Jump to content
Saru Inc

*Diet* questions

Recommended Posts

Calories burnt during the activity do little to help us lose fat. The critical component of successful fat loss relies on our metabolism and certain hormones flowing through our body. This is why shorter more intense workouts are much more efficient.

 

Training at a lower intensity burns calories only during the activity. As soon as you stop you will stop burning calories. This is because this form of training hardly raises your metabolism. Also longer, less intense cardio sessions hardly stimulate our body to release hormones which will help our fat loss progress. If done long enough though, you can actually stimulate a hormone that works against us...cortisol. Cortisol is a catabolic hormone which actually eats away at muscle. This is obviously a bad thing!

 

On the other hand, shorter, more intense cardio workouts release certain hormones, most importantly Growth Hormone. The amazing thing about growth hormone is that it helps us build muscle, and does its best to stop fat from storing on our body. We could eat as much as we want and we won't put on any fat. (However if you got an absolutely voracious appetite, you might, at worst very slowly put on some fat.) That's why if we got the hormones flowing in abundance in our body, an occasional pig out day, or binge isn't going to hurt our progress.

 

Another great benefit of intense training is that it raises our metabolism substantially, for up to 48-72 hours afterwards. Seeing how it keeps the metabolism elevated for up to 3 days afterwards, imagine what would happen if you did these cardio workouts every other day. Your metabolism would be like a fat destroying furnace!

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Intense-Cardio-is-Much-More-Efficient-at-Burning-Fat&id=934858

 

 

 

 

* Myth: Exercise done at a low intensity, such as walking, is better at fat burning than other high-intensity activities, like running or cardio activities where you push yourself very hard.

 

The Truth: In a strict scientific sense, these claims are true because working at a lower intensity requires less quick energy and a higher percentage of fat is burned. But you'll also burn fewer calories than you would if, for the same amount of time, you work out at a harder intensity (running versus walking). If you're trying to lose weight, even though a higher percentage of fat is being used, a lower total amount of fat is lost.

 

Whether increased fat burning will result in actual weight loss is dependent upon several variables, including the total calories burned (which include both fat and carbohydrate calories) and the total fat calories burned. If you do work at a low intensity, you need to increase the time spent exercising to burn more calories. What matters most is the total number of calories burned. If you burned 250 calories every day from a short, fast jog, you'd see a bigger difference in weight and fat loss than if you walked everyday for the same amount of time. The number of fat calories you burn isn't that important, because even if you burn a lot of carb calories, these need to be replaced both by the carbs you eat in your diet and also within your body. Your fat stores will be broken down and transformed into carbohydrates when you need fuel. Even if you're burning lots of carb calories and less fat calories through exercise, your fat still inevitably gets used.

 

It boils — not burns — down to this: During the same amount of time you don't use more calories at lower exercise intensities. If you're trying to lose weight and you have only 30 minutes to work out, you would burn fewer calories walking at a moderate pace compared to walking at a fast pace. Working out at higher intensities may cause you to burn a lower percentage of fat, but since you burn more total calories, you still use more fat calories.

 

Low- to moderate-intensity exercise can burn a significant number of calories over a period of time. If you aren't fit enough to push yourself to work at a high intensity, or you have a physical weakness that prevents you from doing so, you can still burn a lot of calories by doing low-intensity workouts for a longer period of time.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/busting-the-great-myths-of-fat-burning.html#ixzz0vbkMrU9P

 

 

. A study by Gibala et al.[5] demonstrated 2.5 hours of sprint interval training produced similar biochemical muscle changes to 10.5 hours of endurance training and similar endurance performance benefits. According to a study by King [6] , HIIT increases the resting metabolic rate (RMR) for the following 24 hours due to excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, and may improve maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) more effectively than doing only traditional, long aerobic workouts.[7][8][9][10]

 

Long aerobic workouts have been promoted as the best method to reduce fat, as fatty acid utilization usually occurs after at least 30 minutes of training.[citation needed] HIIT is somewhat counterintuitive in this regard, but has nonetheless been shown to burn fat more effectively.[citation needed] There may be a number of factors that contribute to this, including an increase in RMR, and possibly other physiological effects.[citation needed]

 

High-intensity interval training has also been shown to improve athletic performance. For already well-trained athletes, improvements in performance become difficult to attain and increases in training volume can potentially yield no improvements. Previous research would suggest that, for athletes who are already trained, improvements in endurance performance can be achieved through high-intensity interval training. A recent study by Driller[11] showed an 8.2 second improvement in 2000m rowing time following 4 weeks of HIIT in well-trained rowers. This equates to a significant 2% improvement after just 7 interval training sessions. The interval training used by Driller and colleagues involved 8 x 2.5 minute work bouts at 90% of vVO2max, with individualized recovery intervals between each work bout.

 

Recently it has been shown that two weeks of HIIT can substantially improve insulin action in young healthy men.[12] HIIT may therefore represent a viable method for prevention of type-2 diabetes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

 

 

Long Duration, Low Intensity Exercise

 

Defined:

 

Going for long runs or walks, time spent on treadmills, bikes, rollerblades , gym classes – and all exercise where we spend a lot of time doing (think 30 – 60 minutes) not challenging our body the whole time and not breathing heavily.

 

Positives:

 

* Helps your cardiovascular system – heart, blood vessels and lungs

* Creates circulation into your brain

* Good for blood pressure and cholesterol

* There are several benefits to long duration, low intensity

 

Negatives:

 

* Gets your hormones working against you

* Cortisol levels go up because it causes long standing stress on your body and body stores more fat and breaks down more muscle

* Your appetite is stimulated

* Recover slower from exercise

 

Short Duration, High Intensity Exercise

 

Defined:

 

Also defined as “Surge” or “Burst” Training or interval training. Performing a short surge in exercise, followed by a period of rest – then repeating.

 

Positives:

 

* Hormones work in your favor

* Your body continues to burn fat and build muscle long after your workout

* Pushing your body to its maximum ability, not beyond it

* Testosterone and growth hormone increase

* Endorphin boost (fights depression and anxiety)

http://hubpages.com/hub/long-duration--low-intensity-vs-short-duration--high-intensity-exercise

 

 

 

 

If you eat at a caloric deficit while lifting weights, you WILL lose fat and gain muscle. Of course, you will lose weight a lot faster if you add cardio, but lifting can achieve weight loss too. The fact that you use the word "tone" says a lot.

 

 

 

e: and what the hell, from another forum

 

high intensity cardio burns more calories due to the recovery needed increasing your metabolism for a prolonged period after due to something called "Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption" it is widely criticised as a myth but the results of countless people speak for themselves.

just use the Olympic sprinter argument some of leanest guys in the world and all they rely do for training is flat out dash's.

the low intensity cardio taps into your fat stores more effectively for energy however you need to do about 1 and half hour to have same benefit as a good HIIT session

Pretty much all you need to know. When you are working out at mod intesnity for longer durations (RER of ~0.8) you are burning fat as your energy source WHILST you are exercising. Where as during HIIT (RER 1.0), you are burning carbs as your main energy source WHILST exercising. After HIIT, you enter EPOC - and is when fats are utilised to replenish carbohydrate stores due to carbohydrate depletion/low levels as a result of HIIT.


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, and I agree with it all. My point wasn't that you drop everything besides cardio, but rather that you should be doing cardio for a longer amount of time instead of short bursts of it. I don't understand why everyone "facepalmed" at my post when everything you posted agrees with it. I was not implying that when doing cardio you should walk or do something non-strenuous for a long amount of time, just that, along with a balanced workout routine and diet, cardio should be for a consistent long period of time.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, and I agree with it all. My point wasn't that you drop everything besides cardio, but rather that you should be doing cardio for a longer amount of time instead of short bursts of it. I don't understand why everyone "facepalmed" at my post when everything you posted agrees with it. I was not implying that when doing cardio you should walk or do something non-strenuous for a long amount of time, just that, along with a balanced workout routine and diet, cardio should be for a consistent long period of time.

 

What do you mean by short bursts? Are you talking each individual session, where intensity does matter (as opposed to doing light jogging/walking), or are you talking about being dedicated to it and doing it consistently every week? Because you said to increase the amount of time and not the intensity, which is what everyone is disagreeing with you about, and that I posted info against in my last post


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By short bursts I meant things like sprints or short (15-30 minutes) intense cardio. I still don't understand how anything you posted disagrees with what I said. If you read the articles they really do not prove that long lower-intensity workouts are not as efficient as short intense ones, which is what I was trying to say. They only state that short intense workouts also help in weight loss, which I am not disagreeing with. Sure, if you're looking to build muscle that type of workout is probably for you, but I think the OP is looking for weight loss, not muscle building. If you read some of his posts, his 1.5 mile cardio is not enough to lose the weight he wants to. My suggestion was to increase the time spent during cardio, focusing more on time instead of intensity. I don't see the problem. Besides, there are thousands of studies done that prove that either side of our argument is correct. I'm not trying to debate semantics, I'm just trying to give a suggestion based on what the OP said his problem was.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By short bursts I meant things like sprints or short (15-30 minutes) intense cardio. I still don't understand how anything you posted disagrees with what I said. If you read the articles they really do not prove that long lower-intensity workouts are not as efficient as short intense ones, which is what I was trying to say. They only state that short intense workouts also help in weight loss, which I am not disagreeing with.

 

This stuff I posted does say that short burst is better for weight loss.


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By short bursts I meant things like sprints or short (15-30 minutes) intense cardio. I still don't understand how anything you posted disagrees with what I said. If you read the articles they really do not prove that long lower-intensity workouts are not as efficient as short intense ones, which is what I was trying to say. They only state that short intense workouts also help in weight loss, which I am not disagreeing with. Sure, if you're looking to build muscle that type of workout is probably for you, but I think the OP is looking for weight loss, not muscle building. If you read some of his posts, his 1.5 mile cardio is not enough to lose the weight he wants to. My suggestion was to increase the time spent during cardio, focusing more on time instead of intensity. I don't see the problem. Besides, there are thousands of studies done that prove that either side of our argument is correct. I'm not trying to debate semantics, I'm just trying to give a suggestion based on what the OP said his problem was.

 

What Bloodstain posted said that HIIT was better for weight loss than long duration, steady state cardio. Long duration cardio is only beneficial to those looking to improve heart and lung function, lower their blood pressure, and other "health" benefits.

 

High intesnity burst cardio is for weight loss.

 

It is a well known fact that exercising for a long time will increase the levels of cortisol in your bloodstream. Cortisol greatly hinders fat loss. Also, exercising for long periods of time puts a bigger stress on your immune and edocrine system.

 

Not to mention....it just takes more time. With a high intensity interval session, you can accomplish more in 15-30 minutes than you could in a 1 hr or longer jog.

 

The human body just isnt designed to run for that long. We needed to run after prey, and run away from prey. Nobody's body is built for doing that type of activity and it really just is unnecessary stress. I mean, its one thing if you are looking to become a marathon runner/athlete, but if you just want to lose weight and/or build muscle, then long duration steady-state cardio simply is not for you. It is harder on the joints, it is more boring, it is harder on your various vital systems, and it just plain takes longer to get the same results you would with HIIT.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also some might find this article interesting.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/fat_loss_training_wars.htm

 

Yeah, I thought that was pretty good, not sure how accurate that info on the increased metabolism after heavy lifting is. I can imagine it varies hugely, from person to person, and depending on the effort they put in.

 

 

By short bursts I meant things like sprints or short (15-30 minutes) intense cardio. I still don't understand how anything you posted disagrees with what I said. If you read the articles they really do not prove that long lower-intensity workouts are not as efficient as short intense ones, which is what I was trying to say. They only state that short intense workouts also help in weight loss, which I am not disagreeing with. Sure, if you're looking to build muscle that type of workout is probably for you, but I think the OP is looking for weight loss, not muscle building. If you read some of his posts, his 1.5 mile cardio is not enough to lose the weight he wants to. My suggestion was to increase the time spent during cardio, focusing more on time instead of intensity. I don't see the problem. Besides, there are thousands of studies done that prove that either side of our argument is correct. I'm not trying to debate semantics, I'm just trying to give a suggestion based on what the OP said his problem was.

 

What Bloodstain posted said that HIIT was better for weight loss than long duration, steady state cardio. Long duration cardio is only beneficial to those looking to improve heart and lung function, lower their blood pressure, and other "health" benefits.

 

High intesnity burst cardio is for weight loss.

 

It is a well known fact that exercising for a long time will increase the levels of cortisol in your bloodstream. Cortisol greatly hinders fat loss. Also, exercising for long periods of time puts a bigger stress on your immune and edocrine system.

 

Not to mention....it just takes more time. With a high intensity interval session, you can accomplish more in 15-30 minutes than you could in a 1 hr or longer jog.

 

The human body just isnt designed to run for that long. We needed to run after prey, and run away from prey. Nobody's body is built for doing that type of activity and it really just is unnecessary stress. I mean, its one thing if you are looking to become a marathon runner/athlete, but if you just want to lose weight and/or build muscle, then long duration steady-state cardio simply is not for you. It is harder on the joints, it is more boring, it is harder on your various vital systems, and it just plain takes longer to get the same results you would with HIIT.

 

I think the whole point is, he could do with upping his distance from his 1.5 miles or whatever to something more like 3-4, which really isn't much more, and shouldn't be much longer than half an hour.


rosssigfinal.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the whole point is, he could do with upping his distance from his 1.5 miles or whatever to something more like 3-4, which really isn't much more, and shouldn't be much longer than half an hour.

 

I would still focus more on the minutes than the miles. I think 1.5 miles is plenty of distance to have an effective HIIT session with, especially for someone in poor health. I mean yeah, once you get into better shape, your "lows" are gonna be at the pace of like a 6-7 minute mile and your "sprints" are gonna be at like a 5 minute mile...so a 30 minute session will give you 4+ miles. But for someone who might be like at a speed-walking pace in their "lows" they just aren't gonna cover the same mileage.

 

Bottom line is that smart cardio focuses on your state of body and your heart rate. If I walked into the gym and said "Yup imma run 4 miles today" sometimes I would get a good training session in, sometimes I wouldnt. You need to just focus on interval technique and learning what your body is doing. Miles and minutes are both horrible goals for a cardio session (again, unless you are an athlete who is focused on performance. but for someone looking for weight loss, miles and minutes tell you nothing about how much you achieved towards your goal of losing weight)


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, and I agree with it all. My point wasn't that you drop everything besides cardio, but rather that you should be doing cardio for a longer amount of time instead of short bursts of it. I don't understand why everyone "facepalmed" at my post when everything you posted agrees with it. I was not implying that when doing cardio you should walk or do something non-strenuous for a long amount of time, just that, along with a balanced workout routine and diet, cardio should be for a consistent long period of time.

I think people facepalmed at the mention of "toning" :lol:


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the whole point is, he could do with upping his distance from his 1.5 miles or whatever to something more like 3-4, which really isn't much more, and shouldn't be much longer than half an hour.

 

I would still focus more on the minutes than the miles. I think 1.5 miles is plenty of distance to have an effective HIIT session with, especially for someone in poor health. I mean yeah, once you get into better shape, your "lows" are gonna be at the pace of like a 6-7 minute mile and your "sprints" are gonna be at like a 5 minute mile...so a 30 minute session will give you 4+ miles. But for someone who might be like at a speed-walking pace in their "lows" they just aren't gonna cover the same mileage.

 

Bottom line is that smart cardio focuses on your state of body and your heart rate. If I walked into the gym and said "Yup imma run 4 miles today" sometimes I would get a good training session in, sometimes I wouldnt. You need to just focus on interval technique and learning what your body is doing. Miles and minutes are both horrible goals for a cardio session (again, unless you are an athlete who is focused on performance. but for someone looking for weight loss, miles and minutes tell you nothing about how much you achieved towards your goal of losing weight)

 

 

Oh yeah, true, I guess I just assummed he'd be going at a decent rate which pushes his heart rate up around 70%


rosssigfinal.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.