T Nation

How Does 'Cardio' Reduce Bodyfat?

If it’s simply curiosity, go read through the multitude of articles on here. There’s plenty of science backed articles on it here that most likely will do a better job of appeasing your curiosity without people simply getting irritated at what most view as a lazy question.

Also, you’re not very good at presenting your questions in a straight-forward matter.

As far as fasted cardio goes, the premise behind it is that you utilize more fat (providing you’re in an appropriate training zone (UT2 and even as high as UT1) where fat utilization is highest while minimal catabolism is going on. Fasted cardio in higher training zones results in catabolism in much higher amounts hence why you always hear about bodybuilders doing fasted cardio by simply walking on a treadmill or something of a very easy/moderate intensity level (while in a fasted state).

[quote]hYperTrOphY_07 wrote:

[quote]chimera182 wrote:
What the hell does NB mean? I keep seeing it pop up around here.[/quote]

‘Please note’
[/quote]

Thanks!

KISS

[quote]Nikki9591 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

The more you eat while still remaining in a caloric surplus the better chance you give your body to burn fat.

[/quote]

???
You’re going to burn fat in a caloric surplus?

OP, diet only to burn fat will only result in continuous plateaus, then you reducing your calories even lower than before which will screw up your metabolism. Your body is in constant survival mode, so if you feed it less, then your BMR will lower because it will “think” that it’s starving and will aim to burn less calories just to function. [/quote]

Meant to say deficit. Thanks

[quote]hYperTrOphY_07 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]hYperTrOphY_07 wrote:

[quote]Nikki9591 wrote:
SS cardio uses primarily fats for energy.
Sprints use glucose, however create a greater EPOC than SS cardio.

Both ways can expend the same number of calories, however a lot of people want to do low-intensity cardio because more of the calories will come from fats.
Which I don’t get because a deficit is a deficit, but whatever.[/quote]

Thanks for your input.

If the only reason you are doing the cardio is to create a calorie deficit, wouldn’t it be much easier to just eat less calories rather than to burn them through exercise? [/quote]

Absolutely not.

The less you eat (read: food that physically goes in your mouth and through your body, not talking about net calorie balance) the slower your metabolism gets.

If you continuously and systematically lower your calories in an effort to lose fat you’ll end up accomplishing a few things. These “things” are not good for body composition. You’ll slow your metabolism making the whole process more arduous AND your body will think you are starving and will begin to burn muscle and store fat in an effort to save itself from this “perceived” threat.

The more you eat while still remaining in a caloric surplus the better chance you give your body to burn fat.

That’s about as simple of an explanation as one can give. And after being a member on this site for 3 years you really should have these concepts drilled down. Honestly.

Did you think people simply enjoyed using the stepmill while trying to get to 3% bodyfat to win their BBing show?
[/quote]

That makes sense. I have realised that part of my confusion has been due to me underestimating how many calories can be burned through exercise. My initial thought was that if cardio reeduced fat only through helping create a caloric deficit, it would be much easier to simply reduce caloric intake slightly. However, I now realise that to match the calories burned through exercise with not eating could actually involve a substantial reduction in calories which would not be beneficial for the reasons you have outlined.

If, however, cardio does only reduce bodyfat by helping you achieve a caloric deficit, why do people recommend you do it whilst bulking to ‘keep fat levels in check’? If you are bulking you are still going to be eating a surplus of calories even with the cardio, so how does it keep bodyfat in check? Is it simply a matter of reducing your caloric surplus for that particular day, which may lead to less fat gain?[/quote]

Doing cardio makes your body burn calories. The more calories you burn the more your metabolism works.

That’s really all it is.

I dont really believe theres truth to “keeping bodyfat in check” through cardio if you look at it from a day to day basis. You are being way too general about all of this entirely. There are many more things going on than just a caloric surplus or deficit. Caloric balance is stresed as much as it is because its the first thing that needs to be addressed.

What your body does with the energy you consume is more complicated than what you are saying with things like “keeping bodyfat in check”

OP spread the word to your country. Australia has overtaken the U.S as the fattest country.

/PSA

Population of Australia - 21,431,800
Population of Texas - 24,782,302

I’d say there’s more fat people in Texas than in Aus… Maybe as a percentile Australia is fatter but something about that just doesn’t sound right to me.

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:
Population of Australia - 21,431,800
Population of Texas - 24,782,302

I’d say there’s more fat people in Texas than in Aus… Maybe as a percentile Australia is fatter but something about that just doesn’t sound right to me.[/quote]

The total numbers matter at all unless the countries had the same number of people.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:
Population of Australia - 21,431,800
Population of Texas - 24,782,302

I’d say there’s more fat people in Texas than in Aus… Maybe as a percentile Australia is fatter but something about that just doesn’t sound right to me.[/quote]

The total numbers matter at all unless the countries had the same number of people. [/quote]

“wut?”

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:
Population of Australia - 21,431,800
Population of Texas - 24,782,302

I’d say there’s more fat people in Texas than in Aus… Maybe as a percentile Australia is fatter but something about that just doesn’t sound right to me.[/quote]

The total numbers matter at all unless the countries had the same number of people. [/quote]

“wut?”
[/quote]

Supposed to be a “dont” in there.

forget it. australia has a higher percentage of obese people than the U.S r u mad?

I think we have a misunderstanding, you don’t need to take everything anyone says as some sort of challenge, but what I was getting at is that there would be less obese people living in Australia due to it’s small population…

And by that you seem intelligent enough to realise that I’m not arguing with you, just trying to get to the bottom of these claims.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
OP spread the word to your country. Australia has overtaken the U.S as the fattest country.

/PSA[/quote]

That’s a title neither country wants :slight_smile:

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:
Population of Australia - 21,431,800
Population of Texas - 24,782,302

I’d say there’s more fat people in Texas than in Aus… Maybe as a percentile Australia is fatter but something about that just doesn’t sound right to me.[/quote]

lol you can’t really defend Australia on the basis that our population is smaller. We are a country of fatties.

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:
I think we have a misunderstanding, you don’t need to take everything anyone says as some sort of challenge, but what I was getting at is that there would be less obese people living in Australia due to it’s small population… [/quote]

Yes. obviously. I didnt take it as a challenge. I just responded to what you said.

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:
And by that you seem intelligent enough to realise that I’m not arguing with you, just trying to get to the bottom of these claims.[/quote]

I didn thtink you were arguing. I think you were talking about something different than I was.

I said that Australia is the fattest country now. That’s all. Typically these things are measured according to percentage because a raw number is useless because the the most populous country will surely win.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:
And by that you seem intelligent enough to realise that I’m not arguing with you, just trying to get to the bottom of these claims.[/quote]

I didn thtink you were arguing. I think you were talking about something different than I was.

I said that Australia is the fattest country now. That’s all. Typically these things are measured according to percentage because a raw number is useless because the the most populous country will surely win. [/quote]

All good in that case. And that’s what I was thinking, if they have more fat people due to a bigger population then doesn’t that make them the fattest country?

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]AussieOllie wrote:
And by that you seem intelligent enough to realise that I’m not arguing with you, just trying to get to the bottom of these claims.[/quote]

I didn thtink you were arguing. I think you were talking about something different than I was.

I said that Australia is the fattest country now. That’s all. Typically these things are measured according to percentage because a raw number is useless because the the most populous country will surely win. [/quote]

All good in that case. And that’s what I was thinking, if they have more fat people due to a bigger population then doesn’t that make them the fattest country?[/quote]

No. You have to measure it as a percentage of the population. If you don’t, America would be a fatter and skinnier country than Australia since they have more fat people than us and more skinny people (in terms of raw numbers). But if as a percentage they have 50% of the population in a healthy weight range and 50% in the overweight range; and Australia has 40% in the healthy weight range, and 60% in the overweight range - we are the ‘fatter’ country.

However, I defend Australia on the basis that we have a more muscular population, which is skewing the statistics. Yes, we are heavier. Yes, our BMIs are higher. But it’s all muscle =P