[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Have times changed that much since I was training in a commercial gym? I don’t remember all these hard working fat people.
It hasn’t changed. People just like talking out of their asses. Fat people stay fat regardless of how much cardio they do because their diet is crap and their resistance training routine is crap. It isn’t because they are doing SOOOO much hard work that their cortisol levels are going against all of their great eating, great weight lifting, and great cardio. Their approach is screwed up from the floor up and has little to do with simply what they are doing on a treadmill alone.[/quote]
I agree. This might be one of the worst articles ever. For starters, how do you get fat in the first place?
Overeating.
“I’m fat because I work out too much.” WTF?
I think the whole trying to figure out exactly how much cortisol you are releasing and exactly how much of each of your glands is producing x amount of hormone is ridiculous.
Moronic article. I am a cyclist. Most of my “serious” peers are max around 10 percent bodyfat. Wonder why? I would bet the author has NEVER done any high-intensity and high-volume cardio (yes, uphill biking is both high-intensity and high-volume). What you have to do is to EAT A LOT and a lot of fats, too. I would bet 10000 dollars that if any of the cardio fatasses of the gym where to try serious aerobic training they would start to melt the fat away.
Most of what he says does seem to be mor eof an opinion than actual meat and potatoes research. What I am interested in is the comment he made about not drinking a post workout shake. He suggested that taking a post workout shake stiffles your growth hormone and testosterone response after a workout.
I think he might be suggesting to take a post workout shake an hour after a workout instead of immediately after your workout. Does anyone know much about this?
“I’m fat because I work out too much.” WTF?[/quote]
The argument that I’ve heard to justify this is that cardio training, in the long run, develops a more efficient system.
In other words, when you’re out of shape you might burn X calories when running 1 mile in 8 minutes (whatever, its an example), but as you train cardiovascular system becomes more efficient, because of the training, you will be burning less calories for the same amount of work.
And because your cardio has improved, daily actions will require less energy meaning that if you maintained the same diet, you’re now hypo caloric.
I think the way around any kind of bullshit like that is to just make sure you’re stimulating your body in different ways, enough times per week.
Running for 30 minutes at the same pace, over and over again will eventually “stale” to the body, to some degree, I bet. So…why not differentiate how you spend your 30 minutes of cardio? It isn’t rocket science. Try intervals, inclines, biking, etc…
Don’t the gurus call this “energy systems” work?
I’ll tell you one thing: I’m more spent from 15 minutes of HIIT on a bike than I am from a steady-state 7-8 mph 30-minute run. However, I’ll always incorporate all sorts of cardio training. Just like with weights.
It keeps things fresh, probably limits “adaptability” and will increase your fitness level.
I am kinda scared right now because during my summer Job I will be doing easily 3 hours a day of Mountain Biking.
And I never heard such thing as “Skinny-Fat Joggers” All the god damn cyclists out there are skiny. Absolutley no fat, less muscle then a body builder of coarse… but fat?? I was in a cycling club and I did not see one cyclist who was fat or “Skinny-fat” (What ever that means?)
Edit: I am happy to see that a couple of person who replied don’t believe the article, I was pretty fucking scared of becoming fat from doing too much biking…
[quote]Ruffio wrote:
Wo Wo Wo, so how much is exactly too much?
I am kinda scared right now because during my summer Job I will be doing easily 3 hours a day of Mountain Biking.
And I never heard such thing as “Skinny-Fat Joggers” All the god damn cyclists out there are skiny. Absolutley no fat, less muscle then a body builder of coarse… but fat?? I was in a cycling club and I did not see one cyclist who was fat or “Skinny-fat” (What ever that means?)
Edit: I am happy to see that a couple of person who replied don’t believe the article, I was pretty fucking scared of becoming fat from doing too much biking…[/quote]
“Skinny-fat” is when someone is relatively light and has a pretty high body fat percentage.
Say you’re 5’9 and weigh 155 lbs at 18% body fat. That individual is likely to look “skinny-fat.”
[quote]Ruffio wrote:
Wo Wo Wo, so how much is exactly too much?
I am kinda scared right now because during my summer Job I will be doing easily 3 hours a day of Mountain Biking.
And I never heard such thing as “Skinny-Fat Joggers” All the god damn cyclists out there are skiny. Absolutley no fat, less muscle then a body builder of coarse… but fat?? I was in a cycling club and I did not see one cyclist who was fat or “Skinny-fat” (What ever that means?)
Edit: I am happy to see that a couple of person who replied don’t believe the article, I was pretty fucking scared of becoming fat from doing too much biking…[/quote]
A skinny fat person would be someone who’s light and thin and looks decent with clothing on but has no muscular definition whatsoever(especially in the abdominal region) and often sports a small gut.
When I was 145 at 6’2" last year from undereating and over exercising, I was in a similar situation(with ribs showing and gyno from when I was a fat kid; you can imagine how hideous I looked)
Fat gain due to excessive cardio would depend on the individual. I’ve seen my ex go from lean to a little flabby. She did a lot of weight training when she was lean then took up triathlons in a serious way. Dropped the weights and maybe tripled the amount of exercise she did.
I put it down to muscle wasting therefore a higher body fat percentage was seen.
My doctor once told me this also. Its interesting and worth further investigation.
Cosgrove reported a study recently where one group did 40mins of steady cardio 3 times a week and one group did 20 mins of intervals 3 time per week.
Steady Cardio gained .5kg of fat and Intervals lost like 8kg’s.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Fat gain due to excessive cardio would depend on the individual. I’ve seen my ex go from lean to a little flabby. She did a lot of weight training when she was lean then took up triathlons in a serious way. Dropped the weights and maybe tripled the amount of exercise she did.
I put it down to muscle wasting therefore a higher body fat percentage was seen.
My doctor once told me this also. Its interesting and worth further investigation.
Cosgrove reported a study recently where one group did 40mins of steady cardio 3 times a week and one group did 20 mins of intervals 3 time per week.
Steady Cardio gained .5kg of fat and Intervals lost like 8kg’s. [/quote]
Dropping the weights was her mistakes. All endurance athletes should maintain a solid lifting program.
I agree… But is the lifting program lighter then someone that only lifts weights? I just started lifting weights but I am mainly an endurance athlete and I have some doubts if I should go on my bike after Weight Training or should I take it easy?
I am always feeling that I am not doing the right thing since I read most articles that always say don’t do cardio and stuff like that…
For most people the reason they are fat is because they don’t do enough exercise, and/or they have shitty diets. However, I don’t think that because of that we should discount the original point being made; that low-intensity, long duration cardio is not as good for body composition as high-intensity, relatively short duration cardio is. I.E. Cross Country runners vs. 100m participants.
[quote]DukeBoSox wrote:
For most people the reason they are fat is because they don’t do enough exercise, and/or they have shitty diets. However, I don’t think that because of that we should discount the original point being made; that low-intensity, long duration cardio is not as good for body composition as high-intensity, relatively short duration cardio is. I.E. Cross Country runners vs. 100m participants.[/quote]
Bullshit. Why do people seem to NEED to put everything in simple little boxes and make these types of blanket statements? Most bodybuilders do “low intensity/moderate intensity long duration cardio” when preparing for contests. They have arguably the MOST lean body mass compared to body fat. The only cardio I have done for the last two months has been long duration cardio on a treadmill and it works. Why would you believe what you wrote with so much evidence saying this isn’t true across the board?
There is a HUGE difference between being a cross country or a marathon runner…and walking on an incline on a treadmill for 45min. Also, since when is “cross country running” low intensity? It isn’t.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
DukeBoSox wrote:
For most people the reason they are fat is because they don’t do enough exercise, and/or they have shitty diets. However, I don’t think that because of that we should discount the original point being made; that low-intensity, long duration cardio is not as good for body composition as high-intensity, relatively short duration cardio is. I.E. Cross Country runners vs. 100m participants.
Bullshit. Why do people seem to NEED to put everything in simple little boxes and make these types of blanket statements? Most bodybuilders do “low intensity/moderate intensity long duration cardio” when preparing for contests. They have arguably the MOST lean body mass compared to body fat. The only cardio I have done for the last two months has been long duration cardio on a treadmill and it works. Why would you believe what you wrote with so much evidence saying this isn’t true across the board?
There is a HUGE difference between being a cross country or a marathon runner…and walking on an incline on a treadmill for 45min. Also, since when is “cross country running” low intensity? It isn’t.[/quote]
Saying that most bodybuilders do something is somewhat of a blanket statement in itself. Using an appeal to popularity as your main argument is not only a logical fallacy, it just isn’t sufficient. Since when has something been right just because most bodybuilders do it? People recognize that bodybuilders don’t always train optimally. Also, Bodybuilders carry the most lean muscle mass because of a combination of things, not solely because of their cardio routines.
Sorry for the confusion, I meant cross country is low-er intensity. That said I wouldn’t call it high intensity, at what percentage of maximum speed is one running during a 5k race, 50%?
[quote]DukeBoSox wrote:
Saying that most bodybuilders do something is somewhat of a blanket statement in itself. Using an appeal to popularity as your main argument is not only a logical fallacy, it just isn’t sufficient.[/quote]
You are right. Instead of looking at what successful people have done to get big and lean, we should rely on the word of Internet gurus.
[quote]Ruffio wrote:
Edit: I am happy to see that a couple of person who replied don’t believe the article, I was pretty fucking scared of becoming fat from doing too much biking…[/quote]
If reading one Internet article scares you, then you, my friend, have much bigger things to worry about than your summer of mountain biking.
[quote]DukeBoSox wrote:
Saying that most bodybuilders do something is somewhat of a blanket statement in itself. Using an appeal to popularity as your main argument is not only a logical fallacy, it just isn’t sufficient.[/quote]
That was about the worst attempt at sounding like you have a clue that I have seen on this forum. Congratulations. Most bodybuilders DO perform low intensity cardio. Most do NOT do high intensity cardio because it is believed to cause a loss of muscle tissue.
[quote]
Since when has something been right just because most bodybuilders do it? People recognize that bodybuilders don’t always train optimally. Also, Bodybuilders carry the most lean muscle mass because of a combination of things, not solely because of their cardio routines. [/quote]
Bodybuilding has been at the forefront of many concepts that are just now being seen in general society as correct…like low carb diets or the replacement of fats in the diet to make up for the reduction in carbs. These were common tactics used since the 60’s that the rest of the public didn’t acknowledge until this last decade. To ignore what has produced some of the most well developed bodies on the planet is what would be foolish.
[quote]
Sorry for the confusion, I meant cross country is low-er intensity. That said I wouldn’t call it high intensity, at what percentage of maximum speed is one running during a 5k race, 50%? [/quote]
If you consider cross country running anything other than a high intensity activity BECAUSE OF HOW LONG IT LASTS you have issues. But then, I guess that falls in line with the rest of what you wrote.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< Cosgrove reported a study recently where one group did 40mins of steady cardio 3 times a week and one group did 20 mins of intervals 3 time per week.
Steady Cardio gained .5kg of fat and Intervals lost like 8kg’s. [/quote]
I just plain do not believe that with the only difference being the type of activity one group gains and the other loses. In other words if you took clones and had them eat, workout and live the rest of their lives the same except one does 40 mins. steady cardio and ones does 20 mins. HIIT and one gains weight and the other loses. That just does not make sense on any level.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Ruffio wrote:
Edit: I am happy to see that a couple of person who replied don’t believe the article, I was pretty fucking scared of becoming fat from doing too much biking…
If reading one Internet article scares you, then you, my friend, have much bigger things to worry about than your summer of mountain biking.[/quote]
hahahahaha, Alright, so what, I was maybe a little bit susceptible??
[quote]DukeBoSox wrote:
<<< Saying that most bodybuilders do something is somewhat of a blanket statement in itself. Using an appeal to popularity as your main argument is not only a logical fallacy, it just isn’t sufficient. >>>[/quote]
Popularity and success aren’t synonymous. Nobody’s saying it’s effective because it’s popular. It’s popular because it’s effective. When a large percentage of individuals sharing a common goal that they’ve all achieved agree on a method by which this was accomplished, it will take more than academic discussion amongst armchair theoriticians to discount the validity of that method.