Cardio preventing fat loss?? Help

  1. Cardio preventing fat loss?? Help


    Alright guy, I need some help grasping this topic. Losing Bf has never been easy for me, at least when I'm not on cycle.
    On cycle i get shredded and a couple months post cycle the fat comes right back.
    This time post cycle i decided to track my bf% by doing a 3D body scanner once a month. These machines measure a lot, but primarily what I'm looking at is lean body mass and bf%.
    1 month ago when I did my first scan, I was 18.5% bf at 201lbs. After that I began doing more cardio along with my weight training. I do 1 hour fasted cardio in the morning, my regular weight training in the evening (Typically consist of 4-5 sets, high rep workouts) followed by 30 min of more cardio. Diet is clean, moderate carbs scheduled with meal pre workout and post workout, low fat intake. 2+gals of water a day. I did exactly that, everyday for 1 month and today I got measurements again. Bf% went up from 18.5 to 19.3 and I lost 2.5lbs of lean muscle mass. The first thing the consultant said to me was..."Cardio holds onto fat" he said back off on cardio and I should go in the direction i want. I do know that too much cardio can be detrimental to muscle mass. However, I can't understand how I've gained body fat with all I do. Can someone please explain this to me????

    My ideal goal Is to maintain 12-13% bf. Granted I will lose some muscle, but i would like to keep as much as possible. I've always been told you if you want to cut the fat, Increase the cardio. Now, apparently cardio is making me fat.


  2. Your not losing cause your not in a caloric deficit simple as that . No need to over complicate anything.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Uchiha00 View Post
    Your not losing cause your not in a caloric deficit simple as that . No need to over complicate anything.
    Hmmm yes, fairly simple. I quit keeping track of my macros because, well...its a pain in the ass, but I eat the same thing everyday so it's easy to keep track of. I def don't go over 3000 cals a day and with that much cardio and weight training it's hard to say I'm not in a deficit
  4. Cardio preventing fat loss?? Help


    1. you shouldnt give a f*ck on these measurements!
    2. if you want something useful you have to use a caliper anf track your progress with that! but i would use a simple scale + the mirror anyway
    3. if you really dont loose fat, you have to eat less or put up your activity level (cardio or NEAT, non-exercise activity level - so enough movement during the day. set yourself a goal for example 10k steps and track it with a simple phone app or something) no other way to loose bodyfat.

    if you eat enough proteine (~2.5g/kg bodyweight) and keep up the intensity (weight) during training, you shouldnt loose much muscle. at least if your caloric deficit isnt too high (more than ~700-1000 cals deficit is only useful for a psmf or high speed diet but not over a long term!). make sure to have enough fats (NEVER less than 0.5g/kg bodyweight, better a little more. like 0.7-1.0g/kg bodyweight)

    these are the main factors to a) loose weight and b) keep muscle during the calorie restricted time period

  5. Cardio doesnít hold on to fat but instead youíre causing your type 1 fibers to become more active than your type 2 type one fibers are smaller in size because youíre doing so much cardio those are the primary fiber types being used all the time. Which would account for the lower LBM. My suggestion would be to cut your cardio and turn it into some sort of hiit. HIIT training does use some of the oxidative path ways or aerobic pathways (type one fibers). But it mainly targets your type two fibers or your anaerobic pathways through explosive movements. Look at the difference between a sprinter and a marathon runner they both have the same muscles itís just the fiber type and metabolic pathway they train is different. In most cases with cardio less is more. Also by starting out with an hour and a half of cardio your body gets used to this amount of activity and therefore even more stimuli is needed before it will effect you. The key is to start with minimal cardio and use your diet to change your body. Only when you start to see a plateau I would start cardio. Hope I could help
    •   
       

  6. Cardio preventing fat loss?? Help


    i wouldnt use hiit during a cut. this f*cks completely your regeneration.

    and please show me some research about that muscle fiber stuff and that cardio negatively impacts your workouts in this case.
  7. Cardio preventing fat loss?? Help


    Quote Originally Posted by iamyourfather View Post
    i wouldnt use hiit during a cut. this f*cks completely your regeneration.
    Um what? That doesnít even make sense. By doing 10 minutes of an anaerobic movement A few times per week? Do you even science dude...

  8. Ok so I did a check on my macros.

    I'm 197lbs

    Daily cals- 2679
    Carbs- 141g
    Fats- 119g
    Protein- 249g

    I would call that a caloric deficit. If I cut anymore out of that, I'll lose even more muscle.
  9. Cardio preventing fat loss?? Help


    Quote Originally Posted by DonutsNDeads View Post
    Um what? That doesnít even make sense. By doing 10 minutes anaerobic movement A few times a week? Do you even science dude...
    1. cardio is EXTREMELY healthy and should be done from everyone. at least 2 times a week a 30min. liss should be in your training routine. even more if you mostly sit during your usual day.

    2. cardio is a VERY good way to up your activiy level. this way you either have a higher caloric deficit OR you can eat a few hundreds of calories on top (nice thing to eat some Ącheatsď during a diet and keep up the adherence)

    3. high intensity/interval training is not a good tip for a cut. this will slow down your regeneration and impact your training. less possible intensity during your workouts is the result. usual cardio is by far the better way to burn calories. 30min liss are better than 10min high intensity. you wont burn more calories during high intensity but you may impact your regeneration (especially lower body) thats my point.


    @OP if your adherence isnt that good over long term you should may check out the before mentioned PSMF or HSD. these are diets with the highest possible caloric deficit over a very short term (logically). there are several things to do, so you would have to research the principles very well before you start. also i want to add before - there is no research that proves that fast and heavy fat loss is in any way worse than slow and constant fat loss over a longer period of time (there is research that even suggests that people can stay at their lower bodyfat easier if they diet with a heavy caloric deficit). mostly people love the fast results and get even more motivated. its not something for everyone but maybe its an option for you.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by iamyourfather View Post
    1. cardio is EXTREMELY healthy and should be done from everyone. at least 2 times a week a 30min. liss should be in your training routine. even more if you mostly sit during your usual day.

    2. cardio is a VERY good way to up your activiy level. this way you either have a higher caloric deficit OR you can eat a few hundreds of calories on top (nice thing to eat some Ącheatsď during a diet and keep up the adherence)

    3. high intensity/interval training is not a good tip for a cut. this will slow down your regeneration and impact your training. less possible intensity during your workouts is the result. usual cardio is by far the better way to burn calories. 30min liss are better than 10min high intensity. you wont burn more calories during high intensity but you may impact your regeneration (especially lower body) thats my point.


    @OP if your adherence isnt that good over long term you should may check out the before mentioned PSMF or HSD. these are diets with the highest possible caloric deficit over a very short term (logically). there are several things to do, so you would have to research the principles very well before you start. also i want to add before - there is no research that proves that fast and heavy fat loss is in any way worse than slow and constant fat loss over a longer period of time (there is research that even suggests that people can stay at their lower bodyfat easier if they diet with a heavy caloric deficit). mostly people love the fast results and get even more motivated. its not something for everyone but maybe its an option for you.
    Why do you have to do liss when you can get the same beneficial cardiovascular effects from hiit cardio? Increased heart rate for a period of time if you were to do tabata before a lift and continue to keep your heart rate up there is no reason to do liss. Iím not saying never do it if you really need to burn calories for a bodybuilding show go for it, but if I donít have to walk on a treadmill for 30 mins Iím not going to. The science is all there. Also idk where you got your education on regeneration but if you do hiit after a workout you will be fine. Also youíre not taking into account the afterburn effect from the hiit. Thereís more than one way to skin a cat

    honestly OP I wouldnít take advice from anyone who doesnít know the difference between lose and loose as seen above.

    OP good luck Iím not going to keep up a conversation with someone who doesnít understand how the body actually works on a metabolic level . itís like talking to a wall. 🤙🏼
  11. Cardio preventing fat loss?? Help


    1. im from europe, english is my second language.

    2. the Ąafterburnď effect is WAY (!!) less than thoughr. that broscience as its finest.

    go and educate yourself.

    also its never a good idea to do any cardio around your training sessions. at least if you are natty. before training might impact your strength/endurance (of course if its not just a little bit of warming up) and after maybe your regeneration (at least some protein in between would be good).

    anyone can do what he wants but main priority should be on your intensity during your workout. cardio should always be there for your health, also during a bulk, but can be upped if you feel the need of a higher caloric deficit. if you think you have to do hiit, good, do it, usual cardio is still the better way in terms of regeneration.

    and if you use any pedĎs NEVER do anything like interval training. at least if you dont want your heart to grow to a watermelon size. (obviously thats exaggerated but you get the point).


    ooh and even if english is only my second language - i know the difference between lose and loose but people always attack with BS like that if they dont know any further ;-) this tells more about your personality than you might think.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by iamyourfather View Post
    i wouldnt use hiit during a cut. this f*cks completely your regeneration.

    and please show me some research about that muscle fiber stuff and that cardio negatively impacts your workouts in this case.
    Dude first of all way to edit the post, second itís literally in any strength and conditioning book. Trying reading the essentials of strength and conditioning by the NSCA and when you have your strength and conditioning specialist certifications and a 4 year degree in kinesiology and know what youíre talking about then please I would love to have a conversation with you

  13. Quote Originally Posted by iamyourfather View Post
    1. im from europe, english is my second language.

    2. the Ąafterburnď effect is WAY (!!) less than thoughr. that broscience as its finest.

    go and educate yourself.

    also its never a good idea to do any cardio around your training sessions. at least if you are natty. before training might impact your strength/endurance (of course if its not just a little bit of warming up) and after maybe your regeneration (at least some protein in between would be good).

    anyone can do what he wants but main priority should be on your intensity during your workout. cardio should always be there for your health, also during a bulk, but can be upped if you feel the need of a higher caloric deficit. if you think you have to do hiit, good, do it, usual cardio is still the better way in terms of regeneration.

    and if you use any pedĎs NEVER do anything like interval training. at least if you dont want your heart to grow to a watermelon size. (obviously thats exaggerated but you get the point).


    ooh and even if english is only my second language - i know the difference between lose and loose but people always attack with BS like that if they dont know any further ;-) this tells more about your personality than you might think.
    Lol bro science... youíre too much
    Sorry I wonít use afterburn effect is excess post exercise oxygen consumption or EPOC. Better?
    Honestly donít care what you think of me I just want the op to succeed.

    If you actually understood that you can get cardio in without doing low intensity and walking for 30 minutes, and actually improve in things like your mile time we wouldnít have this issue, but you talking in exacts and absolutes is what makes me frustrated. Youíre spreading misinformation to someone who is looking for help.

    If you knew anything about cardio you would know that HIIT helps you burn fat without sacrificing much muscle of strength....

    If you donít actually know how different exercises and forms of cardio effect the body donít comment on the posts itís plain and simple.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Uchiha00 View Post
    Your not losing cause your not in a caloric deficit simple as that . No need to over complicate anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by castIron09 View Post
    Hmmm yes, fairly simple. I quit keeping track of my macros because, well...its a pain in the ass, but I eat the same thing everyday so it's easy to keep track of. I def don't go over 3000 cals a day and with that much cardio and weight training it's hard to say I'm not in a deficit
    Quote Originally Posted by castIron09 View Post
    Alright guy, I need some help grasping this topic. Losing Bf has never been easy for me, at least when I'm not on cycle.
    On cycle i get shredded and a couple months post cycle the fat comes right back.
    This time post cycle i decided to track my bf% by doing a 3D body scanner once a month. These machines measure a lot, but primarily what I'm looking at is lean body mass and bf%.
    1 month ago when I did my first scan, I was 18.5% bf at 201lbs. After that I began doing more cardio along with my weight training. I do 1 hour fasted cardio in the morning, my regular weight training in the evening (Typically consist of 4-5 sets, high rep workouts) followed by 30 min of more cardio. Diet is clean, moderate carbs scheduled with meal pre workout and post workout, low fat intake. 2+gals of water a day. I did exactly that, everyday for 1 month and today I got measurements again. Bf% went up from 18.5 to 19.3 and I lost 2.5lbs of lean muscle mass. The first thing the consultant said to me was..."Cardio holds onto fat" he said back off on cardio and I should go in the direction i want. I do know that too much cardio can be detrimental to muscle mass. However, I can't understand how I've gained body fat with all I do. Can someone please explain this to me????

    My ideal goal Is to maintain 12-13% bf. Granted I will lose some muscle, but i would like to keep as much as possible. I've always been told you if you want to cut the fat, Increase the cardio. Now, apparently cardio is making me fat.
    A lot of people have gut reactions to certain questions and this story will trigger those responses.

    My advice is to keep doing exactly what you are doing UNLESS you are unhappy with 2.5 pounds of change a month.

    Those scales are inherently innacurate. Hydration makes a big difference in their readings for one thing...so much so that you will have different readings for BF% before and after taking a shower.

    If you lost 2 pounds, you are in a deficit most likely.

    The thing here is, you are doing 1.5 hours of exercise a day it seems, which is burning maybe 600-700 calories, and it may be easier to just eat 300 calories less and take some time off from the cardio.

    Exercise tends to reduce leptin levels a lot more than people expect, which makes people hungry and makes sticking to a diet harder.

    Taking a waist measurement and caliper measurements and looking in the mirror will give you more tools to determine if you are going in the right direction. None of them are 100% accurate on their own, but together you will see if something is off because you will have 2 or 3 measurements giving an indication rather than just 1 that could be a result of normal fluctuations.

    With almost 250 grams of protein and that many calories, muscle loss really shouldn't be a concern unless you are doing crazy cardio and/Or have a fast metabolism.

    Saying that aerobics holds onto fat is kind of a weird thing to say, but if you were in a big protein and calorie deficit then aerobics could cause muscle loss. I still think you are fine though. Keep going.

  15. Just to throw another twist to consider, I think you’ve possibly created too big a calorie deficit bro.

    An hours cardio fasted in the morning should be around 1,000 Cals, weight training plus more cardio should be another 750-1,000. Your bmr must be 2,000 plus so I’d guess your maintence is above 3,500 with those activity levels.

    Your eating 2,650 ish. My guess is your crashing your metabolism, your body is holding onto fat as a survival mechanism and your burning lean mass for fuel.

    I’m a massive fan of cardio by the way, I run 7.5k most days fasted in the morning. I’d keep doing that if I were you but in the evening I’d just lift. Go lower reps heavier weights for your compound and follow up with accessory work at higher rep ranges.

    Drop the evening cardio. At most I’d do 10-20 mins HIIT if you really feel the need.

    You also need to eat more. I’d work out your amr correctly (I’ll bet it’s above 3.5k) and reverse diet up to that level. Then I’d take 500 Cals out and cut at that level bro.

    Good luck mate

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Whisky View Post
    Just to throw another twist to consider, I think you’ve possibly created too big a calorie deficit bro.

    An hours cardio fasted in the morning should be around 1,000 Cals, weight training plus more cardio should be another 750-1,000. Your bmr must be 2,000 plus so I’d guess your maintence is above 3,500 with those activity levels.

    Your eating 2,650 ish. My guess is your crashing your metabolism, your body is holding onto fat as a survival mechanism and your burning lean mass for fuel.

    I’m a massive fan of cardio by the way, I run 7.5k most days fasted in the morning. I’d keep doing that if I were you but in the evening I’d just lift. Go lower reps heavier weights for your compound and follow up with accessory work at higher rep ranges.

    Drop the evening cardio. At most I’d do 10-20 mins HIIT if you really feel the need.

    You also need to eat more. I’d work out your amr correctly (I’ll bet it’s above 3.5k) and reverse diet up to that level. Then I’d take 500 Cals out and cut at that level bro.

    Good luck mate
    Only issues with this are:

    1. Not many people cam burn 1,000 calories per hour, especially doing LISS. That's pretty intense.

    2. Crashing your metabolism is essentially a myth. There is no scientific evidence your metabolism can change beyond a couple hundred calories a day and even finding anything quantifying that much is being extremely kind.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by HIT4ME View Post
    Only issues with this are:

    1. Not many people cam burn 1,000 calories per hour, especially doing LISS. That's pretty intense.

    2. Crashing your metabolism is essentially a myth. There is no scientific evidence your metabolism can change beyond a couple hundred calories a day and even finding anything quantifying that much is being extremely kind.
    Hey bro, granted the 1,000 Cals for an hour of LISS is somewhat subjective (depending on gender, weight and type of activity) I based it on running 10k +. We know gender and weight already and there’s plenty of studies showing that would be a calorie burn of roughly 1,000 Cals.

    This Harvard study gives info on other weights/activities.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsw...activities.htm

    Regarding changes in metabolism I’ll be honest, I’ve seen that as basically an accepted fact (although I accept I’m massively oversimplifying it using the expression ‘crashing metabolism). Lots of studies and links such as this:

    Apfelbaum, M. et al. (1991). Energy-metabolism adaptation in obese adults on a very-low-calorie diet. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Vol 53, 826-830.

    But I didn’t think there was any doubt over hormonal adaptations to maintain homeostasis when in severe calories deficit. It’s also the logic behind accepted practices such as refeeds and reverse dieting.

    I’m no expert and always learning so if there are more recent studies disputing this then I’d be interested.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Whisky View Post
    Hey bro, granted the 1,000 Cals for an hour of LISS is somewhat subjective (depending on gender, weight and type of activity) I based it on running 10k +. We know gender and weight already and thereís plenty of studies showing that would be a calorie burn of roughly 1,000 Cals.

    This Harvard study gives info on other weights/activities.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsw...activities.htm

    Regarding changes in metabolism Iíll be honest, Iíve seen that as basically an accepted fact (although I accept Iím massively oversimplifying it using the expression Ďcrashing metabolism). Lots of studies and links such as this:

    Apfelbaum, M. et al. (1991). Energy-metabolism adaptation in obese adults on a very-low-calorie diet. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Vol 53, 826-830.

    But I didnít think there was any doubt over hormonal adaptations to maintain homeostasis when in severe calories deficit. Itís also the logic behind accepted practices such as refeeds and reverse dieting.

    Iím no expert and always learning so if there are more recent studies disputing this then Iíd be interested.
    Great response! At least you have some reason behind your thinking and I applaud that! I may not be right, it isn't cut and dry, but I have start by admitting this: if there are hypothetically 10,000 active users on AM right now, I would wager that 9,980-9,990 of them accept starvation mode and metabolic slowdown as being a big part of dieting and "fact". Then there is me. And the remaining 9-19 people may think...well, hit4me isn't totally off his rocker.

    As far as the exercise calories...the chart you gave is pretty good but it gives a range of activities that would yield between 300-1200 or so calories per hour. Weight lifting itself for a 185 pound person is coming in at around 300 calories. I am not in great shape for running, I suck at it, and averaging 5 miles an hour for me is pretty challenging because I don't do it often. At that rate my treadmill has me at around 500-600 calories an hour and my fitbit says around 700-800. Both of those methods are often criticised for overestimating caloric expenditure, but 100-120 calories per mile run appears to be a reasonable estimate for someone between 160-200 pounds.

    Now...your chart goes to much higher caloric ranges with harder intensities/tasks. If he is running at 6-8 miles an hour, which you and he may but I certainly can't nevermind calling it low intensity cardio, then 1,000 may be realistic...I hope to someday be there but I doubt most people are. I think, and I may be wrong, that running 7-8 miles in an hour is a real challenge for most people...not everyone, but I think you see what I am getting at. I could be wrong about the situation.

    Getting back to starvation mode, I believe most people lose sight of the fact that calories are merely a measure of energy. Our bodies will adapt but it isn't magical like some people seem to believe. At the end of the day, it takes a certain amount of energy to do a certain amount of work. Our body cannot conserve energy beyond this point and, quite frankly, has no reason to waste energy just because we have more on hand so an elevated metabolism isn't logical either.

    To illustrate further, if our body could adjust metabolism like a thermostat we wouldn't see the extremes we do in the world. Ethiopians would be carrying fat even though they are emaciated, and Americans would never get fat because their metabolism would speed up to accommodate all the food they eat.

    But the fact is, Ethiopians may be emaciated but they still have muscles (albeit very small) even whilst having almost no bodyfat.

    The idea is to store fat during times of surplus for expenditure during times of lack. Your very statement of the body holding onto fat because it is starving goes against survival. It makes sense to store fat for times of lack, but holding onto it during those times does not - doing so will decrease your chances of there even being a tomorrow.

    Now, I agree, metabolism is dynamic and has factors. For instance, a big one you hear about is the fact that it takes energy to digest food, and different foods will take more energy than otgers, etc. But this is majoring in minors. Digesting food is very efficient and low energy. There are almost no foods that take more energy to digest than they provide. And most foods I doubt take 50 calories to digest 500 calories worth of output.

    The reason this is a good example is because, if you fast you won't be digesting as much food, so yes your body will have a metabolism that is 50 or 100 calories slower. But, um, so what? You still have a net loss of 400+ calories from not eating the food. It isn't metabolic damage, it is your body not wasting energy.

    And yes, you may become tired and lazy and this will lead to less activity and thus less caloric burn. And there may even be a balance here where you cam push harder in the gym, etc. With some extra calories and this will help you burn more. But it is really just an efficiency. It isn't like your body is magically reducing the calories it needs to accomplish a task, it is simply reducing those tasks.

    And I agree that people who are in a big deficit often don't realize that they aren't moving as much during the day or aren't pushing as hard in the gym, etc. But again, it isn't a separate "mode".

    The problem is that this thinking feels good. It lets people feel better about eating a little more - I am stoking the fire! - and it sells diet books. And people want to believe in it and they do, and it has become so prevalent that even scientists accept it as fact even though solid studies are hard to find.

    The very study you supplied shows that previous studies don't show a reduction in RMR-LBM ratios. And the study itself seems to be showing that the LBM measurements may be the cause of this. But the very fact that are trying to prove a reduction in RMR among obese people who are fasting while other studies they reference show otherwise shows the attractiveness of the theory.

    Still, the study you provided seems to be evidence of some slowdown. It is among the best evidence I have been able to find on pubmed...and as I've said I've read a lot of studies even that assume it is real within the study, but very few that rigorously test for its validity.

    But...honestly, your response is among the best I have seen on AM for your side of it, and I would love to be taught more, I may not be right.

    One thing I will also point out is that it dies make some sense that our body gets better and better are creating energy which makes us more efficient. A reversal of this efficiency never seems to be logical though. But you would expect exercise itself to have this effect. For instance, the example above, if you can run 8 miles and hour and I can run 5, you may be able to burn more calories overall per hour, but you will also be able to spend fewer calories to accomplish the same task I am accomplishing.

    And another caveat - we obviously need nutrients to mobilize fat stores and undertake metabolic processes. Of we are simply lacking those chemicals because of malnutrition, we won't be able to mobilize the fat and those processes stop, but that is literal starvation.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Whisky View Post
    Hey bro, granted the 1,000 Cals for an hour of LISS is somewhat subjective (depending on gender, weight and type of activity) I based it on running 10k +. We know gender and weight already and thereís plenty of studies showing that would be a calorie burn of roughly 1,000 Cals.

    This Harvard study gives info on other weights/activities.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsw...activities.htm

    Regarding changes in metabolism Iíll be honest, Iíve seen that as basically an accepted fact (although I accept Iím massively oversimplifying it using the expression Ďcrashing metabolism). Lots of studies and links such as this:

    Apfelbaum, M. et al. (1991). Energy-metabolism adaptation in obese adults on a very-low-calorie diet. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Vol 53, 826-830.

    But I didnít think there was any doubt over hormonal adaptations to maintain homeostasis when in severe calories deficit. Itís also the logic behind accepted practices such as refeeds and reverse dieting.

    Iím no expert and always learning so if there are more recent studies disputing this then Iíd be interested.
    What you are describing, in reality isnít happening with a ďproportedĒ deficit this person is in, particularly if the person is decently high bf %. It becomes a reality when you are a real lean person eating well below RMR (for a prolonged period) and doing copious amounts of cardio. Usually seen with female figure competitors etc.

    Look at people who are very overweight and go on psmf for months on end and consistently lose weight.

    Starvation mode i call out as bro science, metabolic adaptation on the other hand, sure. The harder you make the pendulum swing away from homeostatsis the harder your body is going to oppose it.
    OLYMPUS LABS
    Aussies interested in OL Product's shipped locally and US prices, PM me.
    [email protected]

  20. Quote Originally Posted by NoAddedHmones View Post
    What you are describing, in reality isn’t happening with a “proported” deficit this person is in, particularly if the person is decently high bf %. It becomes a reality when you are a real lean person eating well below RMR (for a prolonged period) and doing copious amounts of cardio. Usually seen with female figure competitors etc.

    Look at people who are very overweight and go on psmf for months on end and consistently lose weight.

    Starvation mode i call out as bro science, metabolic adaptation on the other hand, sure. The harder you make the pendulum swing away from homeostatsis the harder your body is going to oppose it.
    Ok, Looks like you are on of the 9 people I mentioned maybe? Haha.

    Yes - this point is also more important than people realize. If we were taking sub-10% bodyfat or even maybe at least down to 12%, then the adaptation may be more expected. People who are very lean also have been reported to be less able to mobilize fat stores. I.e. - someone who is 300 pounds can mobilize a lot more fat per day than someone who is 180.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by castIron09 View Post
    Alright guy, I need some help grasping this topic. Losing Bf has never been easy for me, at least when I'm not on cycle.
    On cycle i get shredded and a couple months post cycle the fat comes right back.
    This time post cycle i decided to track my bf% by doing a 3D body scanner once a month. These machines measure a lot, but primarily what I'm looking at is lean body mass and bf%.
    1 month ago when I did my first scan, I was 18.5% bf at 201lbs. After that I began doing more cardio along with my weight training. I do 1 hour fasted cardio in the morning, my regular weight training in the evening (Typically consist of 4-5 sets, high rep workouts) followed by 30 min of more cardio. Diet is clean, moderate carbs scheduled with meal pre workout and post workout, low fat intake. 2+gals of water a day. I did exactly that, everyday for 1 month and today I got measurements again. Bf% went up from 18.5 to 19.3 and I lost 2.5lbs of lean muscle mass. The first thing the consultant said to me was..."Cardio holds onto fat" he said back off on cardio and I should go in the direction i want. I do know that too much cardio can be detrimental to muscle mass. However, I can't understand how I've gained body fat with all I do. Can someone please explain this to me????

    My ideal goal Is to maintain 12-13% bf. Granted I will lose some muscle, but i would like to keep as much as possible. I've always been told you if you want to cut the fat, Increase the cardio. Now, apparently cardio is making me fat.
    Your not burning more than youre taking in.

    It could be a slow metabolism. have you had thyroid levels checked? do you use thyroidal supplements?

    Too much cardio can cause stalled progress . Sometimes taking a full week off cardio, and reintroducing back in can get fat burning back into the swing of things. I suggest trying that.
    Millennium Sport Technologies Representative
    Mind and Muscle Code AM10
    Classic Physique competitor, Facebook- Great Physique Fitness, Online coaching
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. whats the best cardio for fat loss?
    By lplionheart in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-27-2017, 07:53 PM
  2. Cardio and fat loss
    By firedoghfd in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-29-2009, 06:25 AM
  3. FAT LOSS - Help with timings and doses
    By 0-hero in forum Supplements
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 12:25 PM
  4. Belly Fat Loss HELP!
    By PSJ02388 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-13-2007, 10:40 PM
  5. Stimulant-free fat loss? Help!
    By Holmes in forum Supplements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 09:04 PM
Log in
Log in