shakenblake
Member
Is cardio needed for fat loss or is a deficit enough?! Go!
Discussion: cardio needed for fat loss?
- Thread starter shakenblake
- Start date
shakenblake
Member
Evidence?
Chrisehyoung
Active member
I wouldn't say it's necessary but it will expedite the process.
Driven2lift
Legend
hvactech
Legend
You want evidence that reduced calories is enough to lose weight without cardio?
genthoseffect
Member
needed? No. But helpful. Especially HIT style. I think of cardio as a supplement when cutting. It's the diet that gets you lean, but cardio will give the process a boost. when done right of course
hvactech
Legend
Cardio is good for you though so there is no reason not to do it
This... strong cardiovascular support is equally important....
JXiiXViii
Member
Does one's HR not increase while lifting weights?
I never understood the notion that we need to do some mindless, traditional cardio for heart health.
Lifting heavy ass weights for an hour, especially when supersetting opposing muscle groups, jacks my heart rate up plenty without hopping on a treadmill.
As for the OP's question, diet alone can do it if the energy deficit is there, but like others have said, adding in some conditioning work on top of your strength work can help speed things along.
NEBinAK
New member
Several things increase heart rate that doesn't necessarily mean you are "training your heart"
You can lift hard and heavy quite often and it's not going to be the same as doing specific cardio. Don't believe me, go for a run. If you train legs all the time you should be fine right? Right?
It's not the same, now go for a run 3-5 times a week and see how much less winded you are after a couple weeks, see how much farther you can go.
Ibut like I mentioned, I don't do enough cardio.
NoAddedHmones
Well-known member
I enjoy smashing through 12 min HIIT sprint on the bike a few times a week when trying to lose bf, allows me to eat a higher calories, improved strength on leg days and still maintain consistent fat loss.
JXiiXViii
Member
The heart doesn't know (or care) what type of exercise stimulus is increasing it's heart rate, stroke volume, and overall cardiac output.
Yes going for regular runs will increase your endurance and make running easier. What point does that prove though other than it makes you better at running?
This doesn't imply that it's "better" for the heart than a different stimulus that accomplishes the exact same thing.
When one first starts working out with weights they probably get winded easily too, but as time goes on, they can handle it better.
I'm not saying cardiovascular training isn't important, but rather there are many ways of accomplishing the goal, and too many people associate it with strictly doing boring ass traditional cardio.
I actually prefer more HIIT style training for conditioning (sprints, fast jump-roping, barbell complexes, etc.) Now those get you winded, are much less mind-numbing, and can even be anabolic in nature.
GNO
Well-known member
As others stated above, cardio is not necessary for fat loss given you have a sufficient calorie deficit.
However, for individuals like myself who need to cut at a lower deficit (ie. <2000 cals/daily) cardio is helpful to achieve the fat loss goal and gives you a little more flexibility in the kitchen. Also allows me to cut with some cheat meals
The OP's question implies he's trying to justify not doing cardio. A lot of people hate it, but it doesn't have to be boring ... you can try several forms of HIIT. Do your cardio outside, play a sport like basketball, soccer, hockey, etc
However, for individuals like myself who need to cut at a lower deficit (ie. <2000 cals/daily) cardio is helpful to achieve the fat loss goal and gives you a little more flexibility in the kitchen. Also allows me to cut with some cheat meals
The OP's question implies he's trying to justify not doing cardio. A lot of people hate it, but it doesn't have to be boring ... you can try several forms of HIIT. Do your cardio outside, play a sport like basketball, soccer, hockey, etc
McCrew530
Well-known member
I train legs all the time but don't do a lot of cardio. After the run I went on Thursday I was beat, and my legs and calves are super sore
JXiiXViii
Member
^^Exactly.
I think the whole cardio myth comes from the mindset that in order for something to actually be good for us and work, it needs to be grueling, punishing, and we have to hate doing it.
Just like when people gauge a workout by how sore they got and don't even look at the results and the bigger picture.
Conditioning (I refuse to use the word cardio because it implies the long, boring kind) is actually quite fun if you know how to make it fun.
Just as GNO said, get outside and do something fun like playing a sport, going for a hike in the woods, run some sprints on a football field, carry heavy things for a long distance, do barbell complexes at the end of your workout; the options are endless.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
Resistance training doesn't have the same effect on heart muscle that running does. At least, to my knowledge, there isn't anything published showing it does.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
No, they are different. Cardiac output is increased in both but HOW they are increased changes.
During high intensity work, demand is met via an increased heart rate and not so much stroke volume. During low intensity work, such as running, left ventricular filling pressure and end diastolic volume is increased resulting in increased stroke volume. Past 60% of work capacity, stroke volume plateaus. Also, body position has an effect. Standing up increases stroke volume more so than sitting or laying down exercising.
digitalpimp
Member
About 5 years ago after reading several articles saying that cardio was a waste and you're better off spending that time lifting weights, I decided to try it. It worked great for me, at 42 years old my dieting is much easier and more fun now.
Most pro bodybuilders only do cardio the last 2-3 weeks before a competition.
Most pro bodybuilders only do cardio the last 2-3 weeks before a competition.
JXiiXViii
Member
I'm not sure where you got these assumptions from, because all the research I have read says otherwise.
Furthermore, even if what you say were accurate, is the increased HR in the high intensity work not good for CV health?
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Anyway, here are a few:
Invalid Link Removed - Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training.
It concludes, "High-aerobic intensity endurance interval training is significantly more effective than performing the same total work at either lactate threshold or at 70% HRmax, in improving VO2max. The changes in VO2max correspond with changes in SV, indicating a close link between the two."
Invalid Link Removed - This one compares playing football (a high intensity workout with short bursts) to regular running and concludes, "We conclude that football training, consisting of high-intensity intermittent exercise, results in positive effects on blood pressure, body composition, stroke volume and supine heart rate variability, and elicits at least the same cardiovascular health benefits as continuous running exercise in habitually active men." (if you read the study the results actually come out a little better in the football group)
Invalid Link Removed - Here is one on long distance running and you will see the SV is actually a lot less than what you observe in high intensity exercise. A stroke volume of 100-110 is about what you see in the sprint/resistance training studies whereas in this one the runners were at around 77.
Invalid Link Removed - Left ventricular diastolic function in trained male weight lifters at rest and during isometric exercise.
"The mean end-diastolic volumes at rest were 97 +/- 6 ml in sedentary subjects and 101 +/- 5 ml in weight lifters, increasing to 100 +/- 6 and 118 +/- 11 ml during exercise (p = 0.06 and p <0.01, respectively)....The mean stroke volume increased from 65 +/- 7 to 86 +/- 7 ml in sedentary subjects and from 70 +/- 6 to 107 +/- 11 ml in weight lifters (intergroup significance p = 0.05 and p <0.01, respectively). A similar pattern of response was documented for the ejection fraction (i.e., significantly greater increases during exercise in weight lifters)."
Invalid Link Removed - Resistance training improves cardiac output, exercise capacity and tolerance to positive airway pressure in Fontan physiology.
While this one deals with Fontan physiology, it's still valid to our discussion and says, "Resistance muscle training improves muscle mass, strength and is associated with improved cardiac filling, stroke volume, exercise capacity and cardiac output."
Invalid Link Removed - Increased SV in resistance style circuit training
Invalid Link Removed - VO2 max was significantly increased in a resistance training group
While these don't compare weight training to running exactly, it's not hard to look at the results and see that you can get just as good, if not better overall CV results from high intensity work.
I don't think one should ONLY do heavy strength training; I do agree it's important to get your HR even higher sometimes, but I find things like sprints and weight circuits to do a much better job (and are a lot more fun) than long distance running.
I also think that if you're doing weight training the right way (not just sitting on your ass for 5 minutes between sets), it can be a great cardiovascular workout on it's own.
Do 2 heavy supersets back to back and tell me you're not winded.
CorpKiller
Well-known member
This.
bolt10
Well-known member
This thread is getting pretty derailed.
For OP, no you don't "need" to do cardio to lose weight/fat. Caloric intake vs expenditure is what will lead to the greatest changes in that, not the modality of exercise.
FWIW the "high intensity cardio" people are funny and usually don't even mean the same thing as each other when they say "high intensity cardio" because the protocols many talk about range from glycolytic work to aerobic work anyways. So, ya.
For OP, no you don't "need" to do cardio to lose weight/fat. Caloric intake vs expenditure is what will lead to the greatest changes in that, not the modality of exercise.
FWIW the "high intensity cardio" people are funny and usually don't even mean the same thing as each other when they say "high intensity cardio" because the protocols many talk about range from glycolytic work to aerobic work anyways. So, ya.
digitalpimp
Member
I always tell my girlfriend that cardio is for women and very obese people. Lol
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
Todd, I am not going to get into a drawn out back and forth with you over this and am not going to read all those papers you linked. It's finals week and not worth the time to try and explain each one here.
Real quick, cardiac output is a function of heart rate * stroke volume. When you exercise both will increase in order to increase CO to meet the body's needs. However, when you at above 60% SV stops rising and plateaus. From here on CO demand is met by an increased heart rate. SV no longer continues to rise.
Now why this matters for heart health. By increasing SV you are in a way training the muscles in the left ventricular chamber. This is important because this is the chamber that sends blood to your systemic circulation. This gets trained via the frank starling mechanisim. By increasing end diastolic volume you sre also increasing the pressure in the left ventricular chamber which works the muscles more here resulting in hypertrophy over time. This then increases SV so now CO can be met using a lower heart rate. This is why runners have such low resting heart rates. Because SV is increased so less HR is needed to reach the necessary CO.
This isn't a controversial topic. It is readily understood in just about any exercise physiology textbook. Yes resistance training will increase SV but only to an extent. It plateaus. This is why cardio work is the recommendation for heart health since it doesn't plateau and allows you to train LV muscles more. It is important to also mention that exercise induced left ventricular hypertrophy occurs over YEARS and YEARS. It isn't like other skeletal muscles in the body. It take A LOT OF stimulus to grow. And again, this is why running is the defacto recommendation. It allows for the most stimulus to be placed on the cardiac muscle. SV is going to be increased longer with running since it will be a linear increase with time as opposed to resistance training where you reach a maximum for brief periods and then plateaus.
Real quick, cardiac output is a function of heart rate * stroke volume. When you exercise both will increase in order to increase CO to meet the body's needs. However, when you at above 60% SV stops rising and plateaus. From here on CO demand is met by an increased heart rate. SV no longer continues to rise.
Now why this matters for heart health. By increasing SV you are in a way training the muscles in the left ventricular chamber. This is important because this is the chamber that sends blood to your systemic circulation. This gets trained via the frank starling mechanisim. By increasing end diastolic volume you sre also increasing the pressure in the left ventricular chamber which works the muscles more here resulting in hypertrophy over time. This then increases SV so now CO can be met using a lower heart rate. This is why runners have such low resting heart rates. Because SV is increased so less HR is needed to reach the necessary CO.
This isn't a controversial topic. It is readily understood in just about any exercise physiology textbook. Yes resistance training will increase SV but only to an extent. It plateaus. This is why cardio work is the recommendation for heart health since it doesn't plateau and allows you to train LV muscles more. It is important to also mention that exercise induced left ventricular hypertrophy occurs over YEARS and YEARS. It isn't like other skeletal muscles in the body. It take A LOT OF stimulus to grow. And again, this is why running is the defacto recommendation. It allows for the most stimulus to be placed on the cardiac muscle. SV is going to be increased longer with running since it will be a linear increase with time as opposed to resistance training where you reach a maximum for brief periods and then plateaus.
JXiiXViii
Member
So you claim you don't want to get into a debate about the topic, then say you won't even read the papers I linked (which are a few of many others on the topic), but then you go into a long-winded rant and completely sidestep the points I made?
Thank you for explaining what cardiac output was and what the left ventricle does....I have no understanding of physiology so glad you cleared that up.
For something that is "readily understood in just about any exercise physiology textbook," there sure are a lot of studies that don't support your hypothesis.
But you don't have time to read them, you'd rather throw around a bunch of words to try and sound smart and sidestep the issue entirely.
You can say running is good for the heart, fine I'm not disagreeing, but you cannot honestly sit here and say running is the best form of cardiovascular training and have nothing to even back up your stance. Don't you think that sounds a bit absolutist?
The only point I'm trying to make is if you're lifting weights properly and doing some higher intensity conditioning on the side, you don't need to go on long runs to increase your heart health.
JXiiXViii
Member
Well said. I think when 99% of people use "cardio" they are referring to traditional cardio as I like to call it, which is just hopping on one of the machines at the gym and hammering away for an extended period of time (elliptical, treadmill, stairs, or whatever).
That's why whenever I refer to cardiovascular training I say conditioning so people don't lump me into the above category, as my conditioning doesn't really involve those.
When someone hears cardio they automatically associate it with traditional cardio, but when they hear conditioning they will sometimes ask more about it like "what do you do for your conditioning work?" and then I can explain.
Of course it all means the same thing, but the words just have different meanings to people.
Xrkc6x
Well-known member
I am a thai boxer since i was 7, doing MMA now and competing too, I was doing cardio every day and when i stopped my body composition improved a lot, also i am leaner than before when i was doing my cardio every day, I guess it could be different for everyone, everyone is different but defo you don't need cardio to get ripped, it could get you "there" in less time "maybe"... not sure, but i think that calories deficit is enough, also if you add some supplements you are fine that is just my two cents
that is just my two cents 
asooneyeonig
Well-known member
now i am getting rusty on this knowledge in my old age, and the fact that the only time i need this info is to get in an internet fight..... but i digress.
when it comes to cardiovascular health, i always saw it like weight lifting in that different rep, set, frequency, intensity variables garner a different result in adaptation of the body.
to me there is more to CV health than just the heart. there is capillary density and mitochondrial density and other things which i dont care about anymore as i just never needed to know it even as an athletic trainer. from what i remember low intensity cardio helps with capilaries and mitochondrial density more than higher intensity training. that is NOT to say that HIT does nothing for those. just that if you want to split hairs in an online pissing match then long slow cardio does more.
the tabata protocol does easily show that aerobic capacity does increase even at high intensity levels. so you can do HIT to save time and get benefits to everything. you can also do more long slow cardio to add additional benefit to the systems/parts that can handle more frequency and volume. and.... you can do conditioning to help with work capacity in lifting AND...... do active recovery to do just that.
in other words, there are tools in a toolbox. dont be a tool, learn to use your tools.
but i am probably wrong in a lot of that anymore. oh well.
when it comes to cardiovascular health, i always saw it like weight lifting in that different rep, set, frequency, intensity variables garner a different result in adaptation of the body.
to me there is more to CV health than just the heart. there is capillary density and mitochondrial density and other things which i dont care about anymore as i just never needed to know it even as an athletic trainer. from what i remember low intensity cardio helps with capilaries and mitochondrial density more than higher intensity training. that is NOT to say that HIT does nothing for those. just that if you want to split hairs in an online pissing match then long slow cardio does more.
the tabata protocol does easily show that aerobic capacity does increase even at high intensity levels. so you can do HIT to save time and get benefits to everything. you can also do more long slow cardio to add additional benefit to the systems/parts that can handle more frequency and volume. and.... you can do conditioning to help with work capacity in lifting AND...... do active recovery to do just that.
in other words, there are tools in a toolbox. dont be a tool, learn to use your tools.
but i am probably wrong in a lot of that anymore. oh well.