Quote:
Originally Posted by
not_a_virus.exe 
no, cardio is not necessary for fat loss. would you rather not spend 5 minutes eating that 1000 calorie burrito or spend 3 hours running off those 1000 calories? the best way to lose fat is to eat less calories. cardio can also make things difficult by increasing your appetite, and if you're trying to gain muscle too, too much cardio will work against you since your body will also want to stay thin because a thin body is more efficient for running.
I just want to say this is a really bad example. Assuming you're dieting, you shouldn't be
thinking about eating a 1000 calorie burrito in the first place

. This whole burrito thing is terrible - nobody is going to eat 1000cals of burrito and then think "damn, time to hit the treadmill to lose fat." A more appropriate example for a weightlifter is "would you rather not spend 5 minutes eating 1000 cals of chicken/healthy fats or spend 3 hours running it off?" The answer would be yes, assuming that's not 1000 calories over maintenance, I would rather eat that chicken and then run it off. I would rather eat healthy foods at maintenance to maintain my current level of lean body mass, and then use cardio to create a deficit. You're right, I wouldn't want to eat a burrito or anything worth 1000 calories, assuming thats 1000 cals over maintenace - and neither should anyone else who's trying to lose fat. Second of all, if you're trying to hold onto lean mass while cutting down, you're still going to need to eat appropriately - eating on a massive deficit like you have suggested elsewhere is going to hurt your muscle gains more than eating at maintenance and then using cardio to drop down. "Bigger deficit = faster fat loss" is not sustainable nor practical - aggressive cutting at say 1000 cals under maintenance is going to a) suck balls hard and b) massacre your lifting gains and c)eventually shit on your metabolism. Finally, saying "cardio will work against you since your body will also want to stay thin" is ludicrous. Really? Any form of cardio immediately turns your body into a running machine that doesn't put on muscle? Brilliant. Its one thing if you take up endurance running and your body physically needs to catabolize muscle, but that takes a long time and a lot of effort. Low-intensity steady state cardio isn't going to hurt you unless your diet is completely out of whack. I don't want to start a slap-fight, since you're clearly set against cardio, but this is a poor way to justify not doing it. Just curious, how much fat have you lost without doing cardio, and how much lean body mass have you retained? Have you compared this with dieting and cardio? Any before/after stats? I'm not trying to hate, but virtually every trainer or source worth its salt advocates careful dieting and cardio to help fat loss - I'm curious to see why you feel this way outside of your burrito example and conjecture about your body wanting to stay thin. edit: I see this "just to give you an idea, in about 6 months, i lost about 20 pounds and now have a six-pack and a nice upper body (and still growing muscle). this was all done with just caloric restriction, 4 days a week of lifting weights, and zero cardio." Good for you mang, how were your lifts during this time?