Someone in this forum had referred to this post for someone who was 360+ lbs at abour 6 feet saying this was the best method for weight loss.....
After reading through, I would say this post is good for someone who is looking to cut the excess fat off of a body that is already in prime shape. I would not say that this diet plan or methodology is ideal for someone who is looking to lose weight such as our friend mentioned above...wouldn't you agree? If I'm wrong on that please educate me. Edit: Also if you are going to be having a shake with lean protein to accumulate over 60 g in one meal, don't you think it would make sense to take an HCl tablet at that point, so your body can actually use all of the protein you just ingested? |
Quote:
Quote:
Either the protein will be utilized or oxidized. I wouldn't recommend an HCL tablet. I'm not sure, but I THINK that this could delay gastric emptying which would be contrary to the goal of the shake in the first place. I doubt that it would "do" anything in terms of utilization. |
What about for somone who isnt in prime shape? but still wants to cut first then clean bulk then cut?
|
8. Cardio- Cardio and cutting usually go hand in hand. I won't go into specifics about length, other than cardio shouldn't be excessive. 20 to 30 minutes daily should be sufficient, and should be performed on an empty stomach.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + My only complaint would be that cardio, or better stated, aerobic exercise, received little attention in this thread. I think it more beneficial to add to cardio than to reduce caloric intake to cut, as long as it is true aerobic exercise that is being performed, as many athletes tend to overcompensate in this area, i.e., they overexert to the extent that they turn aerobic workouts into anaerobic ones. I'd also like to propose NEVER NOT doing aerobic exercise as part of your bodybuilding routine, a minimum of 30 minutes per day, everyday, even on "off" days, and during cutting, gradually increasing to 2 hours per day, every day. Like diet, results will vary, depending on your own body chemistry/metabolism and condition, but with (up to) 2 hours of aerobic exercise performed daily, anyone should be able to cut 2 pounds of pure fat every week, and never lose an ounce of muscle in the process. Just remember that aerobic exercise is low-grade, in terms of something we can relate to, i'd say the amount of energy exerted while walking at a moderate pace, to no more than 3 times the amount of exertion--just enough to SLIGHTLY elevate heartrate and respiration, but NOT fatigue the muscles. Also remember that, as with anything, there is a point of diminishing returns. For example, if you start at 200 pounds body weight, your body will have to work harder/burn more calories than when you are down to 185, given the same amount of exertion/duration of exercise, etc. This is why i recommend starting out with 30 minutes per day, and gradually increasing to a maximum of 2 hours per day as your weight/fat percentage decreases. So in the beginning, you will be able to burn more fat with less aerobic exercise, due to greater body weight/mass. Just don't make the mistake of equating greater exertion with greater fat loss, it doesn't work that way. The exercise has to be kept aerobic, or you will be defeating its purpose. -jaems |
You're making the mistake of equating a higher percentage of fat being burned in low intensity effort with MORE fat being burned. Not necessarily the case. There is ALWAYS more than one way of doing things and it is useful to keep in mind the effect on metabolism AFTER the cardio. The fact is even high intensity WEIGHT WORK has been shown to burn more fat throughout the day than low intensity work of anykind. So also with HIIT style "cardio".
Probably people should do what works for them. There is not usually a one size fits all in this, nor in diet. But I think a mix of both higher intensity and lower intensiy would be very useful. It wouldn't be possible to sum up the optimal approach to cardio for everyone in one thread. That's why we have a whole fat-loss forum :) . For a clue as to what I'm talking about look up the term EPOC: Excess Post-Excercise Oxygen Consumption. |
Quote:
Sorry, i'm not sure what you mean by your first statement. The point of my post was simply to point out that when most people talk about cutting, they talk about diet alone, and seem 2 forget about aerobic exercise (evidenced by the brief treatment it got in this thread), or just think of it as an added assurance to weight loss. However, if you kept your diet and workouts exactly the same, and only introduced aerobic exercise into your workout regimine, u would lose fat while retaining muscle. Losing weight this way is more efficient, and involves less risk of losing muscle mass, if done correctly. On the otherhand, drastically cutting caloric intake is much more risky and imprecise in this regard. Unfortunately, what most people consider aerobic exercise is actually anaerobic, and counterproductive to proper weight loss. Aerobic exercise increases/intensifies the metabolic process whereby fats are broken down by the body more readily than by simply cutting caloric intake. In fact, it amps up the metabolic process, regardless of caloric intake. Given the choice between cutting another 250 calories per day from my diet or adding another hour to my daily aerobic exercise, i'd choose the latter. And i'd have the assurance that my muscle mass was safe. In fact, i have been able to continue to add muscle mass while cutting this way. Just my take on things, and what works 4 me, tested and proven. -jaems |
Quote:
Yes aerobic exercise must be added but there is a point to where you can not add anymore aerobic exercises and something has to give. Also, you add too much aerobic exercises or performing it longer than needed, 2+ hours for example, your body become too efficient at storing energy when working out to perform these exercises, for example long distance runners and sprinters. On top of that your body needs to rest and if your body is always stressed then you will start producing hormones that retain fat. |
Quote:
2. Again, most people confuse aerobic exercise with anaerobic. Long distance runners, for example, exercise at oxygen deficient, anaerobic levels. 3. As stated in my first post, the degree to which true aerobic exercise stresses/fatigues the muscles (or body) is negligible. The goal is to SLIGHTLY raise the bodies natural temperature--a SLIGHT increase in heartbeat and respiration. For me, this translates to something akin to 2x the energy expended while walking, but sustained for 30-60 minutes twice daily for optimal results. Mileage will vary, depending on age, weight, bf percentage, etc. 4. My point: people aren't getting the desired results from "cardio," because they are going at it all wrong by working too hard, fatiguing their muscles (and body), and exercising in a state of oxygen depletion. This is counterproductive, but the norm. -jaems |
Wow, I have no idea what you mean by long distance runners working at anaerobic levels. They would have to be running long distance at a full out sprint. An oxymoron. Likwise I don't undertand what you mean by oxygen depleting. Do you mean glycogen depleting?
What I meant by my first statement is that just because excercise in a certain intensity burns fat at a higher percentage of total calories this does not mean that MORE overall fat is being burned. It's true that fat is burned preferentially at lower and lower intensities...in fact while I am sitting here typing this I fat is the "preferred fuel". But I am not burning many total calories so that higher percentage of fat being burned doesn't translate to very much. It's the same with low intesity cardio. Even though there is a lower percentage of fat being used at higher intensitiesm more calories being burned mean more fat overall being burned. However, even when the actual amount of BF burned falls short the resting metabolic rate is increased for much longer. Depending on the relative intensity, your statement that low intensity long duration exercise (you promoted working up to two hours) is categorically untrue. Exercise 70% or higher of maximum intensity has been shown to increase metabolic rate from 5-19% for up to 38 hours after the cessation of exercise (‘Impact of energy intake and exercise on resting metabolic rate', Mole et al, Sports Medicine, vol 10, pp 72-87). Exercise below 70% does not have the same effect. The longer you are able to maintain it the less effect it has on RMR with a cutoff wherein there will be no effect whatsoever. The blanket statement that low intensity is aerobic and most people are actually doing anaerobic work is untrue. In fact, if you are busting your ass to maintain the intensity then the aaerobic/oxidative system will kick in after one minute, but there will be overlap in the fuel systems. It is really all related to time and when the first primary fuel systems are either mostly depleted or whether they are being called on much at all due to the predominant fiber type being used. I am not promoting one way over another. This is all just to address the specific statements you have made in redards to aerobic vs. anaerobic training and also the mythological effect of long duration cardio on resting metabolic rate. Quote:
HIIT Overview a |
Hi, Eric:
I have the best source 4 my arguments--my own body. But i don't want 2 belabor the point, or become argumentative, so this will b my last post regarding the subject. Let's just lay both views on the table and let others decide 4 themselves through self-experimentation, if they so decide. To my point, even your reference had this to say, "Traditionally this approach began when we developed the knowledge of how the body uses energy to fuel long duration activity (we call it cardio). However, while the knowledge is sound, the resulting ideas of reducing BF are not as effective as it is believed." The knowledge is sound indeed. My only rebuttal would b that it is both sound and effective, and i have personally experienced it. Moreover, there are so many tainted views (not suggesting either yours' or your sources') on this subject, because many of the proponents of this view are AS users. And i attribute their herculean cardio and weight workouts, and muscle mass retention 2 the same. Neither they nor their opionions have any place in such discussions. Furthermore, in my (admittedly unqualified) opinion, the "cardio" suggested by your source will only serve 2 further fatigue/stress the body, increasing the catabolism of muscle tissue, when coupled with a calorie depleted state, i.e., when burning more calories than caloric intake. I'll agree to disagree, but don't mind if u continue in the same vein, as i realize it is an extremely important topic, worthy of debate. -jaems |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.