Spliff Star
03-25-08, 01:53 PM
This is something I've kept for some years and been goin by since I've read it. I recommend you take the time to read.
This is the reason HIIT > your favorite "cardio" workout.
Be sure to check out http://forums.sohh.com/showthread.php?t=999550 for the HIIT guide
Understanding Cardio
By Boyd Myers
I think, in training, the word "cardio" is as mis-used as the word "diet."
Let's go over a few things:
-For fat to be the primary source of fuel, you need to be in the 55% (Maximum Allowable Heart Rate) MAH range.
-The 55% range does NOTHING to stimulate the heart and lungs. It will NOT increase your VO2 capacity (how efficiently your lungs/heart use oxygen)
-Training in the 55% range must be done for relatively long periods of time (>30-35 mins) to maximize fat burning benefits.
-75-80% MAH DOES train the heart/lungs, and THIS is what is actually meant by "cardio".
-75-80% MAH, unfortunately, primarily burns glycogen for fuel. Longer durations of the 75-80% range, however, will force your body to catabolize muscle in search of fuel (via BCAAs)
-Your heart is arguably the most important muscle. If you want ALL of your systems (hormone, digestion, ATP production, recovery, etc) to work optimally, you need to strengthen your heart. Thus, training within this range is important. Also remember that a stronger heart MORE EFFICIENTLY burns fat while at rest. 99% of the bodybuilders I know are TERRIFIED at training at this range, but it is a MISTAKE to be that way. You MUST, but of course, you have to ensure that you are giving you are "fueled" for it.
-Obviously, IF done for a shorter amount of time, you will burn more total calories (and, contrary to popular belief, more of those calories will actually be from fat than the slower version) with the 75-80% range.
This information should be pretty basic, but I repeatedly see asanine quesions like "Should I be doing cardio while bulking?" "How much cardio do I need?" Etc, etc.
Look at the information above and don't be afraid to use common sense. It seems like when it comes to building muscle and burning fat, people leave common sense at the door. I realize that the body works in mysterious ways and many times, it goes against logic (eating MORE to lose weight? drink MORE water to fight water retention?) But so many things DO work the way they are expected.
To be perfectly honest, cardio isn't even the most efficient means to create a caloric deficit (diet IS). It's a heck of a lot easier to remove 500 calories from the diet than it is to burn 500 calories on a treadmill, plus it's less impactive on the recovery systems of the body. Also, it's a little easier to manipulate what nutrients are consumed as fuel (via macronutrient manipulation).
Think about it in terms of math. Lets say after a full day of activity, including lifting, your body burns 2500 calories a day and to lose weight, you need to create a 500 calorie a day deficit.
There are a few ways to do that. Here are some EXAMPLES:
2000 calorie a day consumption
-Negative: the heart will get NO training.
-Positive: you don't have to do cardio
2500 calorie a day consumption minus 500 extra calories from cardio
-Positive: You CAN work your heart (if you get in the range)
-Negative: Unless your nutrition is perfect and you plan for it, you're going to tap into muscle. Also, you have to bust your @ss doing cardio.
2200 calories consumed minus 200 extra calories from cardio
-Positive: best of both worlds. Less time in the gym and you can eat a little more
When burning fat, I typically like to combine the two, like in the last example. IN my case, I don't WANT to be in a caloric deficit. I am focusing on building muscle WHILE training my heart. This is basically what I'm doing (an EXAMPLE, not exact):
On a typical day, I burn 3200 calories.
When I add cardio, I burn 300 additonal calories, bringing it to a total of 3500 calories burned.
I want a caloric surplus to ensure a positive nitrogen balance and optimization of recovery, so I will consume 300 additional calories, bringing it to 3800 calories.
Got it?
This is the reason HIIT > your favorite "cardio" workout.
Be sure to check out http://forums.sohh.com/showthread.php?t=999550 for the HIIT guide
Understanding Cardio
By Boyd Myers
I think, in training, the word "cardio" is as mis-used as the word "diet."
Let's go over a few things:
-For fat to be the primary source of fuel, you need to be in the 55% (Maximum Allowable Heart Rate) MAH range.
-The 55% range does NOTHING to stimulate the heart and lungs. It will NOT increase your VO2 capacity (how efficiently your lungs/heart use oxygen)
-Training in the 55% range must be done for relatively long periods of time (>30-35 mins) to maximize fat burning benefits.
-75-80% MAH DOES train the heart/lungs, and THIS is what is actually meant by "cardio".
-75-80% MAH, unfortunately, primarily burns glycogen for fuel. Longer durations of the 75-80% range, however, will force your body to catabolize muscle in search of fuel (via BCAAs)
-Your heart is arguably the most important muscle. If you want ALL of your systems (hormone, digestion, ATP production, recovery, etc) to work optimally, you need to strengthen your heart. Thus, training within this range is important. Also remember that a stronger heart MORE EFFICIENTLY burns fat while at rest. 99% of the bodybuilders I know are TERRIFIED at training at this range, but it is a MISTAKE to be that way. You MUST, but of course, you have to ensure that you are giving you are "fueled" for it.
-Obviously, IF done for a shorter amount of time, you will burn more total calories (and, contrary to popular belief, more of those calories will actually be from fat than the slower version) with the 75-80% range.
This information should be pretty basic, but I repeatedly see asanine quesions like "Should I be doing cardio while bulking?" "How much cardio do I need?" Etc, etc.
Look at the information above and don't be afraid to use common sense. It seems like when it comes to building muscle and burning fat, people leave common sense at the door. I realize that the body works in mysterious ways and many times, it goes against logic (eating MORE to lose weight? drink MORE water to fight water retention?) But so many things DO work the way they are expected.
To be perfectly honest, cardio isn't even the most efficient means to create a caloric deficit (diet IS). It's a heck of a lot easier to remove 500 calories from the diet than it is to burn 500 calories on a treadmill, plus it's less impactive on the recovery systems of the body. Also, it's a little easier to manipulate what nutrients are consumed as fuel (via macronutrient manipulation).
Think about it in terms of math. Lets say after a full day of activity, including lifting, your body burns 2500 calories a day and to lose weight, you need to create a 500 calorie a day deficit.
There are a few ways to do that. Here are some EXAMPLES:
2000 calorie a day consumption
-Negative: the heart will get NO training.
-Positive: you don't have to do cardio
2500 calorie a day consumption minus 500 extra calories from cardio
-Positive: You CAN work your heart (if you get in the range)
-Negative: Unless your nutrition is perfect and you plan for it, you're going to tap into muscle. Also, you have to bust your @ss doing cardio.
2200 calories consumed minus 200 extra calories from cardio
-Positive: best of both worlds. Less time in the gym and you can eat a little more
When burning fat, I typically like to combine the two, like in the last example. IN my case, I don't WANT to be in a caloric deficit. I am focusing on building muscle WHILE training my heart. This is basically what I'm doing (an EXAMPLE, not exact):
On a typical day, I burn 3200 calories.
When I add cardio, I burn 300 additonal calories, bringing it to a total of 3500 calories burned.
I want a caloric surplus to ensure a positive nitrogen balance and optimization of recovery, so I will consume 300 additional calories, bringing it to 3800 calories.
Got it?