Im sure its a basic question, but how do I quantify intensity? Heart rate? If so, 20-30 minutes every morning at pulse rate of 140-150, 39 years old.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.:lol: 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. :thumbsup:
Unless of course he's going it following a weight training session.
That is an amazing idea.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!
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
:thumbsup: got it
Perfecly fine. I do that all the time.
I thought that's what you meant.
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. 
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).
One studdy does not mean it is abselute. :nono: 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! :frustrate
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.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Would KB Swings Be a Good Replacement for Cardio? Too Much Possible? | Training Forum | 3 | ||
| How much cardio? | Post Cycle Therapy | 1 | ||
| How much cardio? | Post Cycle Therapy | 4 | ||
| Unanswered How much cardio on gear? | Anabolics | 9 | ||
|
Is too much cardio a problem? | Training Forum | 9 |