Steady State Cardio - Is it necessary?

[indesertum]

because it's not true that when you're at caloric deficit your body only burns fat reserves.

why?

because your metabolic set point isn't at ripped 6 pack abs 6% bodyfat. there's a lot of regulatory systems in place so that you won't/can't get to that point.

your metabolism decreases, your appetite gets stronger, your body stores more energy into fat reserves, you become more lethargic, when you're at caloric deficit for a few days

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/36284

Maintenance of weight loss is often unsuccessful because of metabolic adaptations that conserve energy. Studies in rodents suggest that a reduction in leptin level during weight loss signals to the brain to increase feeding and decrease energy expenditure. In this issue of the JCI, Rosenbaum et al. examined this concept in obese patients who lost weight and were maintained at 10% below their initial weight (see the related article beginning on page 2583). Brain activity responses to visual food stimuli were visualized using functional MRI. Leptin levels fell during weight loss and increased brain activity in areas involved in emotional, cognitive, and sensory control of food intake. Restoration of leptin levels maintained weight loss and reversed the changes in brain activity. Thus, leptin is a critical factor linking reduced energy stores to eating behavior. Potentially, leptin therapy could sustain weight loss by overriding the tendency toward energy conservation.

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25977

Maintenance of a reduced body weight is accompanied by decreased energy expenditure that is due largely to increased skeletal muscle work efficiency. In addition, decreased sympathetic nervous system tone and circulating concentrations of leptin, thyroxine, and triiodothyronine act coordinately to favor weight regain. These "weight-reduced" phenotypes are similar to those of leptin-deficient humans and rodents. We examined metabolic, autonomic, and neuroendocrine phenotypes in 10 inpatient subjects (5 males, 5 females [3 never-obese, 7 obese]) under 3 sets of experimental conditions: (a) maintaining usual weight by ingesting a liquid formula diet; (b) maintaining a 10% reduced weight by ingesting a liquid formula diet; and (c) receiving twice-daily subcutaneous doses of leptin sufficient to restore 8 am circulating leptin concentrations to pre-weight-loss levels and remaining on the same liquid formula diet required to maintain a 10% reduced weight. During leptin administration, energy expenditure, skeletal muscle work efficiency, sympathetic nervous system tone, and circulating concentrations of thyroxine and triiodothyronine returned to pre-weight-loss levels. These responses suggest that the weight-reduced state may be regarded as a condition of relative leptin insufficiency. Prevention of weight regain might be achievable by strategies relevant to reversing this leptin-insufficient state.

Is that good enough for you?

This "biological principle" of the body using fat as storage is simply not true. I don't know how else to get through that thick skull of yours. Depending on the hormones you have (which is on one hand regulated by the body fat levels you're at) your can eat muscle or fat.

You're the one who wanted science articles. I would think that a textbook (written by several dozen authors) would hold more credibility than obfuscated science articles where you have to wade through the specific methods they used.


i dont have a sexy nutrition plan. I eat vegetables, protein, and a little oil. I do starting strength every other day. and I eat omega 3s. Sometimes caffeine and green tea extract to help with workouts. Is about it. When I feel like I eat some good bread and occasionally ice cream.


Seriously just read up on leptin before you start posting ****.

 

[jarude]

Originally Posted by not_a_virus.exe

1. that wasn't my point - if you want to burn 1000 calories, then it makes much more sense to not just eat an extra 1000 calories than to eat it and then burn it off. that's what most people do. 2. there's no such thing as "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. if you eat too much of something, that's when it becomes unhealthy. 3. diet doesn't affect muscle maintenance - the quality of your workouts do. 4. no, you're wrong - your body simply will adapt to lots of cardio by staying thin because a thin body is more efficient at running long distances. i never said anything about muscle being catabolized, etc. 5. i never said i was "clearly set against cardio." 6. in about 4 months, i lose about 20 pounds while gaining 3 inches in my shoulder circumference doing zero cardio while lifting weights 4 times a week. these kinds of results are consistently observed in people of all shapes and sizes in different physical conditions.
1. If you want to burn 1000 calories, sure, you could always not eat the 1000 calories, but then you're going to suffer in other ways - gym performance, etc 2.

Guess all that spinach is bad for me! Here, let me drink some lard, its not unhealthy unless I have a lot! 3.

Time to drop to 300 kcals daily and 30g of protein! 4.

Calories in - calories out = weight loss. Cardio + above maintenance = no weight loss. How do all these fatasses stay fat? Because they do their cardio on the treadmill every day for half an hour and then go home and eat a ******* cake - are they thin? 5.

6. Good for you. I'm glad what you know works for you, but please, assuming your added 3 inches of shoulder circumference means all of your crap is justified means you shouldn't be dishing out advice. 7. Welcome to the ignore list! I'm going to save my blood pressure, since its pretty clear you're actually being serious about all this stuff. Keep quoting pubmed, brah! I'll always remember gems like "diet doesn't affect muscle maintenance" and " there's no such thing as 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' food." Jesus H. Christ man, you are really ******* stupid.

 

[Rikkar501]

Originally Posted by not_a_virus.exe

for fat levels, it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you control your calories. fat levels is simply about calories in vs. calories out. cardio does burn calories off course, but you can achieve the same caloric goals by just not eating those extra calories in the first place.

muscle maintenance is determined by the quality of your workouts. you'll need a little more protein, up to a daily average of 70-120 grams, if you want to grow muscle.

now, we can keep playing this game or you can cite studies.

Please show me an example of someone building an impressive physique while eating at maintenance and taking in low amounts of protein. Not a scientific study, a real life example.

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by jarude

1. If you want to burn 1000 calories, sure, you could always not eat the 1000 calories, but then you're going to suffer in other ways - gym performance, etc

2.

Guess all that spinach is bad for me! Here, let me drink some lard, its not unhealthy unless I have a lot!

3.

Time to drop to 300 kcals daily and 30g of protein!

4.

Calories in - calories out = weight loss. Cardio + above maintenance = no weight loss. How do all these fatasses stay fat? Because they do their cardio on the treadmill every day for half an hour and then go home and eat a ******* cake - are they thin?

5.

6. Good for you. I'm glad what you know works for you, but please, assuming your added 3 inches of shoulder circumference means all of your crap is justified means you shouldn't be dishing out advice.

7. Welcome to the ignore list! I'm going to save my blood pressure, since its pretty clear you're actually being serious about all this stuff. Keep quoting pubmed, brah! I'll always remember gems like "diet doesn't affect muscle maintenance" and " there's no such thing as 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' food." Jesus H. Christ man, you are really ******* stupid.

:Fu: thank you. i was beginning think i went crazy

 

[akatsuki]

HIIT FTW. And I think overtraining is less common than people think.

 

[Kajak]

CHAOS AND PAIN = so entertaining, but so just

in some respects. I respect what he's doing (and he is so right about overtraining by the way) but his attitude gets old fast.

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by Kajak

So according to you, you won't reach this point via aerobic capacity work, therefore aerobic capacity work won't hamper strength gains?

Didn't you claim the exact opposite?
i never said that. don't know how you're getting that interpretation.

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by indesertum

because it's not true that when you're at caloric deficit your body only burns fat reserves. why? because your metabolic set point isn't at ripped 6 pack abs 6% bodyfat. there's a lot of regulatory systems in place so that you won't/can't get to that point. your metabolism decreases, your appetite gets stronger, your body stores more energy into fat reserves, you become more lethargic, when you're at caloric deficit for a few days http://www.jci.org/articles/view/36284 http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25977 Is that good enough for you? This "biological principle" of the body using fat as storage is simply not true. I don't know how else to get through that thick skull of yours. Depending on the hormones you have (which is on one hand regulated by the body fat levels you're at) your can eat muscle or fat. You're the one who wanted science articles. I would think that a textbook (written by several dozen authors) would hold more credibility than obfuscated science articles where you have to wade through the specific methods they used. i dont have a sexy nutrition plan. I eat vegetables, protein, and a little oil. I do starting strength every other day. and I eat omega 3s. Sometimes caffeine and green tea extract to help with workouts. Is about it. When I feel like I eat some good bread and occasionally ice cream. Seriously just read up on leptin before you start posting ****.
settle down, tiger. when it comes to research, you have to look at it from all sides. for example, what works in mice doesn't always work in humans. it has since been found that when leptin levels are reduced by as much as 80% in humans, there is no change in resting metabolic rate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17201801 in fact, changes in leptin levels do not have any influence on, nor are they influenced by changes in resting metabolic rate in humans. in other words, when it comes to humans, leptin just doesn't have any effect on your metabolism. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9360521 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11994393 in humans, leptin does seem to be correlated to the amount of food we eat. the more food we eat, the more leptin in our blood stream. overeating for several days can increase leptin levels; however, these levels return to normal within hours after the overeating is stopped. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8866554 leptin also seems to be correlated to the amount of body fat we have. the more fat we have stored, the more leptin tends to be circulating in our blood stream. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16932309 however, research has shown consistently that there are substantial differences in the physiological actions of leptin between rodents and humans and this may explain why there is so much leptin-confusion in the diet industry. http://leptinresearch.org/pdf/rsh_overview_leptin.pdf in humans, leptin rises and falls acutely in different situations, and these situations are often counter-intuitive to the idea that leptin is intimately tied to the amount of body fat you have or how much food you have been eating. as an example, both long-term endurance exercise and resistance exercise can cause reductions in leptin levels, as can fasting, increased testosterone levels, and increased catecholamine levels. even injected anabolic steroids can decrease leptin levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17201801 http://leptinresearch.org/pdf/rsh_overview_leptin.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10407221 in all of these situations leptin levels drop very quickly, obviously too quickly to be a marker of the amount of body fat you have. in fact, in all of these examples there is an increase in fat burning, despite massive drops in leptin levels. obviously there is more to the Leptin story then we know to date. in fact, leptin is currently being studied for it's role in regulating reproduction, maturation and even it’s role in inflammation – specifically it’s pro-inflammatory role in chronic systemic inflammation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16855173 the bottomline is that leptin is an extremely important hormone that is intricately connected to the amount of fat you have on your body. it may even be involved in the fat burning process, but it is NOT the "master regulator" of fat burning that it has been made out to be by the fitness and weight loss industries.

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by jarude

1. If you want to burn 1000 calories, sure, you could always not eat the 1000 calories, but then you're going to suffer in other ways - gym performance, etc

2.

Guess all that spinach is bad for me! Here, let me drink some lard, its not unhealthy unless I have a lot!

3.

Time to drop to 300 kcals daily and 30g of protein!

4.

Calories in - calories out = weight loss. Cardio + above maintenance = no weight loss. How do all these fatasses stay fat? Because they do their cardio on the treadmill every day for half an hour and then go home and eat a ******* cake - are they thin?

5.

6. Good for you. I'm glad what you know works for you, but please, assuming your added 3 inches of shoulder circumference means all of your crap is justified means you shouldn't be dishing out advice.

7. Welcome to the ignore list! I'm going to save my blood pressure, since its pretty clear you're actually being serious about all this stuff. Keep quoting pubmed, brah! I'll always remember gems like "diet doesn't affect muscle maintenance" and " there's no such thing as 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' food." Jesus H. Christ man, you are really ******* stupid.

1. eating 2000 calories instead of 3000 calories is not going to affect your gym performance.

2. i never said spinach is "bad." drinking lard is fine as long as it fits within your caloric budget and you still get your essential nutrients.

3. you're taking things too literally and out of context. use your common sense.

4. you're taking things out of context again. by "thin," i'm talking about the size of your muscles, not your body fat levels.

5-6. if you want to ignore me, your loss lol.

 

[Kajak]

Originally Posted by not_a_virus.exe

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.

Originally Posted by n_a_v.exe

when you're out of energy, your body burns fat for more energy. this happens until your fat levels drops too low (this is well below six-pack levels and you'll know if you hit this level - basically, something you never have to worry about in the REAL WORLD).

Contradict each other. Either Aerobic work hampers muscle growth in general, or else only after fat levels drop too low, which won't happen in "THE REAL WORLD".
(True story: aerobic work can hamper muscle growth if you don't eat enough kcal or protein or sleep enough, which is why you are getting this wrong with your MAX DEFICIT mindset - by not eating enough you would screw over your gains.)

Actually wait, you didn't try to do both at the same time - you just lifted. I have tried to lift and do aerobic capacity, lift and do Max Aero Power work, and just lift; gains were roughly equal as long as I ate enough and slept enough.
(Only thing that messed up lifting gains was high volume lactate work and aerobic power, but my program wasn't really trying for gains then (lots of plyos and less actual lifts, mostly trying to maintain - I have full confidence that if I ate and slept enough that I could get lactate P, MAP, and strength increases at the same time.)

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by Rikkar501

Please show me an example of someone building an impressive physique while eating at maintenance and taking in low amounts of protein. Not a scientific study, a real life example.
there are countless examples, but it's also pointless to link them before you define "impressive" and "low amounts of protein." if you're like most people, you probably have unrealistic expectations of muscle growth.

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by Kajak

Contradict each other. Either Aerobic work hampers muscle growth in general, or else only after fat levels drop too low, which won't happen in "THE REAL WORLD".
(True story: aerobic work can hamper muscle growth if you don't eat enough kcal or protein or sleep enough, which is why you are getting this wrong with your MAX DEFICIT mindset - by not eating enough you would screw over your gains.)

Actually wait, you didn't try to do both at the same time - you just lifted. I have tried to lift and do aerobic capacity, lift and do Max Aero Power work, and just lift; gains were roughly equal as long as I ate enough and slept enough.
(Only thing that messed up lifting gains was high volume lactate work and aerobic power, but my program wasn't really trying for gains then (lots of plyos and less actual lifts, mostly trying to maintain - I have full confidence that if I ate and slept enough that I could get lactate P, MAP, and strength increases at the same time.)
i still fail to see your reasoning. in the first quote, i'm talking about muscle, and in the second, i'm talking about fat levels.

 

[Kajak]

Originally Posted by not_a_virus.exe

i still fail to see your reasoning. in the first quote, i'm talking about muscle, and in the second, i'm talking about fat levels.

What do you burn after fat levels get below 5%

 

[Kajak]

As an addendum to what I was saying a post ago, I realize that for maximum gains, you need to periodize your training - a month of focusing on max strength, a month of aerobic power, a month of lactate work, (or whatever) but all 3 (or however many elements you want to focus on) systems need to be trained to maintenance. But very few people are at this level. If you are, don't get your advice from StyleForvm.

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by Kajak

What do you burn after fat levels get below 5%
i don't know exactly when your body fat levels become dangerously low (it probably varies from person to person), but if you're asking what the body burns when you've reach dangerously low levels of body fat, your body will indeed atrophy, and that includes your muscles, to stay alive. your body needs a certain amount of fat for basic bodily functions. when i said that no one here will practically ever get this low, that's because your body will make it very clear to you that you need to eat more (read up on ancel keys's famous starvation study - in the study, they actually locked men up after reaching dangerously low levels of body fat to see what would happen afterwards).