.

I'll look out for your piece on Sunday.

Transform

t-ha wrote:

Makes sense, obviously age, training level & goals will affect what is/isn't suitable. I do think though that many posters on the board are (certaintly) younger, and a few may be better conditioned than most of your clients starting out though, although obviously I'm making alot of assumptions there. I personally will use anything I see as effective. I do a fair bit of LIT at the moment in fact, primarily because I'm temporarily doing bodypart splits, with an emphasis on building up my legs and there's rarely a good time to be doing all out sprints on top of that. As far as I'm concerned fat loss is fat loss, and there are multiple ways of achieving it as long as the complete system you're using makes sense to your own circumstances & goals.

The problem, as I see it, is that the general public thinks that to lose weight they've got to cut their calories to nothing all of a sudden, and run as hard as they can for 30/45 mins (probably starving themselves around the time when they're in the gym with all their motivation, but developing a viscious hunger that night and raiding the cookie jar!), and we all know that this is the last way you want to approach weight loss. As far as I'm concerned, any complete approach to fat loss which actually works is better, so any efforts to spread the word that 'starvation + HIT + (probably some binging)' is not how it's done is welcome by me.

I'll look out for your piece on Sunday.

It will be out in some forthcoming sunday so will keep readers of the boards posted.

Finally, the cycle most people go through starve - exercise - feel ravenous - eat high sugar/wheat foods is quite typical after a HIT session as they are burning lots of sugar and not fat.

The best method is NOT what works, it what allows people to feel they can maintain it over time.