"The truth about six pack abs"

[unexpected]

Originally Posted by James Bond

For the simple measure of calories burned, long-duration steady state cardio is probably still king.

However, if you put two similar trainees on a 3x a week schedule with one running for an hour and the other doing the workout I posted, which do you think will look better?

of course James Bond. If you read my post, you would see that I said exactly this. "while this workout may be exhausting, and will certainly be better in the long run...I still think you would burn more calories running."

we're in total agreement. Yay. and of course the post right above me compares the sprinter's body and the marathoner's body, which I discussed earlier too.

 

[Eason]

Originally Posted by suited

Your point, which is partly incorrect, is irrelevant. The bold part is entirely incorrect, but anyways... Cardio is not required to achieve low body fat. Ever notice how all the people who you only see doing cardio have terrible or surprisingly average physiques? I've yet to see one guy who is big and lean at ANY gym who is always on cardio machines. Cardio is used to supplement a weight training program, or used excessively by people who do not know any better, and never really make any significant changes to their body. Watch the people at your gym who always do cardio, they will look the same in a year.
What I posted was completely correct, cardio has a higher rate of energy expenditure per hour than resistance training in almost every scenario. I don't care about your opinion of who you see at the gym and their musculatures, because that's completely unrelated to the fact that I and others have pointed out. I care about science and facts and which exercise activity uses more calories. Going by exercise physiology standards of the "Compendium of Physical Activities Tracking Guide." (used by the ACSM) even circuit training isn't close to the MET expenditure of running, HIIT, or any vigorous cardio. Being wrong with authority just makes you a wrong dickhead. Get a degree or certification and stop throwing your gym rat opinion around like knowledge before I go Why on your ass.

 

[suited]

Originally Posted by why

What? No it doesn't. It's pretty accurate, really. Not really. Assuming HR is the bottleneck, the efficiency of cardio will cause more caloric expenditure. Weight training isn't efficient enough because of the energy systems being used as well as rate coding spiking HR and BP too much and causing the aforementioned bottleneck. Pens and swords.
What have you accomplished in this field that makes you an authority? Do you have an exceptional build, or are you just running off at the mouth? Have you applied any of this knowledge to real world concepts? You sound like a cardio bunny. Heavy weight training in a calorific deficit supplemented with cardio is the best way to cut, that's why ALL of the IFBB pros cut this way, amateurs and everyone in between who has a clue. Keep doing your excessive cardio. You'll look the same years from now, just like every other idiot in the gym who sits on cardio machines all day and never really looks any different.

Originally Posted by Eason

What I posted was completely correct, cardio has a higher rate of energy expenditure per hour than resistance training in almost every scenario. I don't care about your opinion of who you see at the gym and their musculatures, because that's completely unrelated to the fact that I and others have pointed out. I care about science and facts and which exercise activity uses more calories. Going by exercise physiology standards of the "Compendium of Physical Activities Tracking Guide." (used by the ACSM) even circuit training isn't close to the MET expenditure of running, HIIT, or any vigorous cardio. Being wrong with authority just makes you a wrong dickhead. Get a degree or certification and stop throwing your gym rat opinion around like knowledge before I go Why on your ass.
Again, you generalize. You say vigorous cardio. I'm sure if you run fast enough, sure, you could burn more calories. However, that's not real world science. That isn't how it happens, buddy. The skinny-fat people who are cardio bunnies aren't running at 10mph for 45 minutes, they aren't doing HIIT, they don't even know what HIIT means. The best, most efficient way for these people to lose weight is to train with heavy weights and supplement with cardio. These people will burn more calories doing this than they will reading their magazine on a treadmill. It's so easy to spot the people who have no real experience with this stuff and just quote some book, you have no idea how these concepts are applied in real life.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by suited

What have you accomplished in this field that makes you an authority? Do you have an exceptional build, or are you just running off at the mouth? Have you applied any of this knowledge to real world concepts? You sound like a cardio bunny. Heavy weight training in a calorific deficit supplemented with cardio is the best way to cut, that's why ALL of the IFBB pros cut this way, amateurs and everyone in between who has a clue. Keep doing your excessive cardio. You'll look the same years from now, just like every other idiot in the gym who sits on cardio machines all day and never really looks any different.
I'm a fat guy who dreams every night of being Ronnie Coleman so I can get all the ladies.

 

[unexpected]

what's hilarious is I think everyone has basically the same opinion on the subject.

Why and Eason are answering the question, "does weighlifting burn more calories than running?" The answer is an emphatic no. I Don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Then you're taking their answer, and applying it to "best way to cut". I think why and Eason would both agree with you that straight up cardio is not the best method to cut. They weren't answering that though- the past few pages have been dissecting the stupid statement that "weightlifting burns more calories than running."

when pushed on that statement, it's now turned into, "well weightlifting with some cardio is the best way to cut". Nevermind the fact that "some cardio" wasn't in the original premise, and we've gone onto tangents about doling heavy circuits to lift, and totally ignored any sort of cardio until pushed about it, but why has essentially advocated this earlier in this thread, when he said "run a 5k every 2 days, on the 3rd day, lift".

Why the hell are we having this pointless flamewar?

 

[suited]

The entire premise for this thread is stupid. You get defined abs the same way you get defined quads or any other muscle. Abs aren't a magical muscle. There's no point to debate the topic any longer because the whole ab topic is beat to death.

If you want to look good after you drop the fat, you need to hold onto muscle. To do this, train heavy.

Bottom line, you can cut successfully with ZERO cardio. You can't cut successfully with zero weight training unless losing a ton of muscle is your idea of a good cut.

 

[beasty]

Originally Posted by why

I'm a fat guy who dreams every night of being Ronnie Coleman so I can get all the ladies.

No. Your pics show you to be a guy who claims he trains in the gym but looks nothing like a guy who trains in the gym at all and have zero to no knowledge of what training in and out of the gym is about. But of course that doesnt stop you from babbling in this forum like an expert.

Truth hurts aint it.

 

[beasty]

Originally Posted by suited

What have you accomplished in this field that makes you an authority? Do you have an exceptional build, or are you just running off at the mouth? Have you applied any of this knowledge to real world concepts? You sound like a cardio bunny. Heavy weight training in a calorific deficit supplemented with cardio is the best way to cut, that's why ALL of the IFBB pros cut this way, amateurs and everyone in between who has a clue.

Just look at why's pics on this forum. The misguided goon actually posted a pic of himself (probably to brag about how great he is).

Once you see it and read his training 'tips' and 'advice', waves of understanding will come to you ie. dont do what he does unless you want to look like him. Who cares if he can lift 2.5 times his bodyweight like him but look like shite.

 

[unexpected]

Originally Posted by suited

The entire premise for this thread is stupid. You get defined abs the same way you get defined quads or any other muscle. Abs aren't a magical muscle. There's no point to debate the topic any longer because the whole ab topic is beat to death.

If you want to look good after you drop the fat, you need to hold onto muscle. To do this, train heavy.

Bottom line, you can cut successfully with ZERO cardio. You can't cut successfully with zero weight training unless losing a ton of muscle is your idea of a good cut.

I think it's possible, but incredibly difficult. Your diet has to be really ******* on point. Running gives you a little bit of a "safe zone".

But yes, you are right- you cannot cut by just doing cardio. You need to do something to hold on to your existing muscle base.

 

[beasty]

Originally Posted by why

I think a lot of people need to get introspective and remove their biases on this forum.

Sure! Why dont you start:
Repeat after me - Ronnie's accomplishment is through his hard work and effort and is not due to steroids.

 

[Eason]

Originally Posted by unexpected

what's hilarious is I think everyone has basically the same opinion on the subject. Why and Eason are answering the question, "does weighlifting burn more calories than running?" The answer is an emphatic no. I Don't think anyone would disagree with that. Then you're taking their answer, and applying it to "best way to cut". I think why and Eason would both agree with you that straight up cardio is not the best method to cut. They weren't answering that though- the past few pages have been dissecting the stupid statement that "weightlifting burns more calories than running." when pushed on that statement, it's now turned into, "well weightlifting with some cardio is the best way to cut". Nevermind the fact that "some cardio" wasn't in the original premise, and we've gone onto tangents about doling heavy circuits to lift, and totally ignored any sort of cardio until pushed about it, but why has essentially advocated this earlier in this thread, when he said "run a 5k every 2 days, on the 3rd day, lift". Why the hell are we having this pointless flamewar?

This is all correct, by god. edit: fyi my accomplishments relevant in this case would be helping clients drop 50-100 lbs over a few months and keep it off, totally transforming their bodies and lives.

 

[James Bond]

Originally Posted by beasty

Sure! Why dont you start:
Repeat after me - Ronnie's accomplishment is through his hard work and effort and is not due to steroids.

Are you implying that Ronnie's accomplishments aren't due to hard work and effort?

Dude works his ass off and is strong as hell to boot.

 

[ivanchu02]

Originally Posted by sabvinnie

I am pretty sure it is possible to get an 8-pack - you guys need to raise the bar a little.

lol

 

[Fat-Elvis]

Originally Posted by suited

The entire premise for this thread is stupid. You get defined abs the same way you get defined quads or any other muscle. Abs aren't a magical muscle.

That's actually not entirely true. This is another example in this thread of stating something that isn't incorrect, but only part of the full equation. Yes abs are built just like any other muscle, but almost any other muscle will be more visible the more you build it, regardless of whether or not you're cut. Being cut is crucial to having "defined abs", though. That's why it's such a vanity muscle.