is a calorie a calorie?

[deadken]

27 fat vs the weight group that lost 37

That isn't what I read. Perhaps you can clear this up for me:
"After 12 weeks, both groups lost weight. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds, 27 of which was fat and 10 of which was muscle. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds, and 32 pounds were fat, 0 was muscle".

So, the cardio group lost MORE pounds than the weight group. Yes, some of the weight the cardio group lost was muscle, but the bottom line seems to be they were lighter at the end, which is VERY different from the line of stuff you've been spewing, Zivic:"What i am referring to is that the same fat @sses that do cardio session after cardio session and continue to get fatter don't realize the cardio is not only not helping but making things harder.... In terms of them losing weights". According to the article you read / referred to, they would have lost more (total) weight.

My takeaway from all of this is that things can be distorted to 'prove' any point you want. I'm not saying that everyone should be strictly cardio. But, I'm not saying that everyone should be purely weight lifting. As a reasonable person, I think that most everyone is different and on top of that most people have different goals. It's great that you are happy with what you are doing. But, seriously, not everyone cares, cares to look like you, or cares to do what you do. Yeah, I'm referring to you [in the past] implying that you use supplements / steroids. Who knows? Maybe you weren't being seriouz. But, again, do what you like! Just please don't suggest that it is right for everyone.

 

[ControlD]

There's a lot more to it than that. Cardio signals the body to consume muscle because it isn't conducive to running, which is why most distance runners are very skinny. It also stops atp, which signals muscles to grow and recover. With less muscle mass you need less calories to maintain weight so as you lose weight with cardio you must also decrease your calorie intake or you stop losing weight, or fat atleast because the body still considers muscle bad. it's basically just a vicious cycle to nowhere.

This is the very dumbed down version of it, if you want to know more let me know I can dig up a ton of research on the subject.

Which is why my take away is to do both strength and cardio training. We are looking at one tiny part of the exercise equation: weight loss. There is a lot more to it than that. I think for overall health you need a balance, just like any other area such as diet.

Maybe I am way off, it just seems to make sense that for the average person (so we can exclude the "freaky" muscle bound monster or the equally "freaky" skeletoid ultra-marathoner) a balanced approach to exercise provides the most benefits.

We all have anecdotal evidence to share, but I know for me I am in much better overall shape (including more defined muscles in my arms, legs, and abs) from running 20-30 miles a week (plus a good amount of swimming) and doing body weight strength training for the past three years. I'm 45 and still hanging out at 150 pounds (5'10") despite a fairly liberal daily calorie intake. I am planning on incorporating more heavy lifting this year to balance things, but just from what I have seen with me and my wife as primarily "cardio people" I cannot agree with the original premise of this thread.

 

[Zivic]

That isn't what I read. Perhaps you can clear this up for me:
"After 12 weeks, both groups lost weight. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds, 27 of which was fat and 10 of which was muscle. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds, and 32 pounds were fat, 0 was muscle".

So, the cardio group lost MORE pounds than the weight group. Yes, some of the weight the cardio group lost was muscle, but the bottom line seems to be they were lighter at the end, which is VERY different from the line of stuff you've been spewing, Zivic:"What i am referring to is that the same fat @sses that do cardio session after cardio session and continue to get fatter don't realize the cardio is not only not helping but making things harder.... In terms of them losing weights". According to the article you read / referred to, they would have lost more (total) weight.

My takeaway from all of this is that things can be distorted to 'prove' any point you want. I'm not saying that everyone should be strictly cardio. But, I'm not saying that everyone should be purely weight lifting. As a reasonable person, I think that most everyone is different and on top of that most people have different goals. It's great that you are happy with what you are doing. But, seriously, not everyone cares, cares to look like you, or cares to do what you do. Yeah, I'm referring to you [in the past] implying that you use supplements / steroids. Who knows? Maybe you weren't being seriouz. But, again, do what you like! Just please don't suggest that it is right for everyone.

Sorry, mistyped 37 when it was 32. What is important is that they lost more fat while not losing muscle. Overall weight loss is not good if you are losing lean muscle mass. What I say everyone should do is focus on your diet. Then add in weights.... And then add in cardio. I would argue most people's first focus is on cardio and diet is a second or third priority.

And for the record, I have only used steroids for 3.5 yrs now. My motto is 'NBA'... Nothing but anabolics. That right there is bs. You look at pics of me and I think some peoples first thought is steroids. And anything I post/link is some how trivialized or at least disregarded; being irrelevant to anyone else because they don't want to look like me and/or only think it pertains to enhanced lifters.

The truth is, I don't use, haven't used, and may or may not use in the yrs to come. Those that say I'm lying are the ones that should take a good hard look in the mirror and stop making up excuses why some of us make gainz and they aren't... /rant

 

[blackdogdeek]

That article does not however back up the OP's original assertion that cardio is affecting people negatively (or that they won't lose weight). The sample group did lose 27 pounds of fat.

Actually, it does indeed affect people negatively.

When resting metabolic rate was calculated after the study, the aerobic group was burning 210 fewer calories daily.

Their metabolism SLOWED down. Unless they start eating fewer and fewer calories, they will plateau and/or gain weight back.

In contrast, the resistance-training group had increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day.

Their metabolism SPED up. They will continue to burn fat without changing their diet. They could even eat MORE and still burn fat.

 

[Pantlegz]

Which is why my take away is to do both strength and cardio training. We are looking at one tiny part of the exercise equation: weight loss. There is a lot more to it than that. I think for overall health you need a balance, just like any other area such as diet.

Maybe I am way off, it just seems to make sense that for the average person (so we can exclude the "freaky" muscle bound monster or the equally "freaky" skeletoid ultra-marathoner) a balanced approach to exercise provides the most benefits.

We all have anecdotal evidence to share, but I know for me I am in much better overall shape (including more defined muscles in my arms, legs, and abs) from running 20-30 miles a week (plus a good amount of swimming) and doing body weight strength training for the past three years. I'm 45 and still hanging out at 150 pounds (5'10") despite a fairly liberal daily calorie intake. I am planning on incorporating more heavy lifting this year to balance things, but just from what I have seen with me and my wife as primarily "cardio people" I cannot agree with the original premise of this thread.

Even if you do both, unless you're able to time the cardio perfectly, it will result in either loss of muscle or stopping atp which stops the muscles from repairing. There are forms of cardio that have less of an impact (HIIT/sprints) but overall if your goal is to increase lean mass cardio is setting you back. And with my significant lack of cardio my blood presure is always about perfect at 120/80 or below, resting heart rate is less than 60bpm and my cholesterol is where it should be. So it's apparently not a requirement for having a healthy cardiovascular system or I'm an anomaly.

While you're running 20+ miles a week your calorie intake can he higher but as soon as you stop your caloric needs will drop dramatically. I haven't been lifting regularly in the last couple months due to a non-lifting related injury and my food intake has remained about the same and there is minimal change in body comp because my BMR is higher due to muscle mass.

-this is a bit OT but - This becomes more a more pronounced problem when you have cyclical dieters that aren't consistent in the gym. They do a bunch of cardio which drops their muscle mass they diet for a while then quit doing both. Their BMR is now lower than it was before their 'diet' phase and they go back to eating like they did before and gain more weight because they're burning less calories and can't figure out why they're getting fatter so they decide to diet for a while again and they just keep gaining weight.

 

[Zivic]

Actually, it does indeed affect people negatively.



Their metabolism SLOWED down. Unless they start eating fewer and fewer calories, they will plateau and/or gain weight back.



Their metabolism SPED up. They will continue to burn fat without changing their diet. They could even eat MORE and still burn fat.

good post..

I can't tell if people here are just thick headed, or just like to troll/hate me. probably a bit of both

just for fun.. had a decent arm workout the other day:

 

[SP33Demon]

Smell is actually a larger factor in a woman's desire than physical appearance.

Actually, women can "smell" a man's testosterone in sweat so this goes hand in hand with lifting heavy (which ups testosterone).

 

[guy666]

To people that say you need to do cardio as well as strength training, is there really anything to back that up? I feel that your heart/lungs can get enough exercise from merely strength training as long as you are not half-assing your workout. I haven't done any cardio in a long time, yet all my numbers are great like blood pressure, resting bpm, etc. and I can still run two miles in under 12 mins. I have my doubts adding cardio would improve my life or make me live longer.

 

[SP33Demon]

with weights you can get your heart rate up and work your heart and lungs plenty hard. it's a matter of shortening rest periods/upping entensity

This. People should try doing heavy squat sets (e.g. 75-85% of your 1RM) of 10 without cardio, it's going to be very difficult to impossible for someone who does no cardio (e.g. HIIT) at all. I did up to 315 yesterday and no way I could do that a year ago without HIIT GPP exercises such as Prowler or Farmer's Walk. The first time I pushed the heavy Prowler 7 months ago, I had to walk half of the trip. Now I can do 2-3 trips without breaking much of a sweat.

Also, one comment about fat powerlifters - they look that way for a reason. Heavier weight = heavier lifts for bench and deadlift, so they really strive to fill out their weight class because it's a competitive advantage (not to mention bigger belly = less ROM for bench). Heavyweights have an open ended weight class so it behooves them to get as heavy as possible to make the lifts easier. Ideally they want to fill out their weight class with muscle instead of fat, but it's easier to put on weight via fat in a pinch and the bigger belly for heavyweights' bench is always a plus. See the belly on great Ray Williams who just smashed the world record RAW powerlifting total at 972.5kg (2139lbs): http://youtu.be/Uvr7c19Zjhc

 

[ControlD]

To people that say you need to do cardio as well as strength training, is there really anything to back that up? I feel that your heart/lungs can get enough exercise from merely strength training as long as you are not half-assing your workout. I haven't done any cardio in a long time, yet all my numbers are great like blood pressure, resting bpm, etc. and I can still run two miles in under 12 mins. I have my doubts adding cardio would improve my life or make me live longer.

That's sort of the root of this discussion isn't it?

I don't know the answer myself. At the same time, I can quite easily take your exact argument and flip it around. I do almost only cardio and all of my numbers are great as well. I get to eat a lot more calories than I normally would(bonus)! I might have my doubts that doing a bunch of power lifting will improve my life or make me live longer. I can pick up heavy stuff when I am required to. See, same argument right?

I'm not knocking anyone either. If it works for you, fantastic. Part of exercise is finding something that holds your interest to a point where you won't simply give it up when you get "fit". I run because I enjoy it. I swim because I enjoy it. I don't do a lot of lifting because it bores me to tears. I have friends that are just the opposite and that's cool too.

Maybe there isn't a one size fits all answer to what is or is not optimal fitness?

 

[z1ggy]

....

Maybe there isn't a one size fits all answer to what is or is not optimal fitness?

The problem is, optimal fitness can't really be defined.

Who is more fit in your opinion... The guy who runs a marathon in 2 hours, or the guy who can deadlift 2.5x his own body weight? Both are pretty impressive feats in which only small %'s of the human race can even accomplish. Both men have become optimal at their activities... But who's to say who is the "most optimal" in their fitness levels?

You can't. Fitness in and of itself is totally subjective (just read this thread) and has varying degrees to certain people. Some people might feel "fit" if they have normal bp, hr and other hormonal levels and don't have a gut. Others may only feel "fit" once they have a single digit body fat and can squat and deadlift 2x their own body weight. The list is endless.

However, the only thing I think we can say here that's been proven by studies is that pound per pound, people who lift weights and no minimal cardio, tend to carry more muscle mass than those who just do cardio or do minimal weight lifting.

 

[ControlD]

The problem is, optimal fitness can't really be defined.

Who is more fit in your opinion... The guy who runs a marathon in 2 hours, or the guy who can deadlift 2.5x his own body weight? Both are pretty impressive feats in which only small %'s of the human race can even accomplish. Both men have become optimal at their activities... But who's to say who is the "most optimal" in their fitness levels?

You can't. Fitness in and of itself is totally subjective (just read this thread) and has varying degrees to certain people. Some people might feel "fit" if they have normal bp, hr and other hormonal levels and don't have a gut. Others may only feel "fit" once they have a single digit body fat and can squat and deadlift 2x their own body weight. The list is endless.

However, the only thing I think we can say here that's been proven by studies is that pound per pound, people who lift weights and no minimal cardio, tend to carry more muscle mass than those who just do cardio or do minimal weight lifting.

Well put. That is pretty much what I was trying to get at as well.

 

[Zivic]

The problem is, optimal fitness can't really be defined.

Who is more fit in your opinion... The guy who runs a marathon in 2 hours, or the guy who can deadlift 2.5x his own body weight? Both are pretty impressive feats in which only small %'s of the human race can even accomplish. Both men have become optimal at their activities... But who's to say who is the "most optimal" in their fitness levels?

IMHO, a marathon is more of a demonstration of fitness, while the deadlift is a demonstration of strength.

You can't. Fitness in and of itself is totally subjective (just read this thread) and has varying degrees to certain people. Some people might feel "fit" if they have normal bp, hr and other hormonal levels and don't have a gut. Others may only feel "fit" once they have a single digit body fat and can squat and deadlift 2x their own body weight. The list is endless.

the normal guy without the gut might be 'fit' by some person's definition, but the guy doing a 2x dead with sub 10% bodyfat is more fit..

However, the only thing I think we can say here that's been proven by studies is that pound per pound, people who lift weights and no minimal cardio, tend to carry more muscle mass than those who just do cardio or do minimal weight lifting.

it's all about the muscle mass.

 

[Zivic]

Actually, women can "smell" a man's testosterone in sweat so this goes hand in hand with lifting heavy (which ups testosterone).

with all the test I inject I best be carefull

 

[z1ggy]

it's all about the muscle mass.

To you and me, yes. But to people like the guy who runs 20+ miles per week.. No.

That's why peeps can argue on here all day and night about what "fitness" is.

Discussion should stick to the point, which is finding and discussing evidence that people can gain more muscle and lose more fat, while doing minimal to no cardio.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I am convinced that I don't retain 100% of the calories from any food from Taco Bell.

 

[Zivic]

To you and me, yes. But to people like the guy who runs 20+ miles per week.. No.

That's why peeps can argue on here all day and night about what "fitness" is.

Discussion should stick to the point, which is finding and discussing evidence that people can gain more muscle and lose more fat, while doing minimal to no cardio.

If the good lord wanted us to run 20+ miles he wouldn't have given us horses, bycicles, cars, trains, planes, etc. He did want us to look jacked which is why we have stringer tanks and mirrors

 

[RandomWords]

women can "smell" a man's testosterone in sweat so this goes hand in hand with lifting heavy (which ups testosterone).

Yes, but the main factor is not the testosterone - women are naturally attracted to people who have opposite MHC than them which is why when you go - "we both like that woman, I look better than him, have higher testosterone - etc etc - why is she with him? Why does she see me only as a friend" or the classic "A lot of women don't like super buff guys" - it is more likely the MHC and he likely wears a scent she finds more attractive - be it campfires, cut grass, flowers, - whatever floats her boat.

 

[alkemyst]

If the good lord wanted us to run 20+ miles he wouldn't have given us horses, bycicles, cars, trains, planes, etc. He did want us to look jacked which is why we have stringer tanks and mirrors

if he wanted us to lift heavy, he wouldn't have created hired help.

 

[mammador]

Erm...no. Some calories have added nutriets, whilst other do not.

Who frankly says that the calories in ice cream equal that of tomatoes or other veg?