- 06-30-2007, 01:45 AM
- 06-30-2007, 12:48 PM
- 07-01-2007, 02:41 AM
HIT training my friend. You'll kick your cardio into overdrive by doing this as well. The exercises are anaerobic, yes, but they still increase your cardio training capacity. Look up HIT training online and check out the true HIT programs developed by trainers that aren't offering programs that you need to be on roids for. Check out Fred Fornicolas website. He is one of my mentors. He has a blog with a ton of ideas for training.
Do low intensity cardio sessions and end up like one of those fat bastards who dedicates his time to coming in everyday and will always remain fat. Know what I'm talking about? Yes, the fat oblivious guy who can barely contain his contempt for his lack of progress. I personally find planned low intensity cardio sessions POINTLESS. Sure, give me articles that say stuff on how it MAY do this and that... lower cortisol levels, better fat targeting, blah blah blah... it's crap. Save low intensity cardio sessions for walks on the beach with a special girl... or hiking... or a leisurely bike ride. Make sure you're dieting properly (eating sensibly) and you're eating the right foods at the right times. Train HIT.
07-01-2007, 10:58 AM
07-01-2007, 03:27 PM
07-01-2007, 04:35 PM
Whatever. I have tried both. I believe low-intensity cardio to be better for fat burning. H.I.I.T. is ok sure, but just because everyone elese is doing it doesn't mean its the best option. Sure I can go and look up all these stupid articles and studies but I'm not gonna do that. There are a lot of people on here that prefer low intensisty cardio. You are young though so I guess you follow the trends which is exactly what H.I.I.T. is, a trend. People were doing low-intensity cardio before you born, its tried and true. I suppose its the same with the people that use CEE instead of creatine MONO....
07-01-2007, 04:46 PM
Let's not make assumptions here my friend You make age seem like it's a shame. I'm 24, so therefore I follow trends. Wow. The trend I'm seeing lately are a bunch of fools walking on a damn treadmill reading magazines, watching TV on LCD screens and talking on a cell phone. That's called low intensity cardio. I could get a better workout vacuuming my 1 bedroom apartment or flexing my abs while taking a big dump.
People were doing low intensity cardio before I was born, sure. So....? That's cool... I also can't wait to be 34 so I can condescend to people at my current age like I'm God. Dude, my older brother is your age. You're not going to keel over anytime soon, so don't bother buying into those life insurance policy infomercials quite yet.
I respect your desire to perform low intensity cardio, but respect my opinion and standpoint that I think exercise and hardwork go hand/hand.
07-01-2007, 04:49 PM
Oh... I'm off to do some low intensity cardio right now. I'll be doggy-paddling in a pool for a little while. That counts right? I'll be back on the thread later
07-01-2007, 05:35 PM
I think exercise and hard work go hand in hand also. Maybe we just think of low-intensity diferently. I use a cardio machine at home and I do push myself as hard as I can. I don't read or talk on a cell phone. The cell phone would get all wet from the sweat and I couldn't hold the magazine because I am using my arms. I do watch tv though. Yes at the gym I do see people working out like you are talking about, just like its a vacation for them. I was thinking you were talking about Hi Intensity Interval Training. Sorry maybe I seem a little short. I respect everyones opinion. Once in a while I just make a not so well thought out post.
07-01-2007, 05:54 PM
I have seen and heard studies saying both work. Me, I hate 45-50 min cardio. I would rather bust my ass for 20min and that seems to work better for me, then 45min cardio.
But thats just me.
See what one you prefer doing and then do that one.
07-01-2007, 08:54 PM
To me, 'low intensity' cardio is between 135 and 165 beats per minute. It's a useful tool to have, and I use it whenever I'm busy getting banged up in rugby, which is more often than not these days. If you're not in any sort of sport you have no reason to not be doing a few HIT sessions of cardio a week, though. It's even useful on a bulk. Nothing will get your appetite revved up like some wind sprints
07-01-2007, 09:16 PM
07-01-2007, 09:53 PM
07-02-2007, 01:05 AM
07-02-2007, 04:33 AM
07-02-2007, 09:38 AM
07-02-2007, 11:00 AM
07-02-2007, 01:13 PM
HIIT is superior due to it putting your body in a long term defeceit. You can't hide behind the mannerism of "it's works for me" because that doesn't mean what your doing is right, it just means it's working.
People get so caught up in the "it works for me" bs. and that's what it is. Any gym rat can see results for a short amount of time. But is it the right way? Probably not. Your online giving advice to other people without knowing any facts or research. Just "what works for me."
Next I'll hear you telling this guy you should do cardio for 45 min. straight on an empty stomach!?!?
Not ever one is on PH or anabolic steroids or AI or anything else that's gonna f' up your body's chemistry. So you have to take into consideration that what you do - just because it works - maybe not the right choice for others.
Force is Right - HIIT training is superior for fat loss. obviously your not doing cardio to gain mass - so saying you can't work legs as intensely while doing it is like saying "I don't weigh as much when I do cardio" - NO SHlT. My ass doesn't stink after I take a shower either.
Why worry about how much calories you kill during 1 hr of cardio when you could spend 15-25 and you'll burn more calories for the other 24 hrs of the day - without doing anything?
For me, and anyone else informed - the answer, the science, and the studies - are clear.
07-02-2007, 01:20 PM
Also, you can get one heck of a friegen leg workout on a Precor elliptical by varying the angle of attack and resistance. I've come away with legs just as sore as I'd have from doing 6-7 sets of full butt almost to the floor squats.
07-02-2007, 01:43 PM
well muscle soreness only indicates the presence of lactic acid - not muscle breakdown.
and I'm in no way advocating HIIT as a replacement for a leg workout. I also hope that 60 min. is two different sessions. If you can go a whole hour of HIIT then your not pushing yourself hard enough - I don't care how sweaty you get. That's not the point of HIIT either.
07-02-2007, 01:51 PM
No, it doesn't work for everyone, extreme sprints, with cooldowns in between is what I do.
But I'm also the sort that gets better gains from very short cooldowns between lifts. It's just the way my biochemistry works.
07-02-2007, 02:05 PM
Well I agree people are built differently, but biochemetry isn't. I'm glad you mentioned it. Because it's what makes writes the rules, and I'm just bringing the correct one's to the line.
Like I said before - every one is so defensive about the siggestion that what THEY might be doing is wrong. And I'm not saying what I do is right either - in fact I've never stated what it is I personally do. I'm just stating what studies have shown to be correct.
If your gonna hide behind the "it works for me" tag line - then you should realize like I said before that it doesn't make you right. Or what your doing to be adventageous. If the wrong way of a certain technique works for you - imagine what you could do with the proper proven way.
If HIIT was meant to be done for an hr. I'm sure that's the way it would have been suggested. Long sustained cardio at high intensity - which is what your doing - burns muscle at an incredible rate. Which is why sprinters DON'T EVER do 2 hr hill sprints. X- country runners do.
I was a Div. 1 pole vaulter I know about sprint and sports training, this isn't my opinion. I'm also an NSCA certified C-PT and is an org. called National Strength and Conditioning Association has it wrong - please let me know so I can inform the pres. that his methods are flawed and we should train sprinter like long distance runners immediatly
07-02-2007, 02:22 PM
07-02-2007, 02:32 PM
It's great that you were a division 1 pole vaulter. I myself went to state throwing discuss (probably had something to do with the crappy sprint training, guys with PE educations typically don't make for great coaches).
One other thing to note is goals. My goal isn't to get huge. If it was, I would be sucking down protein and carbs and bulking like a mad dog. I'd rather be able to run 5 miles than squat 700 lbs. That being said, yes you learn something becoming a CPT, but there's also 2-3 NSCA-CPT's at my gym that are more out of shape, and flabby than 3/4 of the people in the gym. The only people they're training are the old farts, and the people who are obscenely out of shape. They have people bouncing balls, and rolling around like rolly pollies for exercise. So forgive me if CPT doesn't lend a ton of credence to what you're saying in my book. There's 1 CPT who's a roid head, and walks around with a bloated face all the time, and another who's a cardio head and she's about as anorexically skinny as a bolemia patient can get.
I agree that too much cardio for too long with improper nutrtion burns muscle like a mad dog. But 'some' burn't muscle is inevitable the way I'm training, and 'that's ok'. My goal isn't to preserve ALL muscle no matter the cost.
But the facts are rather different in that I've been steadily gaining LMM while losing fat, whilest doing 60 minutes of cardio. So apparently there's something going on there.
So 'it works for me'.
Does that prove anything? No, but purporting that burning muscle by doing long cardio as this horrific thing is also a bit unsound unless you're trying to get huge.
I'm not attacking you or your CPT status in what I'm saying, I'm just stating my side of the story. I'm sure there are great personal trainers out there, I just haven't met any. When over half of the trainers in the gym have flabby butts (females), and overhanging bellies (guys), you know there's something wrong with their training. If they can't be bothered to stay in shape themselves, how are they going to train someone to BE in shape.
Also, some of the other 'conventional wisdom' for HIIT states that you shouldn't do it for more than 20 minutes. Personally, I think everyone has various limits to their training thresholds, and it would take oxygen intake analysis, bio-sign monitoring, and lab tested nutrition studies, and tons of blood work to truely get a good read on everyone's true optimal training paths.
They do this for thoroughbred race horses, but humans are just too pathetically worthless unless you're an olympic athlete.
I understand the true principle to HIIT is to train up to your maximum level of physical output in order to get your metabolism ramped up all day long. (and never on an empty stomach)
And these things have changed from decade to decade and in another decade there will be another cardio training regime superior to HIIT.
There is a point to low rev long cardio in that you DO burn calories. But it's pretty low calorie expenditure. 200 calories in an hour is pretty pathetic and it doesn't do much for your metabolism either. So all that said, what you said isn't necessarily incorrect, I just think the spirit of the comments is a bit off.
Yes, you can and will burn muscle with high output for long periods of time. Yes, you can burn calories doing long low output cardio. Yes HIIT is most definitely superior in that it rev's your metabolism all day long. There's a time and place for both.
07-02-2007, 03:37 PM
you wont hear me argue against the C-PT thing. I guess I should have stated that not only do I train NATURAL body builders for competition I also train figure competitors and compete myself. Not to mention I'm a huge follower of the Layne Norton Philosophy. SO yes while you state a great point c-pt doesn't mean much - also in some cases doesn't mean nothing at all either. But such is the way of the world.
Goals is correct as far as methods go. The HIIT is actually meant to preserve muscle. How much more leaner are you going to be precieved if you had 10 pounds more muscle than you would normally?
When getting ready for a natural event a competitor MUST try to preserve muscle break down at all cost and for the point stated above - i think doing cardio with the notion that burning muscle also is ok - is kind of like try to hop scotch with out knees. What the hell is the point? You may not want to be huge, but muscle burns calories - all the time. Even when your not exercising. 215 lbs w/7% bf looks VERY different than 200lbs w/7% bf on the same frame.
Building muscle and keeping it is hard. Not losing weight.
I'm actually really glad you brought up those other PT's because your SO right PT doesn't mean you know ANYTHING. But science speaks for itself no matter who says it.
07-02-2007, 03:41 PM
not matter what your body is only going to burn SO much fat. The rest is muscle and caused by just plain impatience and you end up hindering your ability to burn fat (by less muscle mass) and crippling your metabolism (because it adapts to the SAME cardio reutine you put it through - every day) and not giving it refeeds.
Unless your obese your not gonna wake up and lose 10bs of fat from yesterday's cardio. If you have and your not obese - you've just taken away 8lbs of muscle that could be burning fat for you while you sit at your desk replying to this message.
07-02-2007, 03:57 PM
I really am digging all of these posts... I really can't stand people I meet who hide behind the "It works for me, man" slogan. Just because he/she gets some results and looks absolutely absurd in the gym, gives him/her the ticket to keep improperly executing the workouts. lol
07-02-2007, 04:07 PM
But anyways, the calipers speak for themselves. I haven't burn't away any muscle mass, just fat. I have 'more' muscle and 'less' fat than before. So obviously something isn't adding up with your hypothesis. 'Crippling' your metabolism is an effect of overtraining. To a lesser extent, yes you will get less effect over time from doing the exact same thing all the time. That's why you change up your routine on a quarterly or less basis to ensure that you don't become adapted.
Burning 8 lbs of muscle would require me to burn an INSANE number of calories. Considering I don't burn more than 800 calories even on the most ravenous of sessions, 8 lbs seems ludicrous. At most, I could burn 1 lbs of 'something' in an hour of cardio. And that's optimally. Even worse case, there's no to burn 8 lbs of muscle in a day short of starvation and extreme all day strenuous work. I guess if you're on the supermodel diet...
This is the basis of my assumptions:
Does Aerobic Exercise Make You Lose Muscle?
By Tom Venuto
Yes, it's true. It's a scientifically proven fact that muscle proteins are broken down and used for energy during aerobic exercise. But don't worry, you are constantly breaking down and re building muscle tissue anyway. This process is called "protein turnover." Your body is constantly alternating back and forth between anabolic (building) and catabolic (breaking down) cycles. That's just a normal part of life. Your goal is simply to tip the scales slightly in favor of increasing the anabolic side and reducing the catabolic side just enough so you stay on the anabolic side and you gain or at least maintain muscle.
This fact of human physiology has often been taken out of context and used to scare people into not doing cardiovascular exercise for fear of losing muscle. When you fast overnight as you sleep, you lose muscle too, but that doesn't mean you should stop sleeping!
Sure, it's possible for you to lose muscle from doing too much cardio, but it's highly unlikely. Shying away from cardio completely because you think you'll lose muscle is a huge mistake. Only excessive amounts of cardio would cause you to lose muscle because over-training tips the scale towards the catabolic side. It's difficult to generalize and pinpoint one specific amount as too much, but I think it's safe to assume that just about anyone could do up to 45 -60 minutes of cardio a day, 6 to 7 days a week without losing any muscle - as long as the proper nutritional support is provided.
Trainer John Parillo has always been an advocate of lots of aerobics, even for his bodybuilder clients who are trying to gain muscle mass.
"Aerobics can enhance your recovery from weight training by promoting blood flow and oxygen transport to your muscles," says Parillo. "Aerobics forces oxygen through your body, increasing the number and size of your blood vessels. Blood vessels are the 'supply routes' that transport oxygen and nutrients to body tissues, including muscles, and carry waste products away for muscular growth, repair and recovery. The expansion of this circulatory network is called 'cardiovascular density.'"
So, according to Parillo, aerobics can actually enhance recovery from weight training and increase muscular growth by developing the circulatory pathways that provide nourishment to the muscles. Cardiovascular training is important for fat burning, for good health and for muscle-building.
Losing muscle has more to do with inadequate diet than with excessive aerobics. If you suspect you are losing muscle there are four likely causes:
1. You are not eating enough protein. Protein is the only nutrient that is actually used to build muscle. To stay anabolic you must eat five to six protein containing meals. Each meal should be spaced out approximately three hours apart. Research has proven that if you are physically active, you need a minimum of .8 grams to 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight.
2. Your carbohydrates are too low. Low carb diets are often used for fat loss, but it is a mistake to cut your carbs too drastically. Carbohydrates are protein-sparing, so even if you are eating large amounts of protein, you can still lose muscle if you your carbs are too low.
3. You are not eating enough calories to support muscle growth. This is the most common cause of muscle loss. When your calories are too low, your body goes into "starvation mode." Your metabolism slows down and your body actually burns muscle tissue to conserve energy. Muscle is metabolically active tissue, requiring a great deal of caloric energy just to maintain it. That's why your body will shed muscle if it thinks you are starving.
4. You are not training with weights. It is a common misconception that if you want to lose weight, you should start with cardio only and add the weights later - another big mistake! It is the weight training that keeps you from losing muscle while you are dieting.
You are much more likely to lose muscle from not eating enough than you are from doing too much cardio. All too often, people are afraid to eat a lot and do a lot of cardio at the same time. It doesn't seem to make sense. Logically, it seems like the two would cancel each other out - but the opposite is true. Many people believe they must "starve" the fat by drastically lowering calories. Unfortunately, this approach can cause you to lose muscle along with the fat. The only way to maintain your lean mass while losing fat is to feed the muscles with plenty of nutritious calories and at the same time, burn the fat off with cardio.
Whether your goal is muscle development, fat loss or both, you should always include some form of cardiovascular activity as part of your training program. Unless you're doing some kind of ultra-endurance regimen, AEROBICS DOES NOT CAUSE MUSCLE LOSS, in fact it supports the pathways that help you build it!
About The Author
Tom Venuto is a bodybuilder, gym owner, freelance writer, success coach and author of "Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle" (BFFM): Fat Burning Secrets of the World's Best Bodybuilders and Fitness Models. Tom has written over 150 articles and has been featured in IRONMAN magazine, Natural Bodybuilding, Muscular Development, Muscle-Zine, Exercise for Men and Menís Exercise. Tom's inspiring and informative articles on bodybuilding, weight loss and motivation are featured regularly on dozens of websites worldwide. For information on Tom's Burn The Fat e-book, click here: www.burnthefat.com.
07-02-2007, 04:22 PM
Honestly though, I think the point I'm trying to make is I'm not necessarily training for maximum muscle atrophy. I'm not a natural body builder, and don't care to be. But I wouldn't be training that way if I wanted to run a marathon either.
There IS method to my madness, and the second I stop adding lean muscle, I'll change what I'm doing. I'll probably up the carbs and protein intake and decrease the cardio. But until that happens, I'm still making progress. Besides, I don't get crap for endorphines until I hit the 30 minute mark. I've always been that way. Thirty minutes is just getting to the good stuff
07-02-2007, 04:39 PM
Like I said before these aren't "theories" as you state. The difference is that our statements are based on science. Your reference comes from an opinion not scientific data. I can find 12,000 people with your same opinion. It just means I found 12,001 people that could really benefit from swallowing their pride and trying to do things the right way.
Unfortunatly your also going to waste my time and make me explain what an ANALOGY is. I used to 8 lbs of muscle loss as an exaggerated analogy to get my point across. Obviously I wasn't being literal, but your response was literally - a waste of time.
The fact that you see results proves NOTHING other than you're seeing results DESPITE what your doing. I can argue that the kid deadlifting 600 lbs with hunched shoulders and stiff legs has improper form - - but he can deadlift more than me. Does that mean that his form is correct?
God no. It means he will eventually hurt himself rather badly or hit a plateu and not be able to progress any farther. Actually this is a true example of a kid at my gym who wouldn't take ANY direction. Just blindly lifted as much as her possibly could without any regards to form. He now is on his 2nd month off from lifting due to a psyatic tear and may have to have surgery to fix it.
I hope my analogy didn't confuse you too much here. What I am suggesting is is that you have no clue what your doing. Your just doing it because you found an article by someone that said it was ok, and you advocating that any one else should follow in your example is asinine.
While you enjoy gains now - they will slow and or dimish altogether quickly. If you didn't have so much weight to lose you probably wouldn't see any at all and once you do get down to normal levels you'll either be left with a sub - par physique or hanging loose skin and a brused ego.
Similar Forum Threads
- By DreamWeaver in forum AnabolicsReplies: 29Last Post: 04-25-2003, 08:31 AM
- By Aneas in forum AnabolicsReplies: 77Last Post: 04-15-2003, 06:57 PM
- By Shake in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 11-12-2002, 08:26 PM
- By Shake in forum AnabolicsReplies: 16Last Post: 11-10-2002, 07:39 PM
- By dodgeee-O in forum AnabolicsReplies: 13Last Post: 11-06-2002, 11:13 PM