Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Nutrition, Products & Supplements Info => Topic started by: WhiteHulk4 on May 20, 2008, 07:51:18 AM

Title: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: WhiteHulk4 on May 20, 2008, 07:51:18 AM
I read an interesting quote the other day from Alwyn Cosgrove...

"Caring about how much fat is burned during exercise is equivalent to worrying about how much muscle is built during exercise."

Granted I've known this for a long time, but putting it into words like that made so much sense.  Why would you sludge along for hours doing cardio, just to burn the calories during the exercise session? 

When you could do some HIIT, Energy System, or TT Interval training, in 1/4 of the time; and will actually give your metabolism a solid boost - so you burn more calories all day long.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: No Patience on May 20, 2008, 01:16:44 PM
I read an interesting quote the other day from Alwyn Cosgrove...

"Caring about how much fat is burned during exercise is equivalent to worrying about how much muscle is built during exercise."

Granted I've known this for a long time, but putting it into words like that made so much sense.  Why would you sludge along for hours doing cardio, just to burn the calories during the exercise session? 

When you could do some HIIT, Energy System, or TT Interval training, in 1/4 of the time; and will actually give your metabolism a solid boost - so you burn more calories all day long.

slow cardio is just marketting so fat people can be encouraged to exercise ;D
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Method101 on May 20, 2008, 02:15:11 PM
fat is burned most efficiently when the heart rate is kept around 135bpm.

When doing high intensity, your heart rate is obviously not going to be at the  best level for fat burning, probably lose muscle instead.

Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: candidizzle on May 20, 2008, 02:19:19 PM
fat is burned most efficiently when the heart rate is kept around 135bpm.

When doing high intensity, your heart rate is obviously not going to be at the  best level for fat burning, probably lose muscle instead.


i think the hit cardio proponents supplement their cardio so they supposedly dont break down muscle.

but i prefer the low intenstiy variety myself. i like to know what my body is going to burn, and i like to know what it has burned. and i dont like to take ay chances losing muscle or interfering with leg recovery.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Emmortal on May 20, 2008, 03:45:16 PM
This makes sense if you aren't a bodybuilder, however, for most of us it's irrelevant.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: YoungBlood on May 20, 2008, 04:36:32 PM

I prefer slow cardio the last few years. I've done the HIIT method, done fast hour long sessions, two a days...etc. But the last few years I prefer to do slower cardio after my workouts. I go slower because after the workout, I don't want to burn muscle or even risk it.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: candidizzle on May 20, 2008, 04:38:57 PM
I prefer slow cardio the last few years. I've done the HIIT method, done fast hour long sessions, two a days...etc. But the last few years I prefer to do slower cardio after my workouts. I go slower because after the workout, I don't want to burn muscle or even risk it.
personally i dont even do it post workout.

when you lift weights cortisol is raised andmuscle breakdown occurs, and at the same time glycogen gets depleted.  cardio in that state, while great for fat loss, scares me because of the tendencie for cortisol to eat away muscle espeially in that condition.



i stic to first thing a.m. slow paced walking around the neighborhood.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: kukacomone on May 21, 2008, 03:05:38 AM
Morning cardio is fucking hard to do. :(
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: JasonH on May 21, 2008, 04:54:35 AM
Slower cardio is much better IMO.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Quickerblade on May 21, 2008, 05:11:21 AM
I have done various cardio routines, walking, running, HIT, walking on incline, stair master, rowing machine. HIT and running were great for quick results, walking is ok, but your diet still has to be in check and you have to be real consistent, with Running (20mins) and HIT (20mins) i dropped weight quick and my diet was ok at best, i cant stay away from bread..

Stairmaster didnt do fuck all for me, im not dissing it but its not for me.
Rowing machine, i just dont like it.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Bobby on May 21, 2008, 06:47:02 AM

When you could do some HIIT, Energy System, or TT Interval training, in 1/4 of the time; and will actually give your metabolism a solid boost - so you burn more calories all day long.

If that's all you want you may as well just eat 300 calories less a day.

I find it very hard to get below 8% without morning cardio. The body just doesn't want to give up the fat, even in caloric deficiency with or without HIT cardio. With slow morning cardio you are sure the body burns fat, it's impossible not to.

There is a reason pro BBs do it like this, Just ask Bob Chick.

Also with HIT cardio, the body uses some of the calories that would go to your muscles etc...and your calories are already low, you need to feed the muscles and burn the fat. If you eat more to handle the cardio, then what's the point of doing it?

IF you want to get to 4% BF and you are at 8-10% and you're maintenance cals are 2500 and you eat 2000 every day and do no cardio = Keep looking the same, just getting smaller. The body does not want to lose fat voluntarily.

IMHO
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Method101 on May 21, 2008, 07:08:42 AM

IF you want to get to 4% BF and you are at 8-10% and you're maintenance cals are 2500 and you eat 2000 every day and do no cardio = Keep looking the same, just getting smaller. The body does not want to lose fat voluntarily.

IMHO
yea alot of the weight you lose on those big calorie defecit diets will be the water from the glycogen molecules and your strength will decline rapidly.. and your bmr will adjust so you will stay the same weight at 2000cals a day eventually.

Better to eat your daily calorie requirement and do 30min cardio at low intensity..
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Quickerblade on May 21, 2008, 07:21:18 AM
or just run every day for 20 mins, slow walking pisses me off, im in Australia, i do 2 cardio sessions are day 5 days a week ( epic overtraining) i eat normal, keeping muscle but looking harder, and face is leaner, thats my fave part
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: candidizzle on May 21, 2008, 09:23:54 AM
or just run every day for 20 mins, slow walking pisses me off, im in Australia, i do 2 cardio sessions are day 5 days a week ( epic overtraining) i eat normal, keeping muscle but looking harder, and face is leaner, thats my fave part
i agree best part about low body fat is the sharp edged on the face.  does wonders for self confidence and women seem to love it too.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Quickerblade on May 21, 2008, 03:11:57 PM
i agree best part about low body fat is the sharp edged on the face.  does wonders for self confidence and women seem to love it too.
great thing with low body fat is it does tighten the face, some people look like shit with low body fat but there most likely ugly anyway, Lately I have been looking in the mirror and i like that handsome face i see.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: candidizzle on May 21, 2008, 03:15:26 PM
great thing with low body fat is it does tighten the face, some people look like shit with low body fat but there most likely ugly anyway, Lately I have been looking in the mirror and i like that handsome face i see.
your words ring true for myself as well !  the greatest part abotu cutting.... just beign ble to look in the mirror and get tingles cuz i dig myself.   ;D  its a good feeling. 
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Quickerblade on May 21, 2008, 03:35:29 PM
your words ring true for myself as well !  the greatest part abotu cutting.... just beign ble to look in the mirror and get tingles cuz i dig myself.   ;D  its a good feeling. 
most times when im lean i look in the mirror for about 10 mins and think "If i was gay i'd fuck you"
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: candidizzle on May 21, 2008, 03:47:52 PM
 DUDE !  ;D  ;D haha yes i do that same thing actually. hahah. !    idk maybe its something all bodybuilders have...   well you gotta be self absorbed to some extent to spend as much time on your bbody as we do..    but that confidence is unmatcheable ! 
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Quickerblade on May 21, 2008, 04:22:00 PM
DUDE !  ;D  ;D haha yes i do that same thing actually. hahah. !    idk maybe its something all bodybuilders have...   well you gotta be self absorbed to some extent to spend as much time on your bbody as we do..    but that confidence is unmatcheable ! 
every body-builder is self absorbed, I am, im like a girl, if i find myself putting on weight on my face i wont go out, thats good, i care bout my physical appearance, unlike most guys that have bellys and are proud, they dont realise there a walking heart attack mixed with type-2 diabetes..i dont really believe in a offseason, im not competing, dont care for being massive which is useless in society.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: YoungBlood on May 21, 2008, 06:20:18 PM
i stic to first thing a.m. slow paced walking around the neighborhood.

That was the worst method I found for myself. I lost muscle far more by not eating and doing cardio first thing as opposed to now doing it after my workout.
One thing I did try that helped a tad with halting muscle loss & doing cardio first thing, was to eat about half a can of tuna an hour or so prior to the cardio. Little fat, no carbs, and just a bit of protein to stave off catabolism. Still don't like it compared to slower cardio post-workout.
Just my two cents though, I know Candidizzle is going to want change, however.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: candidizzle on May 21, 2008, 06:25:51 PM
hey whatever works for you. i take some fish oil before cardio. thats helps tremendously, not just preserving muscle, but too boost fat burning as well. i think its the best non stimulant fat burner available.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: fromfattoliving on May 22, 2008, 08:29:33 AM
I agree its whatever works, I take a long slow walk up 14,000ft mts to get my cardio in and have a nice big lunch with some carbs and a shake a drag my ass back down to get my kick, as for being self absorbed who spends hours in the gym, and time reading and responding on a board like this that isn't? As you can tell by the name I went from over 30%bf 5ft 10 and 240 in Nov 2006 to 12% about a month ago with hard core cardio and serious training and lifting. Now I am 5ft 10 and 198 lbs just saving to get the extra skin cut off now. So I def agree whatever works, Im thinking about writing a book with that title. ha
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Purge_WTF on May 22, 2008, 08:47:15 AM
I read an interesting quote the other day from Alwyn Cosgrove...

"Caring about how much fat is burned during exercise is equivalent to worrying about how much muscle is built during exercise."

Granted I've known this for a long time, but putting it into words like that made so much sense.  Why would you sludge along for hours doing cardio, just to burn the calories during the exercise session? 

When you could do some HIIT, Energy System, or TT Interval training, in 1/4 of the time; and will actually give your metabolism a solid boost - so you burn more calories all day long.

  I've been doing HIT cardio for the past few months now and I'm leaner now than I've ever been. It's tough, though.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: candidizzle on May 22, 2008, 09:00:06 AM
I agree its whatever works, I take a long slow walk up 14,000ft mts to get my cardio in and have a nice big lunch with some carbs and a shake a drag my ass back down to get my kick, as for being self absorbed who spends hours in the gym, and time reading and responding on a board like this that isn't? As you can tell by the name I went from over 30%bf 5ft 10 and 240 in Nov 2006 to 12% about a month ago with hard core cardio and serious training and lifting. Now I am 5ft 10 and 198 lbs just saving to get the extra skin cut off now. So I def agree whatever works, Im thinking about writing a book with that title. ha
that skin is more than likely fat bro..keep dieting and doing cardio and youll loe the fat and the skin will tighten up
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: fromfattoliving on May 22, 2008, 09:11:38 AM
that skin is more than likely fat bro..keep dieting and doing cardio and youll loe the fat and the skin will tighten up

Nope pretty sure that its skin man! I went from like a 40" waist  I am in the middle of a cutting diet right now and test c only cause thats all I have and I took some advice from the board 400 week so I guess i will find the answer soon enough. I have some nasty stretch marks to prove it and when I pull it you can clearly see the definition in the top rows of my abs and the bottom cut. Its like Mr fantastic style!!!
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: candidizzle on May 22, 2008, 09:24:08 AM
lol man. believe it or not but i went from about 265 at 5 10 and ver very fat.. most likely high than 30%..down to around 10 %.. took two years ... and as i was dieting downt he last time i thought i had al the extra skin too. you just gotta get leaner, it tighten up dude trust me.   probably still looks like you got love handles and a pounch above the belt line righ? its cuz you have got sooooo many fat cells, you literally got to be so much leaner than any body else to get that definiton bro.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: loco on May 22, 2008, 09:28:04 AM
Slow-go cardio?  To each its own.  If it works for you, then do it.

Shouldn't this topic be in the Training Q&A board anyway?   :)

Whether or not you believe that Skip Lacour is natural, few bodybuilders natural or not have achieved the level of condition that Skip achieved for the 2002 Team Universe Championship, and he used 16 minute, high intensity cardio, or Max-OT cardio.  That was after years of trying long duration cardio training, and Skip said short, high intensity cardio worked much better for him.

Max-OT Cardio
http://www.ast-ss.com/articles/article.asp?AID=97

(http://www.ast-ss.com/images/Skip_Team_Universe2002_Phot.jpg)
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: WhiteHulk4 on May 22, 2008, 09:50:46 AM
lol man. believe it or not but i went from about 265 at 5 10 and ver very fat.. most likely high than 30%..down to around 10 %.. took two years ... and as i was dieting downt he last time i thought i had al the extra skin too. you just gotta get leaner, it tighten up dude trust me.   probably still looks like you got love handles and a pounch above the belt line righ? its cuz you have got sooooo many fat cells, you literally got to be so much leaner than any body else to get that definiton bro.

Candi, you're a young guy.  At least I hope you are if you're still living with your parents.  But being a young guy, means your skin's elasticity is extremely high, and you can lose weight and gain weight and your skin won't look any different.

I'm guessing that FromFatToLiving is quite a bit older, and he was fat for so long, that his skin is permanently stretched.  If you don't believe me, then go look up a Richard Simmons success story on Oprah or something on YouTube, and you'll see all these formerly obese people that have lose hundreds of pounds, and their skin looks like a baggy sweat suit!  And unfortunately for them, the ONLY thing to tighten that skin is surgery.

That's why it's SO IMPORTANT to get lean at as young an age as possible and maintain it.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Pete Nice on May 23, 2008, 12:31:34 PM
As far as Max-OT goes.....What is the best time to perform this type of cardio?  A.M.?  Post-Workout?  Whenever?
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: loco on May 23, 2008, 12:36:45 PM
As far as Max-OT goes.....What is the best time to perform this type of cardio?  A.M.?  Post-Workout?  Whenever?

Skip Lacour and Jeff Willet, who put Max-OT cardio to the test, would tell you that any time is good as long as you separate your weight training and your cardio by at least 8 hours so that they do not interfere with each other when it comes to your body's recovery.  High Intensity Cardio such as Max-OT cardio is brutal and you will need to properly recover afterwards.  Same goes for weight training, if you are training hard.
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: Bobby on May 25, 2008, 11:21:26 AM
Skip Lacour and Jeff Willet, who put Max-OT cardio to the test, would tell you that any time is good as long as you separate your weight training and your cardio by at least 8 hours so that they do not interfere with each other when it comes to your body's recovery.  High Intensity Cardio such as Max-OT cardio is brutal and you will need to properly recover afterwards.  Same goes for weight training, if you are training hard.

gee only 8 hours?

that's the entire day...
Title: Re: An argument against "slow-go cardio"
Post by: loco on May 25, 2008, 12:21:34 PM
gee only 8 hours?

that's the entire day...

An entire day has 24 hours.  Do one in the morning, the other in the evening, 8 hours later.  Or better yet, do high intensity cardio on the days that you don't lift.  If you are lifting hard and eating right, you only need to do high intensity cardio twice a week.  Pre-contest, you will have to add one or two sessions as the competition gets closer.