True or false: Cardio doesn't burn fat.
I always thought it did but my physical trainer says cardio will only burn what you ate earlier in the day. Unless you just woke up in the morning on an empty stomach and ran on the treadmill. He said weight training will burn fat. Does anyone know if he's right?
I tried looking it up but I couldn't find it in my books. :)
Yes and no - you're body will always burn of what you ate earlier in the day because that's the energy that is readily available in your system (hasn't been stored as fat) - regardless of if you're weight training or doing cardio. Don't think about the burning fat thing - it's really irrelevant and the studies that refer to burning fat aren't referring to the fat cells in your body (it's pretty misleading). Bottom line, to lose weight you need to burn more calories than you take in. Hard cardio is great for burning lots of calories. Weight training is also good for supporting your body and building muscel.
At the end of the day, you want to do both to see the best results.
Oh, thanks! I don't know if you can answer this but, do you know how long it takes for the body to store the food as fat?
The bottom line is cardio doesn't burn fat any better than not eating those calories in the first place. Of course there are benefits of cardio, just saying that it's not a better fat burning activity than sitting on the couch and not eating those 500 cals
Weight training DOES burn fat, however.
The best fat burners are HIIT, lifting and what and how much you eat.
Original Post by christalynn:
Oh, thanks! I don't know if you can answer this but, do you know how long it takes for the body to store the food as fat?
It doesn't matter - it isn't like you need to burn off food before it turns to fat.
Keep a daily deficit of about 500 calories, by increasing your activity and if necessary, reducing your intake, and you will lose weight. Lift to help make sure that the weight you lose is fat, not muscle.
wait, wait, wait. I'm confused here. If you're running long distance and your muscles have used up all their sugars and go-to energy stores, wouldnt they HAVE to turn to metabolizing fat for fuel?
Maybe, but I've heard (please don't quote me) that it takes hours for that to happen - but that's not necessary to lose fat.
Original Post by amethystgirl:
Maybe, but I've heard (please don't quote me) that it takes hours for that to happen - but that's not necessary to lose fat.
Yeah, that would make sense. And i'm talking long-distance as in a half marathon.
Original Post by mudcakebakery:
wait, wait, wait. I'm confused here. If you're running long distance and your muscles have used up all their sugars and go-to energy stores, wouldnt they HAVE to turn to metabolizing fat for fuel?
It could also burn muscle for fuel.
Original Post by spirochete:
The bottom line is
cardioaerobics doesn't burn fat any better than not eating those calories in the first place.
Fixed it for you. Cardio can burns tons of fat, it just depends on the type of cardio you do.
Original Post by jenningermany:
Original Post by mudcakebakery:
wait, wait, wait. I'm confused here. If you're running long distance and your muscles have used up all their sugars and go-to energy stores, wouldnt they HAVE to turn to metabolizing fat for fuel?
It could also burn muscle for fuel.
Oh dear... Your body is only going to break down muscle if the energy available from said muscle is readily available (versus glycogen and fat). Your body is going to draw energy from the best possible source. If you are running long, it is going to draw energy from both your glycogen and your fat stores, depending on how fast you are running. The faster you run, the more glycogen you use. At slower speeds, the body is able to metabolize fat for energy.
When you run out of glycogen, you have hit the proverbial wall, and are going to find it very difficult to continue running. That's why LD runners eat and drink while they run. Burning fat on long slow runs allows us to push the wall further and further back, because we are not using our glycogen stores.
It rarely happens if you're looking at acute effects; you'll have to keep running past the bonk without refilling to have it be an acute muscle protein loss from endurance training.
I kinda define that as spectacularily insane lengths. Like ultramarathoners.
It's the chronic adaptations and post-workout effects that can prove problematical in most training contexts unless you take real special care with the pre/post-workout nutrition; longer endurance sessions depresses protein resynthesis to the point where it can cause a net loss of muscle protein.
Generally that doesn't happen for the recreational trainee, but for serious athletes and ambitious amateurs it's good to keep in mind that taking a hit of chocolate milk post-run and getting in some good protein/carbs every 2 hours thereafter is going to be helpful.
This article is very interesting:
http://figureathlete.tmuscle.com/free_online_ article/training/running_makes_you_fat
Original Post by entersandlady:
This article is very interesting:
http://figureathlete.tmuscle.com/free_online_ article/training/running_makes_you_fat
okay, this is right up there with that red-meat-will-kill-you article.
Original Post by pgeorgian:
Original Post by entersandlady:
This article is very interesting:
http://figureathlete.tmuscle.com/free_online_ article/training/running_makes_you_fat
okay, this is right up there with that red-meat-will-kill-you article.
But did you read the article and not just the heading??
PG - in terms of the inflamatory title, I'll agree with you.
Have you read The Final Nail in the Cardio Coffin? Similar theme, with pics of the author to illustrate. I'd kill to look like the pics on the third page.
Well, I appreciate Wet Wolf's perspective when it comes to getting leaned out for physique competition - the margins are different for bodybuilders, figure athletes, Fitness competitors and other competitive dieters.
It's not relevant to the average recreational trainee looking for workaday fitness, just like the training needs for a competitive triathlete or a powerlifter isn't going to be terribly relevant to the average recreational trainee, neh?
Original Post by pgeorgian:
Original Post by entersandlady:
This article is very interesting:
http://figureathlete.tmuscle.com/free_online_ article/training/running_makes_you_fat
okay, this is right up there with that red-meat-will-kill-you article.
Geez louise. "Here is a picture I found of one triathlete who is not 120 pounds, crystalline proof that running causes fat gain."
Good arguments usually don't need to rely on cheap visuals like stills from comedy movies and cryptic spectra with unlabeled axes. (Cardio ranges from RED to GREEN! The difference, you see, is the COLOR.) It seems like not every thing that she says is false (not sure which sex this "Wet Wolf" is, actually), but yeesh, holy propaganda.
Original Post by corduroyfirekills3:
Geez louise. "Here is a picture I found of one triathlete who is not 120 pounds, crystalline proof that running causes fat gain."
On the other hand, if I had a nickel for every person who has ever posted on here that "Running is the best for weight loss - the proof is that all runners are skinny".... I'd have a lot of nickels.
Original Post by entersandlady:But did you read the article and not just the heading??
i did. the content--once you get past the first few paragraphs--isn't bad. but there's a big difference between "running makes you fat" and "doing the same cardio routine for a decade without variation diminishes your body's capacity to burn fat through cardio." it's hype, and it's hype with an agenda.
