Cardio Intensity Question
TrainQuestion
already.
Recently a trainer at my gym contradicted everything that I had previously
heard about cardio exercise and fat loss.
For maximum fat loss he told me that instead of a long slow run I should be
shooting for shorter runs at higher intensities. According to his explanation,
more fat is utilized in short high intensity runs while long runs (40+ minutes)
have a negative influence on muscle growth.
Does anyone have information that confirms or refutes his assertions?
Lyle McDonald
He's right.
And I am amazed that you found a gym trainer who actually keeps up with
new developments in the field of exercise.
The fact is that, while the *percentage* of fat used is lower during
higher intensity activities, the *total* amount of fat used can actually
be higher because the total caloric expenditure is higher.
That is, during low-intensity, say you are burning 5 cal/min and 100% of
it is fat. So that's 5 cal/min of fat. But say at high intensity you
are burning 10 cal/min but *only* 65% of it is fat. That's still 6.5
cal/min of fat (plus the 3.5 cal/min of glyocgen being used which has
some other benefits wrt: fat loss).
As well, excessive low intensity cardio can cause muscle loss.
So, he's right on all counts and I'm still amazed.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
> I am so happy that these people are finally getting around to what runners
> (and many other athletes) have empirically, and intuitively known for
> decades... Interval training is superior at burning fat. This may be new to
> some theorists, but not to many athletes.
You might be surprised. While I've recently seen a trend in the runners
magazines regarding intensity and fat burning, if you look back even a
couple of years ago, low-intensity, long-duration was still being
recommended as the best way to 'burn fat'. And the impact of interval
training on fat loss has been known for at least 5 years (well, Tremblay
did a study on it at least that long ago). And I've known that the fat
burning zone was a load of shit since 1993 or before.
But I agree that it's about time. Although I"m sure 10 years from now
there will still be aerobics instructors telling the people in their
class about the need to stay in the 'fat burning zone'.
Lyle
Tom Morley
A good rule of thumb. If Sally Edwards says it, then it is
wrong. :-)
--
Tom Morley |
mor...@math.gatech.edu | When the block is carved,
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com | it becomes useful.
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | Tao Te Ching, Chapter 28
ICQ: 24798603 |
Lyle McDonald
>
> Tom Morley <tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:tmorley-3001...@user-38ld5gg.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > In article <38951BCD...@onr.com>, lyl...@onr.com wrote:
> >
> > > Whit wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am so happy that these people are finally getting around to what
> runners
> > > > (and many other athletes)
> > > You might be surprised. While I've recently seen a trend in the runners
> > > magazines regarding intensity and fat burning, if you look back even a
> > > couple of years ago, low-intensity, long-duration was still being
> > > recommended as the best way to 'burn fat'.
>
> I agree with this. However, I don't think of running magazines as being on
> the cutting edge for training information, etc.
well, you did mention above that knowledge of interval training was
common among athletes. I took that to implicitly include what is
written in popular endurnace oriented mags.
The things I would get from
> the mags were shoe reviews, inspirational stories, profiles, and race
> results. I would tend to take a lot of their "advice" with the same grain
> of salt that I would some other sources. An analogy could be made in the
> weight training world to Muscle and Fiction.
A very good point.
> IOW, yes, this is what many running magazines said, but I (and many runners I trained with) could not have cared less what the mags were recommending.
Unfortunately, folks with brains (i.e. you and the runners you train
with) are not the general magazine reading public.
I use the success of Muscle Media as an example.
> I hadn't read the studies, but my personal experience, and those of my
> fellow runners, tended to make us believe that the fat burning zone was all
> so much shite.
Well, if you think about it, if there was a fat burning zone (or if it
mattered), you'd have to go pretty far to explain the shredded physiques
of sprinters. Sure, some of it is going to be genetic and they carry a
lot of muscle mass. But if it's taken as gospel that you must 'burn fat
during exercise to lose fat', these guys should pork up by never working
in their 'fat burning zone'.
Lyle
Whit
Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:389481F7...@onr.com...
I am so happy that these people are finally getting around to what runners
(and many other athletes) have empirically, and intuitively known for
decades... Interval training is superior at burning fat. This may be new to
some theorists, but not to many athletes.
Whit
Whit
Tom Morley <tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tmorley-3001...@user-38ld5gg.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <38951BCD...@onr.com>, lyl...@onr.com wrote:
>
> > Whit wrote:
> >
runners
> > > (and many other athletes) have empirically, and intuitively known for
> > > decades... Interval training is superior at burning fat. This may be
new to
> > > some theorists, but not to many athletes.
> >
> > magazines regarding intensity and fat burning, if you look back even a
> > couple of years ago, low-intensity, long-duration was still being
> > recommended as the best way to 'burn fat'.
I agree with this. However, I don't think of running magazines as being on
the cutting edge for training information, etc. The things I would get from
the mags were shoe reviews, inspirational stories, profiles, and race
results. I would tend to take a lot of their "advice" with the same grain
of salt that I would some other sources. An analogy could be made in the
weight training world to Muscle and Fiction.
IOW, yes, this is what many running magazines said, but I (and many runners
I trained with) could not have cared less what the mags were recommending.
And the impact of interval
> > training on fat loss has been known for at least 5 years (well, Tremblay
> > did a study on it at least that long ago). And I've known that the fat
> > burning zone was a load of shit since 1993 or before.
> >
I hadn't read the studies, but my personal experience, and those of my
fellow runners, tended to make us believe that the fat burning zone was all
so much shite.
> > But I agree that it's about time. Although I"m sure 10 years from now
> > there will still be aerobics instructors telling the people in their
> > class about the need to stay in the 'fat burning zone'.
> >
And the class participants will remain their plump selves, unfortunately, in
way too many instances.
Whit
Whit
> Whit wrote:
> >
> > Tom Morley <tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:tmorley-3001...@user-38ld5gg.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > > In article <38951BCD...@onr.com>, lyl...@onr.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Whit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am so happy that these people are finally getting around to what
> > runners
> > > > > (and many other athletes)
>
runners
> > > > magazines regarding intensity and fat burning, if you look back even
a
> > > > couple of years ago, low-intensity, long-duration was still being
> > > > recommended as the best way to 'burn fat'.
> >
> > I agree with this. However, I don't think of running magazines as being
on
> > the cutting edge for training information, etc.
>
> common among athletes. I took that to implicitly include what is
> written in popular endurnace oriented mags.
>
That is a reasonable assumption. However, the "pop" mags are not indicative
of the knowledge among knowledgable athletes, anymore than the "pop"
psychology mags represent the field of psychology, or M&F represents the
field of strength training. I think this is true in many fields (besides
strength training), where there are the mainstream mags that are glossy,
entertaining, and well written, and then there are the REAL sources. I am
not slagging Runner's World. It is a good mag (as an example of the pop
running mags), however it is far from cutting edge. There is lots of good
information. Absolutely. It's just somewhat behind the curve. It plays it
"safe" so to speak. "The world is watching, after all". The pop mags tend
to recommend the safest and most generic things. This is good, for the
general audience. But, I am sure that you know that when you want to
maximize performance, you are often not talking the safest and blandest
routes, in any sport. Interval training, like downhill running for example,
IS more problematic for the unconditioned athlete. IMO, interval training
should not be done before a sufficient "base" is built up, etc. Downhill
running is a fantastic way to progress as well (if you want to run the hills
well, you got to work them --- up AND down), however it is also a fantastic
way to get injured. Despite all the talk of VO2 max, lactate threshold,
pacing, negative splits, carb loading, etc. etc. etc. the running shit is
really not that complicated. Just like weight training (although not
weightlifting olympic style which IS complicated), running is not that
complex. But, it is in the little nooks, where the real interesting stuff
comes out.
> The things I would get from
> > the mags were shoe reviews, inspirational stories, profiles, and race
> > results. I would tend to take a lot of their "advice" with the same
grain
> > of salt that I would some other sources. An analogy could be made in
the
> > weight training world to Muscle and Fiction.
>
> A very good point.
>
Thank you.
> > IOW, yes, this is what many running magazines said, but I (and many
runners I trained with) could not have cared less what the mags were
recommending.
>
> Unfortunately, folks with brains (i.e. you and the runners you train
> with) are not the general magazine reading public.
>
This is good. These are the people who are easier to beat in races. If
everybody trained properly ie optimally, it would be harder to win and/or
place. Obviously, some people are going to be blazingly fast no matter how
they train. Genetics. Some will need to work a lot harder to be a
competitive club runner. Coach Mussobinin says in Chariots of Fire "You
can't put in what God left out", and that is somewhat true. Running, like
weight training has a large genetic component. However, optimizing
training, and understanding your own body is a constant learning process, in
running, as in weight training. As Bowerman said, running is a thinking
man's (or woman's) sport. Of course, so is weight training.
Despite the fact that runners and weight trainers seem so DIFFERENT, I see a
lot of similarity in the two sports. Just like any sport, people are
testing their limits, their resolve, etc.
> I use the success of Muscle Media as an example.
>
and it is a good one.
> > I hadn't read the studies, but my personal experience, and those of my
> > fellow runners, tended to make us believe that the fat burning zone was
all
> > so much shite.
>
> Well, if you think about it, if there was a fat burning zone (or if it
> mattered), you'd have to go pretty far to explain the shredded physiques
> of sprinters. Sure, some of it is going to be genetic and they carry a
> lot of muscle mass. But if it's taken as gospel that you must 'burn fat
> during exercise to lose fat', these guys should pork up by never working
> in their 'fat burning zone'.
>
Absolutely. I remember the first time I saw Lynford Christie (sic?). That
guy has a kick-ass physique. In terms of pure aesthetics, I find sprinter
physiques to be among the most beautiful in the world.
Whit
> Lyle
Lyle McDonald
Lemme make sure and sort the headers right so that Bill R. doesn't tell
me to fuck myself again. ;)
Whit wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3895369F...@onr.com...
> > Whit wrote:
> That is a reasonable assumption. However, the "pop" mags are not indicative
> of the knowledge among knowledgable athletes, anymore than the "pop"
> psychology mags represent the field of psychology, or M&F represents the
> field of strength training.
Yeah, after you mentioned that previously, it occurred to me that I was
applying a double standard to muscle vs. running magazines. You're 100%
right that the *average* person reading them is very unaware of the
cutting edge of training.
> The pop mags tend
> to recommend the safest and most generic things. This is good, for the
> general audience. But, I am sure that you know that when you want to
> maximize performance, you are often not talking the safest and blandest
> routes, in any sport.
Two words: Louie Simmons.
And I agree with you completely.
Interval training, like downhill running for example,
> IS more problematic for the unconditioned athlete. IMO, interval training
> should not be done before a sufficient "base" is built up, etc. Downhill
> running is a fantastic way to progress as well (if you want to run the hills
> well, you got to work them --- up AND down), however it is also a fantastic
> way to get injured. Despite all the talk of VO2 max, lactate threshold,
> pacing, negative splits, carb loading, etc. etc. etc. the running shit is
> really not that complicated. Just like weight training (although not
> weightlifting olympic style which IS complicated), running is not that
> complex. But, it is in the little nooks, where the real interesting stuff
> comes out.
right, but as you pointed out, for the average (i.e. non-elite)
runner/athlete/lifter, the little nooks are pretty irrelevant.
> > > IOW, yes, this is what many running magazines said, but I (and many
> runners I trained with) could not have cared less what the mags were
> recommending.
> >
> > Unfortunately, folks with brains (i.e. you and the runners you train
> > with) are not the general magazine reading public.
> >
>
> This is good. These are the people who are easier to beat in races.
It's funny that you make that statement since I have made similar. A
couyple of years ago I was working with a female mountain biker (she was
moving up to expert I believe). The main thing I focused on with her was
getting her strong as hell. As I'm sure you know, most endurance
athletes don't believe in heavy weight training (don't want to get 'too
big'). So, although her skills weren't as good as some of hte other
riders (as consequence of coming into it late), she could dust
everybody on the hills and in the sprints. The weight training also
kept her a lot leaner than some of her competitors.
I figured the less efficiently her competitors trained, the easier a job
I had getting her into the higher rankings.
Lyle
amwebber
What the trainer told was right and wrong. Lower intensity will utilize fat for
energy but in my opinion the best way to lose weight is by burning more calories.
If you burn more calories than you are consuming then you will lose weight, higher
intensity work will burn carbs much quicker. As long as you eat enough protein
muscle loss is negligible, just cut back on your carbs. Thats what work for me.
>
amwebber
What the trainer told was right and wrong. Lower intensity will utilize fat for
energy but in my opinion the best way to lose weight is by burning more calories.
If you burn more calories than you are consuming then you will lose weight, higher
muscle loss is negligible, just cut back on your carbs. Thats what work for me.