How much cardio while on Trimax?
- 01-03-2005, 01:09 PM
How much cardio while on Trimax?
Can you do too much cardio while taking Trimax? If I was doing cardio 3 times weekly, is increasing to 2 on 1 off, too much? Could I increase the number of days, or is it better to increase the amount of time per day? Since I'll only be taking it 3 weeks I want to maximize the benefits, but I've also heard much about the lethargy it causes. I'll be taking MDien with it to try to preserve as much muscle mass as possible. Thanks.
- 01-03-2005, 01:56 PM
Before you get an answer, what intensity and duration are you training at? These are important variables to know.
- 01-04-2005, 07:56 AM
Originally Posted by Lean One
01-04-2005, 10:11 AM
Ok, My philosophy is steady state low intensity cardio for dropping fat. You'd be ok if you tried to keep it at the lower end of the range you gave. You really should up the duration to 45min to 1hr though. You're quitting your workout just when you body is starting to burn fat efficiently.Originally Posted by pcn
01-04-2005, 02:13 PM
So by lower intensity you mean 130 or so? How do you calculate the number? I think I've seen "200 - age" to get 80% of max, but that seems a pretty rough calculation. If there is a site you know of that has more info on this so I dont keep worrying you with basic questions, that would be great. Thanks again for your replies.
01-04-2005, 03:49 PM
You're not worrying me. To calculate you APMHR(age predicted max heart rate) use 220 - your age. that will be maximum intensity. X .65 will give you 65% of that. So,if you're 39 then 220-39=181x.65=117.6. In light of the #s I would reccomend you try to keep your heart rate around 120bpm. This will burn fat more eficiently and spare glycogen during the workout.Originally Posted by pcn
Again, you are not a bother. our slogan here is Learn Teach Lead. Absorb the knowledge and pass it on.
01-04-2005, 04:18 PM
Thanks again! I will try the lower rate tomorrow AM. At 140-150 I'm starting to feel like I'm doing something; lower and it seems like I should be trying harder. I'll give the lower rate/longer duration a try.
01-04-2005, 05:02 PM
I know it seems like you should be working harder, but what some don't understand is that aerobic fat burning is best utilised for low intensity extended duration exercise. Doing this consistantly will train you body to become more efficient at burning fat. Changes will happen at a cellular level over time. Training at higher intensities forces the body to rely more on anaerobic energy pathways. the end result is you'll burn less fat and more sugar.(glycogen)Originally Posted by pcn
01-10-2005, 06:53 AM
what about doing 'steady state low intensity cardio' immediately after weight-training workout, should I still shoot for 45 mins or can I get away with a shorter duration (say 30 min)?
01-10-2005, 07:41 AM
45 is the minimum in my book. Again, It's the extended duration at the propper intensity that will signal your body to make the cellular changes that lead to greater fat burning capabilities.Originally Posted by lololol
01-10-2005, 07:50 AM
What about HIIT LO? I always was under teh assumption that HIIT was the best way to burn fat? Obviously you're one of the most qualified in this area (being a trainer) so I'd like your viewpoint on HIIT as well (either on trimax or without) as an alternative.
01-10-2005, 09:06 AM
I'm not knocking HIIT per se, It's just a method I seldom use. When I was studdying for my Intrafitt cert, We went into great detail regarding the physiologic response to low intensity cardio in the presence of optimal nutrition. It is the method I use and recomend to my clients. It's what I have the most knowledge and experience with. I don't doubt that HIIT works, but I feel that it requires a difrent aproach Nutritionally.Also, the physiologic response to HIIT is difrent and cuases the body to use difrent pathways to burn calories.That's a big reson why I steer away from it.Trying to incorperate both methods into a cardio program sends mixed messages to the body IMO. I like to keep everything consistant.Make sense?Originally Posted by Enigma76
01-10-2005, 09:28 AM
Indeed it does make sense. I wasnt aware that nutritional differences could impact training differences in cardio as well (but honestly now that I think about it, why shouldnt it?)
Is it possible that the body would gain a "resistance" almost to one type of training after long periods of time? Do you think it would be best to alternate types of cardio say, every couple months? I find that this works the best for lifting, every 8 weeks or so switch up my program. Sorry for hijacking, this just piqued my interest.
01-10-2005, 09:43 AM
Again I'm with Lean One (and Bobo is a practicer of this as well I believe), lower intensity and longer duration cardio should be more efficient at burning released fatty acids. I believe HIIT cardio is efficient at releasing fatty acids into the blood, but does not take into account the time required to burn them effectively, that's my take anyway
01-10-2005, 10:19 AM
No. It doesn't nesesarily work that way. When you perform low intensity cardio the way I describe, your body will respond by increasing mitochondrial density inside the muscle cells. Optimal nutrition will provide the nesesary substrates required to oxidize fat. These 2 things together over the long run will cause your bodys' fat burning capacity to increase both during and after exercise 24/7. I have even found after years of doing it this way that my body is so efficient at burning exess fat and calories that it allows me to get away with more burgerking and chineese than i care to admit. That's fine for maintenance or bulking, but when I'm cutting, I clean it up and increase cardio and the fat just flies off. No supps needed.Originally Posted by Enigma76
01-10-2005, 11:04 AM
i love HIIT, but i don't start doing it until around May, i use low intensity from march until then, HIIT works very well, but you can't over do it and the nutritional needs are totally different from low intensity cardio
they both work well although for me personally i like HIIT better, 10 minutes compared to 45 minutes is no contest in my book, i'd rather be in horrible agony for 10 minutes then bored outta my mind for 45
01-10-2005, 11:22 AM
Unless of course he's going it following a weight training session.Originally Posted by Lean One
Other than that I agree with you. I prefer 45-60 mins at a slower intensity.
on a side note... bought a recumbent bike over the holidays. Best way to do your cardio? Xbox and bike! I never knew an hour could go so fast!
01-10-2005, 11:43 AM
That is an amazing idea.Originally Posted by houseman
01-10-2005, 11:45 AM
you're telling me!
Now I don't feel like a lazy slob when I play
01-10-2005, 12:06 PM
Actually that doesn't matter really. During strength training, your muscles are functioning primarily on anaerobic energy pathways. The body will not respond by breaking down fat to be burned if there is no need for it. That's a real basic explanation but it's the general idea. The only thing I make sure of is that I always hit the weights before cardio. Doing it the other way around can detract from your strength because even if you're doing low intensity, you still burn a certain amount of glycogen in the process.Originally Posted by houseman
01-10-2005, 12:11 PM
I have been under the impression that when you burn off your glycogen stores through weight training first that the cardio you do directly after will then be tapping into the fat stores.Originally Posted by Lean One
Kinda like how people just do cardio for 20-25 mins... it takes at least 20 to begin tapping intot he fat stores.
01-10-2005, 01:06 PM
If you perform any cardio in a depleted state, or when blood glucose levels are very low, you will go into a catabolic state as your body is forced to breakdown protein(muscle) to convert to glucose to support the nervous system. Also, fat burning will actually become less eficient because carbs are nesesary to form the krebs cycle intermediates used to oxidize fatty acids. At the extreeme the body goes into ketosis witch will burn more fat, but the nervous system suffers for it and muscle protein is still consumed in the process.Originally Posted by houseman
01-10-2005, 06:35 PM
Very interesting, glad I could help bring out some healthy conversation with this. As always LO you are feeding me good knowledge here (and I appreciate it very much).
Why do people do cardio first thing in teh morning on an empty stomach then? I see alot of people taking GXR and then doing cardio. As per your directions, this would be detrimental would it not?
01-10-2005, 07:21 PM
As much as there are some who will take offense to this, It's just a myth that won't die. I'm not saying you won't loose "weight" by doing that, you just put yourself at risk for losing muscle in the process. To be completely honest, I used to do that. I used to swear by it.I also recall that back in those days, I couldn't gain significant muscle mass to save my life. Also, I remember how ravenous I used to be after cardio and I would usually eat way more than I should when Breakfast finally came. This is the normal phisiologic response to placing demands on your body when it is already in a depleted state.(fasting during sleep). Now, my body is so in tune with the way I feed and train it, I would die within 15 mins if i tried to do that. I need a minimum of 25 gms of quality carbs with adequate amounts of protein and fat to get me through cardio in the morning.Originally Posted by Enigma76
01-11-2005, 12:10 AM
Dont mean to step on your toes but I remember Bobo saying that it takes MUCH more than a workout to deplete bodys glycogen stores to the level of catabolism.. You cant even come close in a single workout,, so how can cardio after a workout be catabolic?Originally Posted by Lean One
01-11-2005, 04:44 AM
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I was trying to get a point accross.It's highly possible in individuals who consistantly do this on a low or no carb diet. Either way, when blood glucose falls to low levels, the body has to get it back up somehow to support the brain. The brain cannot use fat for fuel. Fat burning just isn't as efficient when that happens.Originally Posted by GottaMakeIt
01-11-2005, 01:28 PM
got itOriginally Posted by Lean One
So Cardio should be done 45-60 mins low intensity.
but whats the best time to do it? I do mine after weight training.. is that ok?
01-11-2005, 01:30 PM
Perfecly fine. I do that all the time.Originally Posted by GottaMakeIt
01-11-2005, 03:53 PM
What do you think of the effect of EPOC with HIIT which is absent with low intensity cardio?
01-11-2005, 08:13 PM
Uh, I took stupid pills today. What does EPOC stand for? Afterburn effect?
01-12-2005, 03:13 PM
Lol yeah, EPOC= Excess Post exercise Oxygen Consumption.
I found a study on Pubmed (cant find it right now) that showed the huge EPOC caused by HIIT compared to low intensity cardio (many hours compared to several minutes).Ill try and find it for you.
01-12-2005, 05:36 PM
I thought that's what you meant.Originally Posted by Andrew69
Here's my take on it. No doubt the EPOC factor plays a big role in the effectiveness of HIIT. I know there's plenty of studdies showing that. The thing about low intensity cardio though, is that even though there's no Signifigant EPOC, in the presence of optimal nutrition, that type of training leads to cellular changes (mitochondrial density, increased fat burning enzymes) that amount to a signifigant increase in fat buning capacity 24/7. Those type of changes don't occur with HIIT because it doesn't stimulate the release of FFAs during training.So, in the end, both methods work, but they work in difrent ways.
01-12-2005, 06:41 PM
I have also read that exercise in general tends to lead to cellular changes as you described, but Im not sure where I read that and even if it is valid.
If it is not valid, then I suppose that a combination of HIIT and Low Intensity may well be the way to go.
Where could I read about what you term "optimal nutrition" with regards to low intensity cardio?
Are you refering to a dedicated pre WO/ PWO nutrition type senario or just a general overall change in diet (away from high fat)?
01-12-2005, 07:49 PM
01-13-2005, 08:37 AM
I agree that a combination of anaerobic (lifting sessions or HIIT) and low intensity aerobic activity is best. I do this by lifting and low intensity cardio, considering the anaerobic effects desired (such as increased EPOC as mentioned above) are acheived through weight training, so that leaves low intensity cardio. It seems best to not do all anaerobic sessions such as weight traning and HIIT alone, no?
I think much of this was brought to light in a thread where Bobo abd Layne Norton discussed the two and played Crossfire I think that thread is gone now though due to server issues in the past, which sucks becuase it had many valid points for each side.
01-13-2005, 02:55 PM
Thank you Gentleman.
I will incorporate some low intensity into my schedule from now on. I still keep with the HIIT to improve my cardiovascular fitness though.
01-14-2005, 02:05 PM
I would have to disagree, on the basis of a study i read about in this month's MD. It basically states that although people think low intensity longer exercise does burn fat, but not to the extreme that intense exercise does. "That is by exercising intensly, because during a 24-hour period you use more fat for fuel and increase calorie use more after exercise. Also you matabolize more calories during the exercise itself. The total daily energy use is more imprtant for fat loss than the kinds of fueld used during exercise. Studies from Laval University in Canada showed that people who train intensly had more muslce and less fat than those who exercised at lower intensities." (Muscular Development Feb 2005 pg 87).Originally Posted by Lean One
I mean if you think about track athletes, it kinda makes sense. Sprinters, have the most lean and lowest bf%, while distance runners have a higher percentage.
01-14-2005, 02:40 PM
One studdy does not mean it is abselute. There are way too many variables to considder. Do you think I'm pulling this **** out of my ass? Jeez, I don't have the patience for this today. Bobo help!Originally Posted by BOHICA
01-14-2005, 02:43 PM
BTW, I read MD. Next month there will be a studdy showing low intensity burns fat more efficiently.
01-15-2005, 11:26 AM
Again... I believe this to be true for anaerobic exercise in general, which for most here constitutes weight lifting (or HIIT cardio as in the study above). When combined with aerobic activity, one can ensure they are getting the best of both worlds, IMHO.Originally Posted by BOHICA
When taken alone, such as females who simply will not lift weights, I recommend HIIT for these benefits. In conjunction with a resistance program, I recommend aerobic, low intensity cardio.
Similar Forum Threads
- By pitching101 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 22Last Post: 11-26-2012, 09:22 PM
- By 1ad man in forum AnabolicsReplies: 19Last Post: 05-10-2006, 07:22 AM
- By FullyBuilt in forum AnabolicsReplies: 17Last Post: 12-28-2004, 06:09 PM
- By Swanson52 in forum Weight LossReplies: 1Last Post: 08-12-2004, 06:37 AM
- By LakeMountD in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 3Last Post: 03-16-2003, 07:45 AM