What kind of cardio?

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

brook011
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

What kind of cardio?

Post by brook011 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:40 am

I know cardio is like a double edged sword for weight training, but what works best to burn the least amount of muscle when trying to burn fat?


User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:13 am

The only way that doing cardio will "burn muscle" is if you are starving, and your fat stores have already been consumed. So whatever kind of activity that you enjoy, or at least hate least is the best cardio for you. Why not try to incorporate your cardio into your strengthening routine? The next post will probably be from Tim suggesting "complexes" or "metcons," which would fill that bill nicely.

brook011
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Post by brook011 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:27 am

Well, the thing is, I've read that theres a fat burning heart rate target. I usually run personally, like 2-4 miles depending on how my body feels on that day. I know that there is a tendency I see personally of most lifters using the bikes, but I like the appeal of 9.5 mins per 100 cals burned.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:29 am

Cardio can cause consume muscle if it is long duration. Anything over about 1 hour could have a negative impact of your muscles. Extreme long distance certainly will have an impact. 2-4 miles/day, a few times per week should not have a negative impact provided your nutrition is sound.

Any cardio that has a strength or anaerobic component, like complexes, HIIT, sprints, etc will preserve muscle more than long steady state cardio.

The fat-burning zone is merely the range in which the majority of calories burned comes from fat. It is not the zone where the most fat is burned. Intensity is important. You will burn far more calories at higher intensities including more from fat. You should try to exercise in the highest intensity level you can sustain, which will normally be the cardio zone. I believe the "fat-burning" zone was invented for people who were so out of shape the couldn't get to the cardio zone so the fat-burning zone was created so they would think they were still accomplishing something.

HIIT type training should put your heart beat well above the cardio zone for brief periods several times in a session. The training effect on your aerobic system is higher than more moderate activity, and as said earlier, will preserve muscle better. The post exercise calorie burn is higher as well and this would make this a better fat loss program than moderate cardio. It is very hard and you should work up to it progressively. Doing too much too soon could lead to overtraining.

Stu

User avatar
Stephen Johnson
Exalted Seer
Exalted Seer
Posts: 2097
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:20 pm
Location: New York City

Re: What kind of cardio?

Post by Stephen Johnson » Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:59 am

brook011 wrote:I know cardio is like a double edged sword for weight training, but what works best to burn the least amount of muscle when trying to burn fat?
If you want to drop fat, look to your diet first. No matter how well thought out your exercise program is, if you eat junk/fast food, sugary sweets and refined starches (white flour and white rice) your results will be minimal.

There is a wealth of dietary information on this site'sDiet and Nutrition Forum to help you get started.


ironmaiden708
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Kibbutz Ketura

Post by ironmaiden708 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:57 am

The fat-burning zone is merely the range in which the majority of calories burned comes from fat. It is not the zone where the most fat is burned. Intensity is important. You will burn far more calories at higher intensities including more from fat. You should try to exercise in the highest intensity level you can sustain, which will normally be the cardio zone. I believe the "fat-burning" zone was invented for people who were so out of shape the couldn't get to the cardio zone so the fat-burning zone was created so they would think they were still accomplishing something.
Thats in interesting idea stu, maybe there is science behind it or it is just a standard to help out of shape people.

User avatar
TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Va Beach, Va

Post by TimD » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:43 am

Well there is plenty of science to what Stu is talking about in terms of higher intensity vs this so-called "fat burning zone". Cosgrove gives plenty of studies in his article "The Heirarchy of Fat Loss". Stu may be right in that it was invented for that purpose; i.e get them into something useful for a transition into a higher intensity thing, but a couple of things. Doc Cooer popularized aerobics back in the 70's, and in fact was working with target heart rates, but it was for overall cardiovascular heart health, and yes, some people were dropping some lbs, but he didn't create it for that specific pupose. Then early on in the 80's the fitness craze took hold, and somehow, this target heart rate was being touted as a fat burning zone, and as Stu pointed out, it will in fact do that, but only for the duration of the exercise, wheres the activity contaiing an anerobic component caused the system to keep the "reved up" so to speak, long after the actual exercise period was over.
Tim

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:02 pm

It also doesn't really matter whether the body is burning fat or carbs, it's the total calories that matter anyway. I wish I did know the origin of the "fat burning zone". I know the logic I described is the reason and every machine has it on it.
Here are a couple af articles that "get it".
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/fatburn.htm
http://www.active.com/triathlon/Article ... g-Zone.htm
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=747976

Here's an example of bad information that is out there:
http://walking.about.com/cs/fitnesswalk ... ngzone.htm
Note that this has been reviewed by a medical review board.

It's kind of funny that another writer on the same site does know her arithmetic:
http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardiowork ... 22601a.htm


Stu
Last edited by stuward on Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chris_A
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:13 pm

Post by Chris_A » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:03 pm

Tim's dead-on with his reply. Here is a great article that cites several studies on the matter.

http://cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM

brook011
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Post by brook011 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:17 pm

My diet is sound. High protein small meals with protein shakes in between. No more than 30g per serving. I'm just making sure my cardio isn't killing my lift work.

brook011
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Post by brook011 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:13 pm

Okay guys, first attempt here at HIIT -

Stretched
Warmed up for 3.0 minutes medium pace, 3.5spd on treadmill.
Ran 2.0 minutes at 8.2spd on treadmill.
Cool down 2.0 minutes, 3.5spd.
Ran 2.0 minutes at 8.0spd on treadmill.
Cool down 2.0 minutes, 3.5spd.

I did intervals of this for about 22 minutes total treadmill time, on my last sprint, it was like an 8.9spd. A few people looked at me weird but the actual work felt good, usually only cooled down long enough to allow my heartrate to relax, and then kick it back up again. Is this right? I've never done this before so I wasn't sure. Thanks guys. Oh and the treadmill goes to 10, so 8-9 is like 5 1/2 minute mile pace on this thing.

User avatar
TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Va Beach, Va

Post by TimD » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:10 pm

Yep, that's the general idea. What I normally see is sprint for 30 sec , jog 30 sec, but your intervals seem to be fine. 15-20 mins should be more than enough.
Tim

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:15 pm

There are lots of different combinations of work/rest cycles you can do and all work slightly different. I think Kenny talked about them a few months ago.
A few people looked at me weird


This is great!!

Stu

corless319_
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:19 pm

Post by corless319_ » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:52 am

Haha I could imagine people looking at you wierd thats hilarious. I can understand why though. Most would be thinking what the hell is this guys problem stick to a damn speed haha. Unbeknowest to them he's doing HIIT. While the constant treadmill lovers who run off muscle daily sit there at a decent speed for two hours he gets a better workout in 22 minutes. Thats awesome. By the way someone said sprint for thirty seconds? I cant sprint for 15 seconds. haha sprint = all out run right?

User avatar
TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Va Beach, Va

Post by TimD » Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:01 am

Corless @Sprint = all out run?
Yep. Might be hardrunning, but I used to do it on a bike, 30 sec on, 30 sec light pedaling in a lower gear. Not that difficult, although it did get me beathinglike a charging Rhino. 15 - 20 mins used to feel like it was going to kill me.Although a good start up would be 5 mins of light to moderate cadence, and start with only 5 mins of thes intervals, then a 5 min "cool down " of moderate to light pedaling.
Tim


Post Reply