Cardio discussion

[HowieW]

I am 6'4 300lbs and am switching from football workouts to a bodybuilding routine.  I need to drop bodyfat, but dont want to lose muscle. I know I wont gain any but thast ok for now.  What do you rcommend for cardio.

Great to hear you want to lose wt and get fit overall, good luck. Ok, the best way to go is a combination of strair climber and walking at a brisk pace on a treadmill set on an incilne.
DStay with it  and work up to a good 30-40 min at least 4 times week. All the best!

[HowieW]

We spend sooo much time trying to improve the outside but what about the inside? The Heart is a muscle and needs to be exercised so I am a big proponent of Cardiovascular exercise....

BINGO, great point. In days of yore bodybuilding was known as physical culture and the idea was to be fit and strong along with a decent physique.

[BigDealBrock]

thats funny, carbs arent essential.

"essential" is all a matter of opinion. 

nah www.dictionary.com
essential
particularly
"# Biochemistry. Being a substance that is required for normal functioning but cannot be synthesized by the body and therefore must be included in the diet: essential amino acids. "

[hangclean]

I do 30 minutes every day.  Keep the heart rate between 135 and 150.  I do all my training in the morning with a whey shake and half a cup of sunflower seeds in my stomach.  I do the cardio after my weights 5 days a week, and two days by itself.  After 6 months of this I have lost a significant amount of bodyfat while losing ZERO strength.

[JamieX4200]

I read in the new Mens Health mag that cardio after you work out can stimulate muscle growth....Maybe it's possible..?  Having food in your stomach seems like it makes sense, I've always done cardio on my days off..

[Author]

The requirements to match to be in a cardio-workout are:
1. Elevate the resting pulse rate.
2. Maintain it for a period of time.
3. Using larger muscle masses.
4. In rhymtic movement.

It mattters not, what you are doing to reach these requirements.

Doing your cardio and free weight\High-Tech Machine workouts would provide best results because it allows the mandatory, more bio-chemical rest between activities, which helps
insure building of muscle tissue.

Recuperation is the secret of maximum gains in minimum time.

It is best to produce all of your high-level physical activitys on the same day, and allow complete rest between workouts.

Author

[Cold]

never do cardio on an empty stomach. that's a nice way to break down muscles. eat a nice meal, then go run.

[TimmyTBone]

I disagree

Many bodybuilders do cardio on an empty stomach first thing in the morning to lose fat. Cardio with no carbs in the system, maybe a lil protien if any, lots of water,  and maybe some green tea is a great way to burn fat.
Eating breakfast like oatmeal with some pp directly after this cardio is the best thing to do for the metabolism. Never wait in a situation like this.

[wells31]

Got to have a little something in your stomach if you are going to do cardio in the morning. Protein shake, banana's, or something. Running a mile a day at a fast pace will help you keep a lean look. Keeping your heart rate up will also keep you conditioned for lifting on those heavy days.

[JamieX4200]

What do you guys think about 15 minutes on the eliptical EOD after workouts?

[gibberj2]

I'm never doing cardio again. I was training for fatloss a while back and did 6 days cardio a week and 4 days weights. My cardio sessions were 20 minutes to half an hour. I ate 40 30 30 with 1g protein per bodypound. in 3 weeks i lost 13 pounds and about half of it was muscle. If I just ate a little less and circuit trained I'll lose fat and keep my muscle. I guess bodybuilders don't lose their muscle when they do so much cardio because they take steroids.

[oldtimer1]

I was a sprinter in High school and college.  Older guys have to be careful with sprinting.  It's so easy to pull a hamstring or calf tendon.  Warm ups are not to be taken lightly when your past your forties.  It's also incredibly hard on the heart so it's not for a older guy who's getting into shape without a heart check up.

Having said the above I think it's a great form of cardio for preserving muscle.  Who hasn't over done conventional cardio and have lost muscle and strength?  I think doing 60 yard/meter sprints is a little to intense.  The risk of injury is to great and I think you need a little more distance to burn up the fat.   Try going to a high school track and sprint a half lap.    After sprinting 220 yards you should rest by fast walking 220 yards.  Repeat 6 times.  Don't forget to warm up.  You should see the fat burn off at an alarming rate. 

The current thought of low intensity cardio does work.  Walking for 30/40 minutes does burn the calories without cutting into recuperation.  It just takes a long time for this grandma type cardio to give you results. 

The body adapts for survival when training.  Gaining muscle and losing fat is an adaptation to a stressor.   To much long distance running will make your body shed fat and any unnecessary muscle to survive.  How many elite distance runners have a muscular physique?  Distance runners need muscles with endurance.  They don't need the strength to squat 400lbs; bench 300lbs; or sprint a 48 second quarter.   

Use cardio by all means for health, endurance, and to lose fat.  Just don't over do it if bodybuilding is your primary goal.  If your a bodybuilder then lifting weights is your primary activity. 

Sprinters have a muscular physiques.  To sprint you need power and strength.  Intervals preserve lean body mass better than long distance runs at a moderate speed. 

I think the heart rate fat zone burn is old news.  It doesn't matter what fuel your body uses during cardio.  Whether it's glucose or fat it's the total caloric cost that matters.  On Clarence Bass's site he puts out his research on this very topic. 

I find that there are basically three intentsities of cardio.  Some use low intensity like walking so they won't interfere with recovery from lifting.  There is the high intensity interval crowd that is effective but it's easy to burn out from.  The middle of the road  that use basically long slow distance will hurt a bodybuilders goals if used to often.   I think the bottom line for a bodybuilder is to use aerobics.  If it cuts into your lean muscle mass then cut back if bodybuilding is your primary goal.   

The heart is the most important muscle.  It should be trained hard even if you can't see it.

[Momentum]

Here is another take on this topic that seems to support the opposite opinion.  To be honest my own research (both empirical and anecdotal) seems to support this postulation.  That being said I'm willing to rethink and re-examine my postion based on the suggestion of the role cardio plays in hormonal secretions, as suggested in the first post of this thread.  

It's a long read but well worht it.

DON'T DO AEROBICS!
Weights build muscle. Aerobics burn fat. Right? Not necessarily. The standard thinking is aerobics are a necessary component for fat loss and cardiovascular health, but in my opinion, they're essentially just an ineffective form of exercise. Aerobics will do next to nothing to alter one's appearance, yet people will include them because they're considered essential for providing a complete and balanced exercise program. That makes about as much sense as adding Styrofoam bricks while building a house because they provide a "different" form of support. They're only weaker. No one wants to admit that they've wasted hours of time on something that has reaped no reward. It isn't unlike the gambler who continues to lose and lose because he's already invested so much money on trying to win. Sure, it's senseless. But humans also react out of emotion. Most serious exercise enthusiasts include aerobics in their program but no one knows why -- other than what they've heard. Now you'll hear something different.

MOVE MORE. LOOK THE SAME.

The first premise regarding the necessity of aerobic training that I'd like to take on is the "targeted heart rate" theory. The belief is that once the heart rate is elevated to 60% of its maximum potential for over 20 minutes, the body begins to burn fat. Makes sense. I guess. You'll sure be burning a whole lot of calories. But if this method is so effective, why is it that I see so many aerobic instructors who are obviously in great cardiovascular condition with big fat asses!?
The reason is simple. Once the body becomes accustomed to the demand that is being put on it, there is no reason to adapt. It's capable of performing the activity effectively. The only alternative would be to increase either the intensity or the duration, both of which are self-defeating. It's imperative to remember at all times that the body's number one function is survival. Your body doesn't give a damn about how you want it to look. It is a primitive and highly efficient organism that will use a multitude of resources to adapt to an almost limitless array of bombardment. Keeping that in mind, follow me on this next point. A gram of fat consists of 9 energy units (calories). A gram of protein is 4 calories as is a gram
of carbohydrate. Your body doesn't care if the fat is coming from your oblique or a stick of butter, it will use what is most readily available. When performing an activity that requires constant low level movement for over 20 minutes, what you are essentially doing is giving your body a command:
Must run...
Must keep moving...
The master demands I travel great distances...
Now, knowing the body is going to respond as efficiently as possible, it will then begin to drop weight, allowing it to perform the task at hand with greater ease. This is where the belief that aerobics are effective gets misconstrued. If the body is going to take the path of least resistance (which is the only way it knows), will it use 9 energy units (fat calories) to drop a gram of weight or will it use 4 energy units (protein or carbohydrate calories) to drop a gram of weight? Of course, it will use only four!

Would you pay nine dollars for something when you can get it for four? The first source of fuel is to use the stored carbohydrates. As long as carbs are present, there is little need to use fat. This is why it's preposterous to eat carbs in order to have the energy to run. It's like working at a job that pays just enough to pay the expenses of getting to and from work. What happens once carbs are depleted? Now we enter the fat burning zone, don't we? Not so fast Sparky. It still has another 4 calorie per gram energy available -- protein. What's so bad about
that?

Well, just as the body doesn't discern where the fat comes from, it also doesn't know a protein molecule in a piece of steak from a protein molecule in a piece of human muscle tissue. The muscle on your body is a readily available source of energy just waiting to be used. So whenever you do aerobic activity, you're burning muscle -- like it or not.
"I'LL GET HEALTHY EVEN IF IT KILLS ME!"
Aerobics are an extremely damaging form of exercise, yet for some strange reason, the ability to withstand pain has become associated with athleticism. The epitome of withstanding punishment by way of aerobic overload is the marathon. The story behind the Marathon Run is based on an ancient Greek legend of the soldier, Pheldippides, who ran 26 miles to tell the emperor that their army was victorious in battle over the Persians. Then he dropped dead. (Let that be a lesson to you.)
What's interesting to note is, after a runner completes a marathon, the average weight loss is only four pounds. About three of those pounds are water which return the next day after the individual re-hydrates. That leaves only one pound of actual weight loss. It's a fair bet that a good portion of that pound is muscle loss. That means the amount of fat utilized from running a marathon is only a few ounces. So, if it takes running consistently for 26 miles to burn a few ounces of fat, how much fat do you think you'll burn from running for 20 minutes? About as much as a couple of spoonfuls of oatmeal. You'd be better off not eating the extra oatmeal. As much as I may admire the physical and mental toughness it takes to finish a marathon, it has little to do with one's health or appearance. It certainly won't enhance it. Proving how much punishment one can endure is so typical of the "weekend warrior" mentality.

It may make for inspiring Gatorade ads, but the ability to tolerate damage is not a very accurate gauge of one's health or strength. If it were, then my friend Louie is a regular gold medal winner. He can sock away 12 beers and a pack of cigarettes in one sitting, sleep for 3 hours, eat a plate of French fries and do it again. That would kill me! I wouldn't say he was in better shape than I because of it; he's just able to tolerate this form of abuse better due to the fact he's built up a tolerance to it. An activity such as running, besides being unnaturally stressing to the knees, ankles, and lower back, will also increase free radical damage due to the higher ingestion of oxygen. (Oxygen intake equals oxygenation) Let's not forget increased uptake of pollutants. If you're going to run, do it in a wooded area where the air is clean. I never fail to get a kick out of the people I see on the
city streets, huffing and puffing, running in place as they wait for the light to change. Breathe deeply folks. Yep, take in that invigorating carbon monoxide. Oh look! A diesel engine truck is heading up the block! Don't want to miss the opportunity to suck in some of that.

[Momentum]

THOSE ARE VERY NICE BREASTS YOU HAVE THERE SIR.

As most bodybuilders know, testosterone is a major factor in the success of everyone's training progress. Studies done on long distance runners have shown a severe depletion in testosterone levels. It stands to reason. Any long-term stressful condition will cause a severe drop in testosterone. Long duration stress is also extremely catabolic in that it overly taxes the endocrine system. This could lead to a slower metabolism -- just the thing you're looking for if a tighter body is your objective. It's so ironic. People do these things in the name of health. How sad it is that running will not do what everyone is expecting it to do. It is NOT healthy. It will NOT increase your lifespan. It will NOT improve flexibility. It will NOT grow muscle. It will NOT strengthen your heart any more than weight training or even moderate exercise such as walking. It will NOT improve your appearance. And most of all, it will NOT help you lose fat. You know what helps you lose fat? Eating less food. Try it and see.
Muscle is the key. Muscle is what keeps fat in check and aerobics won't help you build muscle. Aerobics are good for one thing and one thing only: They make you better at doing aerobics.

NOT CONVINCED? HERE'S MORE.

A while back, I was speaking at a seminar on training and sports conditioning. A student stated he made his best gains through weight training but was concerned about his cardiovascular ability when he tried to swim for the first time in years. He said he became quickly winded after only one lap. He then remained on a program of swimming every day and within a month he was able to swim ten laps. "Mister Montana, with all due respect, doesn't that prove that aerobics improve cardio capability?" he asked. The answer was no. And here's why. I explained; how long did it take to complete that lap? A minute? Less? That doesn't fit the definition of "aerobic." What you did was push yourself to your cardiovascular limit in a short amount of time, which is considered an-aerobic. So why would engaging in an activity that only elevates heart rate for 20 minutes improve the ability to do something that requires maximum exertion for one minute? The reason the lap took so much effort was because the exertion was unfamiliar. Therefore, you didn't get better at swimming because your aerobic ability improved from swimming every day for a month. You simply became a better swimmer!"

The same goes for any activity. Even though yoga wouldn't be considered an aerobic activity, it can make you breathe harder if the strain is new to you. This is why alternating training stimulus is optimum for total conditioning.

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

All exercise works the heart. And in case you haven't heard, weight training is exercise. This brings me to my next point. When I was studying to get my certification to be a personal trainer, there was a point where the instructor told the class that weight training will not improve one's cardiovascular condition, to which I just had to say, "excuse me?" "Um, professor. Are you suggesting that if you were to take a previously untrained individual and put him on a weight training regime for six months, that at the end of that time he would show no improvement in cardiovascular ability than from the day he started?" The instructor looked me square in the eye and said..."Yes." I guess he's never done 20 rep sets of squats.
I'll bet my entire bank account (granted, not a very impressive wager) that high rep weight training will improve cardiac output as well, if not better than low intensity aerobics. Any takers? The thing is this: The heart is a muscle and although cardiac muscle tissue is different from skeletal muscle tissue, there are similarities. All muscle becomes stronger through use. There is no evidence that the usage from an extended moderate activity increase is superior to the anaerobic version that weight training provides. Even the terms anaerobic and aerobic are misleading. They're essentially "made up" terminology which exercise practitioners have used and repeated throughout the years. Anaerobic means "without oxygen." Well, all exercise requires oxygen. Come to think of it, last I heard, everything outside of death requires oxygen. Along the same lines one must realize, any activity will burn calories and induce weight loss, especially if the trainee is new to an exercise program. But even in the case of previously untrained subjects, aerobics are the least effective of all forms of exercise for fat loss. When it comes to calling on its energy resources, the body doesn't know if it's lifting a barbell or running on a treadmill. It's expending effort, burning calories and stressing the nervous system with both activities. Of course, cardio training is of a lower intensity and longer duration. That's exactly what makes it less effective. If low intensity, long duration burns fat (which it does) then all activity, short of being in a coma, will burn fat -- which it does -- just not enough to make a difference. Of course, keeping the rest period in between sets brief is the best fat burning tactic there is, yet people ignore it to ride a bike that doesn't go anywhere. Go figure.

A LOT OF HOT AIR

The increased oxygen intake for fat loss is based on elevating the heart rate and here's where the theory falls apart. If you aren't in shape and you run a mile, your heart rate may go up to 200 BPM (Beats per Minute). If you're in good condition, it may stay at about 100 BPM. So if an elevated heart rate and increased oxygen uptake is what burns fat, then only unconditioned people would burn fat from most aerobic activity. Conditioned athletes would require more intense activity to get into the fat burning zone. Instead of running farther, it would make more sense to run faster, which is just another way of increasing the "resistance." Running sprints is excellent exercise for both cardiovascular development and leg strength. Of course, then you'd no longer be performing what is regarded as aerobic exercise.

SEMI - RETIRED

I love it when people say they do aerobics on "off days." Then it isn't a day off dammit! Proponents of brief infrequent training sessions say they get fat unless they include some aerobic activity. Well, why not just work out more? There's only so much energy the body can expend before it becomes over trained. Why waste it? It's crucial to make the most of that window of opportunity by implementing the most effective form of exercise. And aerobics are at the bottom of the list. I also find it funny how some strength coaches think that training for a pump by using higher reps with a lighter weight is worthless, yet believe aerobic activity, which offers less resistance, has merit. (?) I've heard people swear they look leaner after a cardio session. Sure. It's called sweating. When you perspire, you remove the subcutaneous fluid which looks like fat. You see your muscles more clearly. If that's what you're looking for, dress warmly when you workout. Or wear a sweat belt. You'll get the same results. Most people, other than the severely sedentary, get plenty of activity that will increase their heart rate for twenty minutes. Walking, dancing, playing sports, or riding a bike (a real one) are excellent methods to elevate heart rate. Even sex is a great way to increase heart rate. Sure beats the treadmill.

IT'S IN THE CARDS

When it comes to exercise, doing more won't assure more health or a longer life. Look at Jim Fixx. He wrote the famous book on running back in the 70's when it first started gaining popularity with the public. (By the way, how exactly do you go about writing a book on running? How many times can you say; left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot...?) Jim Fixx died at age 36. When I mention this to running addicts they invariable say; "Jim Fixx had a congenital heart problem!" That's my point. Running didn't correct or even alleviate the problem. No disrespect intended, but all that running may have very well aggravated it.

MORE MUSCLE = LESS FAT

Using aerobics as a method of burning fat is only fanning the fire. Muscle requires energy to sustain. Fat does not. Therefore, the best way to keep body fat in check is by having more muscle. And how do we do that? Lifting weights of course! Are you getting all of this?

[Momentum]

STATUS QUO WOES

As we now know, the human organism doesn't like having to change. It will adapt and adjust in an effort to maintain homeostasis. That's why it's so difficult to grow muscle or lose fat. The body likes things just the way they are and it requires the torturous stress of lifting ever increasing poundage before it will concede and grow more muscle. The same goes for losing fat. Accepting the fact that the body doesn't want to alter its total bodyweight, does it not make more sense to make
as much of that weight muscle? Let's say your set point is 200 pounds -- that's where your body is comfortable. It could just as well be 200 pounds with 6% body fat as 16% body fat. The mistake many people make is to attempt to lose weight in the hopes that they will lose fat. If you force your body to lose weight, the first thing it's going to give up is muscle since muscle weighs more than fat. Once again, since protein is 4 calories per gram and fat is 9, it requires more to sustain a gram of muscle than it does a gram of fat. When you deplete the energy intake (calories), you are telling your body to lose muscle. No wonder so many people throw in the towel and lament, "It's impossible!" It isn't impossible. There is a positive flip side to this phenomenon. If you have enough muscle, you can eat more and still remain the same bodyweight. More calories will provide more energy and once again, since the body wants to maintain homeostasis, it will burn those extra calories, if your muscle to fat ratio is high. This re-confirms the fact that the emphasis must be on building muscle and not on trying to burn fat by punishing the body in an attempt to use up calories.

A NOTE TO THE DIEHARDS

Even if you've accepted the premise I've presented, you may still want to engage in some aerobic activity now and then. I certainly have no problem with that. If I feel like getting into a good game of handball, I'm not going to worry, "Oh my god, I may lose some muscle!" Go on, break a good sweat. Show that you can use that beautiful body for things other than lifting weights. It feels good! Some cardio-based exercise can offer, if nothing else, a change of pace. I've even been know
to test myself every now and then by running a 10 minute mile or two. Granted, Carl Lewis has nothing to worry about, but it shows I'm not suffering any serious defect in aerobic ability due to just weight training as the only source of exercise for my heart.

THE GIFT THAT DOESN'T KEEP ON GIVING

If you enjoy running then go for it. Just keep in mind, aerobics increase metabolism only while you're doing them. They won't utilize fat for fuel when you're at rest. Only having more muscle will do that. Resistance training also improves glucose disposal and insulin sensitivity. Aerobic activity doesn't do either very effectively.

AM or PM?

There's also some controversy as to when aerobic activity should be executed. The precept currently in vogue is to do aerobics in the morning on an empty stomach, the theory being that you will more quickly use up stored carbohydrates and burn fat faster. I don't agree with this line of thinking. Without available carbs, the body is more vulnerable to catabolism. If you insist on running, the preferable time would be at the end of a workout. In this way, the heart rate is already elevated and less activity will be required to achieve the desired effect.



THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET

If you are currently on a training program that includes aerobics, I'd like to offer a challenge. Try this test for one month: Train exactly as you do now but eliminate all aerobic activity from your exercise regime. Since you will be expending less energy, you may want to up the poundage of the weights you're lifting or at least add a couple of extra reps to each set. Continue to eat as
you are now, making sure to maintain a high intake of protein. At the end of one month, I guarantee you that none of your aerobic ability will be lost. You will also have more energy, fuller shapelier looking muscles, and the exact same body fat percentage that you have now. Trust me.

AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR

And if all of this isn't evidence enough, I'll let Doctor Kenneth Cooper have the last word. He wrote the book "The New Aerobics" and is credited with coining the very term "aerobics." Twenty five years after the debut of his book, Dr. Cooper admitted that many of his conclusions were incorrect. He was quoted as saying: "Further research has shown that there is no correlation between aerobic performance and health, protection against heart disease, and longevity."
Newsweek Magazine ran a piece on Exercise Guild president Ken Hutchins who refers to an article that appeared in Men’s Journal Magazine where Dr. Cooper goes on to say that aerobics are far more carcinogenic than first realized and are to blame for many injuries. There you have it. Do you still want to do cardio? Be my guest. While you're at it, put 20 bucks on the number 7 horse in the fourth race at the OTB. You've got as much chance at getting rich as you do of improving your fitness goals through aerobic activity. Aerobics are a terribly ineffective form of exercise. The sooner that's realized, the sooner you'll be on your way toward better progress. I know it's tough to accept. But changing a bad habit is a lot smarter than defending it.

[loler]

So according to this nutjob, one can not lose fat at all since the body will prioritize carbs and protein over fat. Ha! What a joke.

[loler]

Oh right, and we should all be walking blobs of bone and fat since fat has 9 KILOcalories (NOT calories) and carbs and protein only have 4!
What a joke. I wonder how this guy ever gets his clients lean?

[Momentum]

So according to this nutjob, one can not lose fat at all since the body will prioritize carbs and protein over fat. Ha! What a joke.

There is some merit to what he says.  While I don't have the info at my disposal for quotes or ref. , I have heard this before.  And whilst it may be seem easy to dismiss this with a flippant "what a joke!" I'm uncertain if a dismissal is warranted. Although kudos to you for reading the entire article!

 As a fitness consultant I see examples of "cardio-bots" (those who mindlessly spin their wheels on treadmills and elipticals while staring at a tv) waste hours and hours on end with no tangible results.  Their bodies remain the same, or more accurately lose weight at the expense of lean tissue.  My connundrum is in being somewhat unsure in recomending cardio to my clients.  ON one hand I've used it for contest prep with some success, but the science (and evidence) seems  to support at least some of Mr. Montanas claims.  Hmmm?

[loler]

According to Mr. Montana, one can sit flat on their ass and lose more fat than doing cardio. I think anything over 20 minutes is a bunch of crap myself, HIIT is the way to go for FAT loss.

[gibberj2]

I bought both of Nelson Montana's books and at first I took the cardio thing as fact. Then I saw that all these pros did a lot of cardio so I tried the cardio thing myself. I don't know who's right but as for me... I won't ever be doing any more cardio.

[Robbie]

It's true that higher intensity cardio workouts burn
more calories per unit of time AND increase metabolism
more after the workout than low intensity workouts.

High intensity cardio, including high intensity interval
training (HIIT), is very effective and time efficient,
(although it's not for beginners or those with certain
health problems).

It's common sense if you think about it - work harder,
burn more calories, right?

Here's where the confusion has come from:

It's well known that low intensity exercise utilizes
primarily fat as fuel and high intensity exercise utilizes
more carbohydrate as fuel.

In the past, this was the basis for the idea that low intensity,
long duration aerobic exercise was superior for fat loss. Some
people were were afraid to exercise too hard because they
thought it would take them out of the "fat burning zone" and
make them them burn only "sugar" and not body fat.

Today, research has proven that this belief in exercising at
a low intensity to stay in the "fat burning zone" was false.
At lower intensities, you burn more calories from fat, but
you burn fewer total calories.

For example, a 1995 study conducted by Grediagin, et al,
published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association
(95(6):661-5) compared fat loss in two groups over a 12 week period.

One group performed exercise at 80% of VO2 max for a duration
sufficient to burn 300 kcal, the other group performed exercise
at 50% of VO2 max for a duration sufficient to burn 300 calories
(took a lot longer, of course). Hydrostatic body composition
testing revealed that...

***each group lost an identical amount of fat.***

The authors concluded:

"This study suggests that fat loss is a function of energy
expended rather than exercise intensity. Therefore, if fat
loss is the goal and time is limited, persons should exercise
safely at as high an intensity as tolerable to expend as much
energy as possible during their allotted time."

In my opinion, that conclusion pretty much hits the nail on
the head when it comes to answering the questions, "How long and
how hard should your cardio workouts be?" 

Another study published by Ballard, et al in the same journal
(51(2):142-6, 1990) showed identical findings. High (80-90%
VO2max) versus low (40-50% VO2max) intensity rates were
compared in two groups with duration carefully controlled
to ensure each group burned the same number of calories.

The high intensity group exercised for only 25 minutes and
the low intensity group for 50 minutes...


***both groups lost the same amount of body fat! ***

Keep in mind BOTH approaches worked, but the high intensity
group got it done in half the time!

Regardless of whether your cardio sessions are 20 minutes,
30 minutes, 45 minutes, or whatever, the higher the intensity
during that time period, the more TOTAL calories you will burn.
The more TOTAL calories you burn, the more fat you burn.

Although many factors are involved in exercise-induced fat
loss, the most important factor is the total number of calories
burned, NOT whether the calories burned are fat or carbohydrate.

It's also important to consider energy expenditure after the
workout, not just the calories burned during the workout.
Higher intensities not only burn more calories per unit of
time, but they also elevate your metabolism more at rest
after the workout is over. This post workout increase in
metabolic rate is known as "excess post exercise oxygen
consumption" or EPOC for short.

It has been proposed, based on the results of several
studies comparing the amount of calories burned at rest
after low intensity versus high intensity exercise, that
HIIT is a superior method of fat loss due to its effect
on post workout metabolic rate.

Clearly, HIIT is the logical protocol of choice if you are
healthy, already fit and you have little time to work out.

However, it's also logical that time permitting,
more frequent and longer duration exercise might cause
even greater overall fat loss if intensity is sufficient,
simply because more total calories can be burned over
the course of a week.

Remember, it's all about the intensity and the calories
burned, not necessarily whether the workout is peformed
with intervals or in a steady state.

For example, if you do 20-25 minutes of very intense
cardio, you might burn about 400 calories. That's a lot
of calories for such a brief workout. But it only adds
up to 1200 total calories in one week if your frequency
is only three days per week.

If you (gradually) built up your frequency to four, five,
then even six days per week, you could double your caloric
expenditure to 2400 calories per week.

If you also increase your duration, your intensity will
decrease so you'll burn fewer calories per minute, but the
calorie expenditure for the entire workout is higher, which
increases your total weekly calorie burn even further.

Duration and intensity are inversely related, so the longer
the workout, the lower the intensity. But that doesnt mean
a 30 or 45 minute workout necessarily has to be "low" in
intensity.

A 30 or 45 minute steady state workout can be "moderate" or
"moderately-high" in intensity. The combination of the highest
intensity you can muster with a 30-45 minute duration can
create an enormous calorie burn. Some of that calorie burn
will occur after the workout as well, because studies have
shown that EPOC is influenced not just by intensity, but
also by duration.

Although infrequent and very brief (15-20 minutes or even less)
HIIT workouts have recently gained great popularity (and
deservedly so), that doesn't mean you should never do steady
state cardio, nor does it mean that certain individuals
aren't better off with longer, less intense cardio.

Respected organizations such as The American College of
Sports Medicine (ACSM) still recommend longer daily and
cumulative weekly exercise duration when the goal is
fat loss.

The ACSM position stand titled, "The recommended quantity
and quality of exercise" states, "A threshold level for total
body mass and fat mass loss generally would require at least
30-45 min of exercise per session for a person of average
fitness. If the primary purpose of the training program is
for weight loss, then regimens of greater frequency and
duration of training and moderate intensity are recommended.
Shorter duration, higher intensity programs may be recommended
for healthy individuals at low risk for cardiovascular disease
and orthopedic injury."

To avoid overtraining, injury or aerobic adaptation, which
become risks with higher intensity, frequency, and duration,
it's important to build up slowly and ALWAYS get your physician's
clearance before attempting high intensity cardio.

naturally, of course, it's not wise to dramtically increase
your training volume or intensity suddenly, but rather to
increase gradually.

If your current goal is to maintain your level of body fat
and stay healthy, I'd recommend starting with at least 20 minutes
of cardio 3 days per week. If your goal is maximum fat loss,
then time permitting, I would recommend higher frequency and
duration, sometimes building up to much as 30-60 minutes
5-7 days per week, if necessary, based on your weekly results.

Once you reach your desired percentage of body fat, then you
can gradually shift back into a "maintenance" program of lesser
frequency, duration and intensity. This is a form of "cardio
periodization," similar in nature to the periodization of
weight training used by elite athletes. Staying on high volume
cardio all year round is counterproductive and may lead to
overtraining, aerobic adaptation and a plateau
in fat loss.

Genetics also play a role in the ideal volume of cardio for
fat loss. If you're one of the few people who are genetically
blessed with the fast metabolism and physical attributes to
burn fat easily, then three days a week for twenty minutes
often provides sufficient stimulus for results. In fact, I
know a few people with hyperactive metabolisms who stay ripped
all year round without doing any cardio at all (I hate those
people, don't you?)

The bottom line is that a single cardio workout prescription,
such as "three days a week for 20 minutes" will not work for
everyone.Exercise programs must be developed on an individual
basis and they are not static. The frequency, duration AND
intensity all need to be adjusted based on your results.

If the intensity is high enough, three twenty-minute cardio
sessions may be sufficient for you, depending on your goals,
your current level of fitness and your actual results, but
longer and/or more frequent cardio sessions are sometimes
a "necessary evil."

For more information on fat burning cardio and fat burning
nutrition, visit www.burnthefat.com

[gibberj2]

I'm still never doing cardio again after the disaster i experienced. what's wrong with circuit train and just less food? people are always on that cardio's good for your heart crap but MOST people who get heart attacks don't get it cause they didn't do cardio. Most people don't exercise at all so someone who lifts weights and plays the occasional sport has better cardio capacity than the average joe. unless you are a runner and need to get better at running or need to do the cardio for a particular sport just skip it. circuit training with weights gives you a helluva cardio workout and that's what i'm going to do from now on for fatloss. when i train for mass i'm not doing any cardio at all. one minute rest between sets is good enough if you work hard... keeps you fit. when i was doing cardio after my regular workout i'd get on the bike and see that my heartrate was at 110 right after the weights. that's not bad seeing as the "fat burning zone" is 130-140. If it works for you GREAT! I'm jelous. If you're a hardgainer type like me. Don't do cardio ever!

[oldtimer1]

Heart attacks are the number one killer.  The heart is a muscle and it should be trained.  If the heart was on the outside of the body every bodybuilder would train it like it was a bicep.  The first thing a cardiologist tells a patient after by pass surgery is to do cardio.  Sometimes bodybuilders are to concerned with cosmetics instead of function. 

1.Cardio will increase the hearts out put volume.  This will lower your resting heart rate.  Many runners have resting heart beats below 45 beats per minute. This means your heart doesn't work as hard as an untrained heart.

2.  Cardio can lower blood pressure.  This can lower the risk of stroke and heart attacks.

3.  Cardio can change the ratios of LDL and HDL to lower the risk of a clogged artery.

4. Cardio can give your body a better shot at regulating your bodies sugar level which can decrease the risk of diabetes. Diabetes can increase your risk of heart attacks.

5. Cardio can lower blood fats namely triglycerides.

6. Cardio can lower you overall cholesterol. 

7.  Cardio can decrease visceral fat around the organs. 

8.  Cardio increases feel good chemicals in your brain that fight depression.

9.  Cardio will give you more energy to pursue lifting.  If you feel to run down and tired to lift it could be that your conditioning is poor.  Cardio will take care of that.

10.  I could think of 10 but the wife brought a red wig and hooker heels.  She's holding a six pack and I gotta go. 

Cardio isn't a cure all but it decreases the risk of the number one killer.  Odds are that most people reading this post will die from heart disease. 

If liting is your number one priority then lift weights and put cardio a distant second.   A little cardio isn't going hurt your lifting unless you train for a 10K at the same time. 

[gibberj2]

why do people think that lifting weights isn't cardio? do you breathe? does your heart go faster? doctors also don't know jack. they're out of shape anyway. i firmly stand by what i say. When i cut up i circuit train with weights. that IS cardio and can raise your heart rate just as well as so called "cardio" can. when i bulk i just lift weights. if it only gets your heart to 110 or 115 that's okay it keeps you more fit than most people who never exercise anyway.

[suckmymuscle]

  I can't beliee this topic is still here. It was one of the first threads I replied to, after I registered, one and a half year ago.

SUCKMYMUSCLE