slow jog in the morning- bad for you?

cojomo2

For the last few months I have been doing 5k runs 6 days a week...not to get really fit or anything, just to keep belly in check and to be more healthy in general.

This morning, some 'expert' on a tv show (Ireland AM I think) claimed that a slow run of constant speed uses the bodies muscles(and not fat) as energy.

I think this is bull..If you have eaten and have calories in your system then I assume the body will burn off these calories, if it's first thing in the morning before brekki then I though the body would use fat stores as energy, as long as you are going nice and slow and are not pushing yourself( I go 8.5kph and am capable of going way faster). Am I wrong? Am I burning muscle in my morning runs?

Sometimes I do my run in the evening, if so, I would go faster 10-12 kph as I have calories in my system my body can use up.

Just concerned that I'm burning up muscle in my morning runs, is the 'expert' correct?

Thanks

p.s i know HIT is better etc, I just chose not to to this type of running at this current time, will be doing it soon.

Hanley

Unless the "expert" very tightly qualified what he's saying, it's bull****.

There's instances where it CAN happen, but they're at the extreme end of things. Youve nothing to worry about.

cojomo2

Hanley wrote: »

Unless the "expert" very tightly qualified what he's saying, it's bull****.

There's instances where it CAN happen, but they're at the extreme end of things. Youve nothing to worry about.

Thanks, thought as much. She had a few valid points such as weights being better for keeping the fat off as muscle is an active tissue that burns calories so was surprised when she came out with that bull about the slow runs at constant speed.

El Horseboxo

What I found from doing steady state cardio for a while in the past when recovering from injury was that as the weeks went by I began losing less weight. My body was getting used to it. So with each week passing I was burning less calories than I previously was despite giving the same effort while doing the same thing. As I recovered more I could do more and changed to a sprint-rest-sprint-rest type approach with bodyweight circuits also and began stripping the fat in a shorter time than I previously been allocating to cardio.

Just like lifting weights. If you don't increase the weights and hit a muscle from various angles with different exercises you're going to struggle to optimize muscle growth. Same principle can apply to cardio.

While I disagree with what the woman said about it being bad for you I'd agree that it's not the best or most effective use of your time for losing weight. But you mentioned going onto hiit in the near future so I'm sure you have your reasons at present.

meijin

Some people have an opinion (I don't know how true is it) that running too much elevates cortisol and is catabolic, so as a result you lose muscle - maybe that's what she meant?

My HR monitor app says that in "fat burn zone" actually 5% of calories used come from protein.

There is also interesting discussion about it here http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/fitness/cardio-burns-muscle

PS personally I think that running 3-4 days a week is better than running every day - helps you to rebuild muscles on your rest days

Hanley

El Horseboxo wrote: »

What I found from doing steady state cardio for a while in the past when recovering from injury was that as the weeks went by I began losing less weight. My body was getting used to it. So with each week passing I was burning less calories than I previously was despite giving the same effort while doing the same thing. As I recovered more I could do more and changed to a sprint-rest-sprint-rest type approach with bodyweight circuits also and began stripping the fat in a shorter time than I previously been allocating to cardio.

Just like lifting weights. If you don't increase the weights and hit a muscle from various angles with different exercises you're going to struggle to optimize muscle growth. Same principle can apply to cardio.

While I disagree with what the woman said about it being bad for you I'd agree that it's not the best or most effective use of your time for losing weight. But you mentioned going onto hiit in the near future so I'm sure you have your reasons at present.

Wait… you’re saying your body magically was able to facilitate movement without needing energy? Your car was going without petrol? That doesn’t happen. I know you’re leaning towards the exercise efficiency argument, but it simply does not happen in that short a time period. If ever.

It’s FAR more likely that as you lost weight, the levels of kcals you need to continue to lose weight decreased as well. So if you were eating and exercising enough to go from 90kg to 85kg, your body isnt’ going to continue on past that point without the necessary stimulus.

Hanley

meijin wrote: »

Some people have an opinion (I don't know how true is it) that running too much elevates cortisol and is catabolic, so as a result you lose muscle - maybe that's what she meant?

My HR monitor app says that in "fat burn zone" actually 5% of calories used come from protein.

There is also interesting discussion about it here http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/fitness/cardio-burns-muscle

PS personally I think that running 3-4 days a week is better than running every day - helps you to rebuild muscles on your rest days

Ok lets throw out a theory… cardio burns muscle because it produces cortisol and is therefore catabolic. Cortisol is catabolic because it stimulates gluconeogenesis because blood sugar levels are perceived as too low to fuel exercise, even tho they may be sufficient. Sooooo if you’re not producing significant amounts of cortisol (a few runs a week won’t do it to any large extent) and assuming your kcal level is not ridiculously low (ie you have sufficient energy stores available) and you’re eating sufficient levels of protein (to prevent gluconeogenesis from breaking down a significant amount of muscle), I REALLY don’t think it’s something anyone outside of compelte cardio junkies need to worry about. Ever.

Eat well, don’t absolutely murder yourself on steady state stuff and stop extrapolating science and interpreting as something its not, would be my advice to most on this.

... I haven't read that link tho. Cliffs?

cojomo2

would doing HIT training in the morning before breakfast cause the body to burn up muscle?

About diet..generally I eat well( I think) during the week, but on a fri and sat , that goes out the window. Heres my midweek diet:

7:30 5k run, slow, 8.5kph

8.30 40g porridge made with water, then milk added after. small piece of protein, eg 50-60g chicken breast. Coffee and a few omega 3 oil tabs.

5km cycle

12.30 wrap with veg and chicken, healthy seeds mix. Coffee

4pm coffee and apple or bannana

6pm 5 km cycle

7pm Loads of veg stir fried, with 120-150g of chicken breast/squid/lean meat. A few omega 3 oil tabs. Maybe the odd Guneess

thats my routine sunday-thur..

Fri and Sat.. similar enough until dinner time..pizza and some unhealthy snacks on one of those nights, and 1 or both nights I'll have 8-10 cans of guinness..usually only one of those nights though.

Apart from the obvious bad stuff..is that diet ok, or is it too little?

Thanks

edit: just realised that this post probably is better in the nutrition forum..sorry.

littlemsfickle

Hanley wrote: »

Wait… you’re saying your body magically was able to facilitate movement without needing energy? Your car was going without petrol? That doesn’t happen. I know you’re leaning towards the exercise efficiency argument, but it simply does not happen in that short a time period. If ever.

It’s FAR more likely that as you lost weight, the levels of kcals you need to continue to lose weight decreased as well. So if you were eating and exercising enough to go from 90kg to 85kg, your body isnt’ going to continue on past that point without the necessary stimulus.

Wouldn't it also require less energy since you're carrying 5kg less.

Hanley

littlemsfickle wrote: »

Wouldn't it also require less energy since you're carrying 5kg less.

Indeed.

The end result being, your maintenance kcals is now lower, so you'll also need to lower your "diet" kcals to continue to see results.

El Horseboxo

Hanley wrote: »

El Horseboxo wrote: »

What I found from doing steady state cardio for a while in the past when recovering from injury was that as the weeks went by I began losing less weight. My body was getting used to it. So with each week passing I was burning less calories than I previously was despite giving the same effort while doing the same thing. As I recovered more I could do more and changed to a sprint-rest-sprint-rest type approach with bodyweight circuits also and began stripping the fat in a shorter time than I previously been allocating to cardio.

Just like lifting weights. If you don't increase the weights and hit a muscle from various angles with different exercises you're going to struggle to optimize muscle growth. Same principle can apply to cardio.

While I disagree with what the woman said about it being bad for you I'd agree that it's not the best or most effective use of your time for losing weight. But you mentioned going onto hiit in the near future so I'm sure you have your reasons at present.

Wait… you’re saying your body magically was able to facilitate movement without needing energy? Your car was going without petrol? That doesn’t happen. I know you’re leaning towards the exercise efficiency argument, but it simply does not happen in that short a time period. If ever.

It’s FAR more likely that as you lost weight, the levels of kcals you need to continue to lose weight decreased as well. So if you were eating and exercising enough to go from 90kg to 85kg, your body isnt’ going to continue on past that point without the necessary stimulus.

What short a time period? I never mentioned how long I was doing it. I was doing an hour steady state for months. About 5-6 times a week. I had feck all mobility so that's all I could do. I had put on weight due to being inactive after a back injury. And I adjusted my diet and maintenance levels accordingly as my weight changed. Anyways what actually happened was I got hypothyroidism. I was producing less of the t3 hormone and was storing fat instead of burning it which was directly attributed to the over usage of steady state cardio. I was doing less cardio for a shorter time period than the OP and that happened. I rested for 3 weeks and had more movement so I could ease back into more and more. Within 2 weeks my thyroid levels were normal and I began losing weight quicker and more efficiently than before.

Mellor

What the woman was sayign was mostly nonsense. Your body doesn't sudden go catabolic when you do some light jogging. Not when there are redily availible energy sources, ie fats and stored carbs.

Your body will adapt to imposed demands and reduce muscle in order to reduce energy requirements. Example marathon runners. But there is a reason this occurs in marathon runners, not morning 5km-ers. Look at their training, they spend hours running with depleted glycogen levels, burning body fat. Muscle catabolism is a last resort.

El Horseboxo wrote: »

So with each week passing I was burning less calories than I previously was despite giving the same effort while doing the same thing.

How do you define giving the same effort. Intensity, time, distance?
If you were running the same distance, its expected that you were burning less calories.

littlemsfickle

El Horseboxo wrote: »

Anyways what actually happened was I got hypothyroidism. I was producing less of the t3 hormone and was storing fat instead of burning it which was directly attributed to the over usage of steady state cardio. I was doing less cardio for a shorter time period than the OP and that happened. I rested for 3 weeks and had more movement so I could ease back into more and more. Within 2 weeks my thyroid levels were normal and I began losing weight quicker and more efficiently than before.

Are you saying that steady state cardio causes hypothyroidism??? Is there any evidence of this?

metamorphosis

Guess im fooked as an endurance athlete then ..