correct fitness advice

juanveron45

http://www.maximuscle.com/trainingtips/beachbody.html

Shrimp

Some good simple tips there, plain and simple.

Dr4gul4

yup yup need to do more cardio ..stop being a fat fecker . i get the msg

mloc

Dr4gul4 wrote:

yup yup need to do more cardio ..stop being a fat fecker . i get the msg

to be honest, then you need to look at your diet. cardio is secondary to this if fat loss is your main goal.

Hanley

mloc wrote:

to be honest, then you need to look at your diet. cardio is secondary to this if fat loss is your main goal.

Quoted for truth.


I can quite easily get lean without doing any cardio once I make a concentrated effort to watch my dit for 4 weeks.

mloc

it really is so true. I've been noticing this more recently; I know a lot of overweight guys who do tons of cardio, and are quite fit.

Fat loss, on the other hand, is a different goal than fitness. It requires different training strategies and critically, strict dieting.

Hanley

I'm going to say something pretty radical here.... The fitter you are, the less value cardio will be when it comes to weight loss.

I'd base this off the law of diminishing returns. Just bare with me and think about this...

you start off and find it hard to run 15 mins. It takes a lot of work, but over the course of the next 2 weeks it gets easier and easier til you can do it with out any problems. It now takes less effort to do the same amount of work.

So you step it up to 30 mins, at first you struggle, but then it becomes easier and easier til you're looking at going for 45 mins to get the same workout that a 15 minute jog used to take.

I'm assuming a pretty linear progression, same speed, similar route etc... Sure you'll get fitter, but will you burn any extra fat?? To be hoenst (and I'm basing this off nothing but observations, hunches and personal exp) I don't think you will.

There's ALOT of fit fat guys. Just look at the average fun run marathon field. Going out for an hour long run 5x a week is a hell of a lot easier than cooking and preparing meals for the day, and watching what you eat 24/7.

I've never done any cardio in an attempt to speed up weight loss but I will be doing it in the near future. BUT it will come in the form of HIIT. I'm gonna start spinning (I feel dirty saying that) 2x a week in addition to an increased weight training volume and reduced kcal (and prticulary carb) intake.

I think I'll have a better idea of things then.

But to summarise what I said... Steady state cardio will (in my opinion) do fu(k all for weightloss that can't be achieved in a better and more productive way thru dieting alone.

Dr4gul4

mloc wrote:

to be honest, then you need to look at your diet. cardio is secondary to this if fat loss is your main goal.

diet is fine, ish, prob need to tight it up a little more, but i've been told what i need to do, check out my Fitday and u'll see ure self.

At the mo, im just doing resistance training ( Due to an alcohol related accident with my right ankle)

But i do however agree with you, Weight loss really stems from a good diet, i just seem to be having probs with the loosing bit

g'em

Hanley wrote:

Steady state cardio will (in my opinion) do fu(k all for weightloss that can't be achieved in a better and more productive way thru dieting alone.

absolutely right.

Domer

Hanley wrote:

I'm assuming a pretty linear progression, same speed, similar route etc... Sure you'll get fitter, but will you burn any extra fat?? To be hoenst (and I'm basing this off nothing but observations, hunches and personal exp) I don't think you will.

I could be completely wrong but....

From basic chemistry and physics, and assuming you are referring to calories being burned, then your theory MAY be flawed. I always understood that the calories burned during exercise is Mass * Distance. The further you run, the more calories you burn. Of course the fitter you get the more distance you cover in the allotted time so the more calories you burn also.

Ergo, if you start to exercise and cover 2 miles in say 20 mins, but then in 6 months you cover 3 miles in the same 20 mins (I wish!) then you will be burning 1/3 more calories for the same time. However if you run 3 miles in 30 mins versus 3 miles in 20 mins, you theoretically burn the same number of calories.

I now await someone more scientific than myself to rebuke this as I am not sure I believe it all myself.

Domer

Hanley

I agree, BUT if you move from aerobic to anaerboic exercise then I think that will have some bearing on the amount of kcals burnd too. So faster isn't neccessarily better.

And Dr4gul4, if you're diet is perfect now, then you'l jsut have to sit back on watch the changes happen!

quozl

Sorry Hanley but that reasoning is flawed. As you get fitter you can actually burn more calories in a given time. The fact that as you get fitter it feels easier isn't actually representative of the effort involved, it's a measure of how better trained and adapted you are to the exercise. Its the same as, being poorly trained and finding it difficult to lift X Kgs, or being very well trained and finding it difficult to lift 3X Kgs. They may both feel the same but lifting the 3x Kgs is really taking more effort.

Also the whole aerobic/anerobic thing is a bit misleading as both a really unfit and a really fit person can run at the same percentage of energy produced through anaerobic pathways as each other. The difference is the fit person will be going a whole lot faster and will also be able to do it for a whole lot longer. So once again, the fitter you are, the more calories you can burn in a given time frame.

Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right about diet and weights being a better route to losing weight. But from personal experience if I don't make a concious effort to up my calorie intake while running 40 or 50 mpw then I'd get unpleasantly skinny, very fast.

Also as mloc said

Fat loss, on the other hand, is a different goal than fitness.

There's a hell of a lot of really skinny, really unfit people out there. They're not healthy at all, they just make good clothes horses

Dr4gul4

Hanley wrote:

And Dr4gul4, if you're diet is perfect now, then you'l jsut have to sit back on watch the changes happen!

Damn my impatiens's

Hanley

quozl wrote:

Sorry Hanley but that reasoning is flawed. As you get fitter you can actually burn more calories in a given time. The fact that as you get fitter it feels easier isn't actually representative of the effort involved, it's a measure of how better trained and adapted you are to the exercise. Its the same as, being poorly trained and finding it difficult to lift X Kgs, or being very well trained and finding it difficult to lift 3X Kgs. They may both feel the same but lifting the 3x Kgs is really taking more effort.

Also the whole aerobic/anerobic thing is a bit misleading as both a really unfit and a really fit person can run at the same percentage of energy produced through anaerobic pathways as each other. The difference is the fit person will be going a whole lot faster and will also be able to do it for a whole lot longer. So once again, the fitter you are, the more calories you can burn in a given time frame.

Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right about diet and weights being a better route to losing weight. But from personal experience if I don't make a concious effort to up my calorie intake while running 40 or 50 mpw then I'd get unpleasantly skinny, very fast.

Also as mloc said

There's a hell of a lot of really skinny, really unfit people out there. They're not healthy at all, they just make good clothes horses

Meh... I figured there'd be some flaws in it. I was just thinkign outloud really.

I'm still not going to bother with steady state cardio tho. I just don't think it's neccessary and I find it damn boring too.

mloc

quozl wrote:

Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right about diet and weights being a better route to losing weight. But from personal experience if I don't make a concious effort to up my calorie intake while running 40 or 50 mpw then I'd get unpleasantly skinny, very fast.

Losing weight is not the same thing as losing fat. Most men I know actually want to lose fat but say "weight loss". This is why diet is so important. What's the point in doing lots of cardio and eating f all if you lose more muscle than fat?

By dieting carefully and eating the right foods, you can lose FAT much quicker. Sure, if you cut calories loads and run 50 mpw you'll just waste away. You'll lose fat, sure, but you'll lose muscle as well.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

quozl

mloc wrote:

Losing weight is not the same thing as losing fat. Most men I know actually want to lose fat but say "weight loss". This is why diet is so important. What's the point in doing lots of cardio and eating f all if you lose more muscle than fat?

By dieting carefully and eating the right foods, you can lose FAT much quicker. Sure, if you cut calories loads and run 50 mpw you'll just waste away. You'll lose fat, sure, but you'll lose muscle as well.

Emm, I tried to make it very clear that I was only disagreeing with Hanleys' theories on fitter people burning less calories. That's why I said

"you're absolutely right about diet and weights being a better route to losing weight"

I also would never, ever suggest

What's the point in doing lots of cardio and eating f all if you lose more muscle than fat?

I was training for a marathon, running 50 mpw, PUT ON muscle and lost a bit of fat, (I was already slim, maybe skinny).

My point really was that there's a big difference between being skinny and being fit, and that cardio shouldn't be ignored on a fitness forum. As I said, diet and weights are a better route to weight loss, but there ARE a lot of very skinny, very unfit people out there. At least they're healthier than really unfit, really obese people, but they are not fit.


Please can people read carefully what I am saying before attacking it. I put effort in to try and avoid these sort of misunderstandings. The things you seem to think I'm suggesting are some of my pet hates.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Hanley wrote:

I'm going to say something pretty radical here.... The fitter you are, the less value cardio will be when it comes to weight loss.

I'd base this off the law of diminishing returns. Just bare with me and think about this...

Hmm, doesn't the rate at which you lose fat slowly decrease as you go from being overweight to healthy? As in, it takes more and more effort and diet to lose the same amount of fat in the "homestretch" because the body resists losing fat once it drops under a certain level?

Or is my thinking backwards?

Hanley

nesf wrote:

Hmm, doesn't the rate at which you lose fat slowly decrease as you go from being overweight to healthy? As in, it takes more and more effort and diet to lose the same amount of fat in the "homestretch" because the body resists losing fat once it drops under a certain level?

Or is my thinking backwards?

Yah, I'd totally agree when it comes to someone trying to go from say 12% to single digit bodyfat (but again I dispute the value of steady state cardio over something like say spinning or sprints). But for the average person I think the time that they could spend out running would be much better used to prepare meals for the coming day or 2.

nesf

Hanley wrote:

Yah, I'd totally agree when it comes to someone trying to go from say 12% to single digit bodyfat (but again I dispute the value of steady state cardio over something like say spinning or sprints).

Yeah that was the zone I was thinking about.

Hanley wrote:

But for the average person I think the time that they could spend out running would be much better used to prepare meals for the coming day or 2.

I agree completely. I feel that way about myself at the moment.


I think you have to separate out what people mean by "losing weight" and "getting fit". Some times either refers to losing fat, sometimes either can mean improving fitness or strength etc.

Hanley

Well Nesf I'll have a better idea what it takes to get to single digit bf% by early june so I'll report my thoughts more fully and concusively then!

When the majority of people say "get fit/bulk up/lose weight/tone up" I generally take it to mean they want to look better nekkid.... and diet's number 1 there.

nesf

Hanley wrote:

Well Nesf I'll have a better idea what it takes to get to single digit bf% by early june so I'll report my thoughts more fully and concusively then!

Cool, I'd be interested in hearing from a large guy about it. Most of the people I know with very low bf% are "thin, lean people" if you know what I mean.

Hanley wrote:

When the majority of people say "get fit/bulk up/lose weight/tone up" I generally take it to mean they want to look better nekkid.... and diet's number 1 there.

Heh, I'd say for men genetics number 1 and diet is number 2.

Hanley

Haha yeah, I'll give you that one alright. Genetics are also a cop out for a lot of people too tho!

Again I have another theory... big guys** will get to a lower level of bf% easier than smaller guys.

**By big guys I mean someone with a significant amount of muscle (think elevated metabolism and all that jazz. Plus they probably train heavy which means there metabolism will be spiked in the 24-36 hour post training period too.)

Roper

Hanley wrote:

I'm going to say something pretty radical here.... The fitter you are, the less value cardio will be when it comes to weight loss.

I agree. I'm fit, I train a lot and the only thing that effects my weight is my diet from week to week. When I'm in a day of bad meals will have an effect on my appearance and weight. By the same token, when I'm not in competition shape, I can lose a lot of weight by just watching what I eat. In the last year I've been between 75 and 84kgs depending on my goals or lack thereof. Cardio has had little effect on that.

olaola

Domer wrote:

Ergo, if you start to exercise and cover 2 miles in say 20 mins, but then in 6 months you cover 3 miles in the same 20 mins (I wish!) then you will be burning 1/3 more calories for the same time. However if you run 3 miles in 30 mins versus 3 miles in 20 mins, you theoretically burn the same number of calories.


Domer

Your science is right -> W = FxD, so lets say a person of X kgs covers a distance
of X kms. The same amount of work (joules) will be done whether they walk it, or run it.

So... moving on from this - would that same person not burn the same amount of calories by completing the same amount of work, no matter how fit they were? (lets just say kgs is a constant)
What else comes into play?

nesf

olaola wrote:

Your science is right -> W = FxD, so lets say a person of X kgs covers a distance
of X kms. The same amount of work (joules) will be done whether they walk it, or run it.

So... moving on from this - would that same person not burn the same amount of calories by completing the same amount of work, no matter how fit they were? (lets just say kgs is a constant)
What else comes into play?

Physics wise a hell of a lot comes into play if you really want to get into this kind of thing. Your gait for instance is important, the amount of work that is done to run at speed X is dependent on things like how efficiently you maintain forward momentum, how much of that momentum you conserve through your steps (to get an idea of what I’m talking about consider the difference between running with a long loping stride and a very short stride in terms of energy being used), the person’s distribution of weight comes into play (essentially as part of running you need to maintain balance, the more symmetrical the weight distribution in a person the less correction in the horizontal plane is necessary between strides). That’s just to start, the mathematics of gaits are not trivial even with simple examples and bipedal motion is definitely not a simple example.


W = FD isn’t really going to cut it in working out this kind of stuff. The amount of force applied is going to change constantly even on the flat with no wind. It’ll be cyclical and I’d be interested to know more about how energy expenditure changes as muscles tire and how it changes with degrees of fitness. Also an experienced runner's gait will be far more efficient than an unfit person who isn't used to running, they will lose less momentum between steps and lose less in correcting their balance.

olaola

Yeah - I'm hearing ya!

But - let's say everything else is equal. All we are dealing with is the
weight of the runner and the distance travelled.
Or even the example of someone lifting a X kg weight X m in height.

How does would the amount of work decrease as the runner (or lifter) gets fitter?
The percieved effort seems less, but the same 'work' is being done.

nesf

olaola wrote:

Yeah - I'm hearing ya!

But - let's say everything else is equal. All we are dealing with is the
weight of the runner and the distance travelled.
Or even the example of someone lifting a X kg weight X m in height.

How does would the amount of work decrease as the runner (or lifter) gets fitter?
The percieved effort seems less, but the same 'work' is being done.

Two things that spring to mind (I don't have a lot of time to consider this right now unfortunately) is that what's doing the work in lifting that weight (i.e. the muscle/muscle group) changes over time as someone gets fitter/bigger and that the fitter person might be losing fat overtime which would reduce the amount of weight being thrown around as they run.

I'll have a think about it and see if I can think of any more.

quozl

If you take time into account it gets more interesting too.

If they have to cover the same distance in the same time, then the less fit person (assuming same weight) will actually burn more calories I believe as they'll be producing more energy via anaerobic pathways. Which are less effecient, and basically waste a larger percentage of calories.

Of course, the fitter person could have just run further, at the same aerobic/anaerobic ratio as the unfit person in the same time, burning even more calories.

Patto

Hanley wrote:

Again I have another theory... big guys** will get to a lower level of bf% easier than smaller guys.

**By big guys I mean someone with a significant amount of muscle (think elevated metabolism and all that jazz. Plus they probably train heavy which means there metabolism will be spiked in the 24-36 hour post training period too.)

Nice theory, but I haven't seen too many real world examples. As for this training harder so your metabolism remains "spiked" for 24-36 hours afterwards. The word "recovery" springs to mind, the more intense you train the more recovery you need. For example anyone who plays field sports knows only too well, after a game where you have gone flat out for between 60-90 min you will not play again at that intensity for at least 4 days without recovery aids.

The beauty of slow steady cardio is you can do it every day and it aids recovery by helping your muscles rid themselves of lactic acid, it burns some BF and it improves your fitness.

nesf wrote:

Cool, I'd be interested in hearing from a large guy about it. Most of the people I know with very low bf% are "thin, lean people" if you know what I mean.

Exactly! Do you ever wonder why?

I have another theory, feel free to batter it, its only a theory until someone comes along with something better.:p

Maybe apply a bit of real world common sense to this. I think it has alot to do with what your goals are.

1. For example for a bloke if you want to be big and strong primarily and low BF as a secondary goal. What typically happens is you soon discover that there is a trade off between you primary and secondary goals. You have to neglect the low BF goal to get bigger quicker. Low BF will never be your primary goal so how often and for low long are you ever going to maintain low BF?

2. What if you want to be fit primarily and strong/big second. If you want to be fit you soon discover that low BF is beneficial. The two go hand in hand. What's more your secondary goal is also attainable and to a point is also beneficial. You are never going to be huge but you can maintain a very good level of fitness, a low BF and have reasonable size.

Hanley

Patto wrote:

Nice theory, but I haven't seen too many real world examples. As for this training harder so your metabolism remains "spiked" for 24-36 hours afterwards. The word "recovery" springs to mind, the more intense you train the more recovery you need. For example anyone who plays field sports knows only too well, after a game where you have gone flat out for between 60-90 min you will not play again at that intensity for at least 4 days without recovery aids..

You haven't seen too many real world examples of big muscular guys getting lean without the need for cardio?

My point about metabolism remaing spiked applies to heavy weight training and not field sports. With heavy weight training within reason there's no such thing as over training, just underconditioning. That's something I firmly believe in and if you look to the realms of elite olympic lifting and powerlifting you'll see that it's very true.

t-ha

quozl wrote:

If you take time into account it gets more interesting too.

If they have to cover the same distance in the same time, then the less fit person (assuming same weight) will actually burn more calories I believe as they'll be producing more energy via anaerobic pathways. Which are less effecient, and basically waste a larger percentage of calories.

Of course, the fitter person could have just run further, at the same aerobic/anaerobic ratio as the unfit person in the same time, burning even more calories.

I would say that that is the biggest difference too - the intensity of a run will change as a person becomes fitter. Take a very unfit, very overweight individual who cannot run more than a hundred yards without stopping for a breather before he tries again. It might not look like it, but that's closer to high intensity interval training than a jog as far as his body is concerned. A very fit person would need to be training sprints to be doing the 'equivalent', and if they don't match the intensity all the time as they get fitter then they wind up using different energy pathways. Of course, if they us a measure of intensity (like hear-rate for example) to guide them from the outset then that becomes a mute enough point.

As someone who has been well into single digits of bodyfat before, I would say that it becomes harder and harder to cut fat through diet alone the further you drop your bodyfat percentages. Your body starts to fight you, basically (for example, levels of the hormone leptin will become very low as subcutaneous fat stores drop, which leads to thyroid suppression amongst other things). In those circumstances it makes sense to increase the amount of low-intensity cardio you're doing to use up the fat stores directly. I've never tried using HIIT to get right the way down, though I did get sub 10% using just weights, diet and HIIT.

mloc

I know a good few big, low bf guys who might disagree with the idea you have to be small to be ripped.

mloc

This article:
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1526539

explains an awful lot on this issue.

Patto

Hanley wrote:

My point about metabolism remaing spiked applies to heavy weight training and not field sports. With heavy weight training within reason there's no such thing as over training, just underconditioning. That's something I firmly believe in and if you look to the realms of elite olympic lifting and powerlifting you'll see that it's very true.

Returning from the realms of elite olympic lifting and powerlifting once again to the real world :eek: I'm not a 20 year old champion power lifter, I'm a bloke in my early thirties with a wife and a small baby

Any excersise that depletes your muscle glycogen stores requires recovery.

It's known that recovery from glycogen depleting exercise leads to:

1. Glycogen resynthesis
2. A decreased RER (respiratory exchange ratio). This ratio determines fat and carb use. The lower the RER, the more fat is being used as fuel.
3. Increased EPOC (excess post exercise oxygen consumption). The EPOC represents the increased metabolism seen after exercise when compared to baseline.

Reference: http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/oep2002.htm

Hanley

Patto wrote:

Returning from the realms of elite olympic lifting and powerlifting once again to the real world :eek: I'm not a 20 year old champion power lifter, I'm a bloke in my early thirties with a wife and a small baby

Any excersise that depletes your muscle glycogen stores requires recovery.

It's known that recovery from glycogen depleting exercise leads to:

1. Glycogen resynthesis
2. A decreased RER (respiratory exchange ratio). This ratio determines fat and carb use. The lower the RER, the more fat is being used as fuel.
3. Increased EPOC (excess post exercise oxygen consumption). The EPOC represents the increased metabolism seen after exercise when compared to baseline.

Reference: http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/oep2002.htm

I was just making the point that alot of people are afraid to add more volume to a training session cos of the over training myths that are out there.

not saying you should be training 2x a day 4x a week for fat loss like!