If you wern't on late yesterday, you missed an amazing thread about the effects of cardio on weight loss. This was the first time I have ever learned something from /fit/.
>>35042519
Basically random anon explained why cardio is very ineffective at causing weight loss. Everyone needs to read this. I Did a lot of research in disbelief afterwards, but I am now a believer.....
Didn't mean to link that specific post, that takes you to the thread though..
fucking hell /fit/... I swear you guys are pathetic sometimes, but then I remember according to polls, most of you have been lifting for less than 2 years
Hey OP, how about you try ending your lifting sessions with 30minutes of high intensity cardio. Do this for just one week and that might help you get that stupid idea out of your head.
Cardio is god-tier for losing weight and overall health, you've fallen for the "cardio kills gains" meme.
>>35046763
Why does /fit/ make fun of people who make excuses not to exercise, and then turns around and makes excuses why they don't do cardio? Is everyone on here a fat permabulker?
>>35046889
It seems that way
>>35046845
The entire thread is talking about steady state cardio.
He even says in the first few posts HIIT will leave to a calorie deficit.
You seriously need to read through the comments.
>>35046889
If you don't need the health benefits of steady state cardio, then you don't need to do it. That was his whole point.
>>35046982
Except the negative effects of SS cardio were vastly overblown. It's an example of someone reading a bit of information than extrapolating it to a false conclusion. Cardio can decrease your TDEE sightly by making you calmer, and lowering your RHR, but it doesn't literally cancel out the exercise you did. That's retarded, if that were true marathoners wouldn't need any more food than a normal person, which is blatantly incorrect.Ask any hiker or long-distance biker/runner how many calories they consume in a day. They need a fuckload of calories to maintain, so obviously steady state cardio is beneficial for weight loss.
>>35047038
Read the thread.....There are literally 5 people who make the same retarded post you just did. A marathon is not 1-2 hours of cardio.
Look at the graph in the thread too. If cardio decreases your TDEE slightly then the CR group wouldn't have lost twice as fast for the first 10 weeks. According to your logic they shouldn't have deviated much at all.
lmao what a retarded nonsense
From the study the guy based his claims on, the group that exercises is eating more. So in the end both groups had the same calories deficit.
If you are eating less AND exercising you will have a greater calories deficit and will lose weight faster compared to just eating less.
This discussion aside..
I ran my first 5k today. Still 30lbs over my goal weight, but I did it in about 50 minutes.
So... makes me feel good about myself, which is a plus to my weight loss.
>>35047085
Then why did the group that only had a calorie restriction lose twice as fast for the first 10 weeks?
Based on what you just said both groups have the same calorie deficit, CR only group loses twice as fast for 10 weeks? Why?
>>35047106
Your oxygen efficiency and lowered resting heart rate thanks you.
>>35047106
Not trying to sound like a dick or anything, but did you walk it? An average-quick gait of 4mph would leave you at 45 mins and some change for a 5k.
>>35047146
He's probably fat, fat people don't run. It was a brisk walk I bet, not making fun of him, just saying.
>>35047146
Mix of both. I ran intermittently, brisk walk here and there. Still a fat sack of crap but y'know not bad.
>>35047170
Basically it.
>>35047113
>Then why did the group that only had a calorie restriction lose twice as fast for the first 10 weeks?My initial guess is that exercise and diet have different rates of weight loss. Cal in, cal out applies but just as different macros are metabolized at different rates, exercise takes "longer" to burn calories even if the result is the same in the end. SS cardio burns glycogen preferentially, not fat, while diet alone would burn more fat, they were inactive so unless they were doing keto there's no reason to burn through glycogen first. This is what leads to different rates.
>doing cardio for fat-loss
who would do this? I do cardio for endurance and health benefits, what's the point of being strong if I gas out after 20 seconds of grappling or can't spring 200m?
>>35047106
Good job family. For me personally, I hate doing cardio but really like running races.
Nothing to write home about at 25:04 though
>>35047113
The group that exercised probably put on some muscles or lost less water. Honestly I don't know, you could also ask why the group that exercised had such a big weight loss from week 10 to 11.
>>35047226
Whoops fucked up greentext.
>>35047106
Keep going. It's the right direction.
>>35047204
If you take anything away from all this, do NOT factor your "activity level" (steady state cardio for <2 hours or any other low intesnity evercise) into your calories for the day, only make a restriction through your diet.
Basically get this type of thinking out of your head. (if it exists)
"O boy, I just really pushed myself for that last hour of steady state cardio, I can certainly eat more today, I earned it!" You will gain weight....
>>35047261
I track all my shit with a calorie counter app and only track any weighlifting I do to the best of my ability.
Also I eat at a consistent deficit so we're good. Thanks for looking out though.
>>35047226
both groups maintained the same deficit.
>My initial guess is that exercise and diet have different rates of weight loss
That's the guys entire point!
Same calorie deficit, different weight loss. This is the entire fucking point of what he was trying to say, and the graph shows that the cardio actually probably didn't help in the slightest.
>>35047245
He talks about the exercise group putting on muscle, it actually is what helps him prove his point.
He explained why, the Cr+Exercise group put on muscle mass because this experiment took place over nearly half a year, and they were normies going from 0 exercise to 5 days cardio a week, of course they put on muscle.
READ THE THREAD, DON'T POST AGAIN, JUST READ THE THREAD, anything you ask I'm sure was answered in it.
>>35047288
The guy from the other thread is saying that cardio does NOT burn more calories than just doing nothing.
lmao why am I even answering you, you are probably this guy from the other thread
>doing cardio just to lose weight
>not doing cardio to become superhuman
>>35047341
Right it doesn't, which is why CR lost twice as fast for 10 weeks. Explain why CR only group lost faster for the first 10 weeks, think on that and you will understand.
>>35047387
Then they wouldn't have the same weight loss after 24 weeks m8 just use your brain a little bit
>>35047423
Read the thread please autist, once again already answered in the thread.
A group of normies does only Calorie Restriction and loses twice as fast for 10 weeks.
A group of normies with DIET+EXERCISE (normies who go from 0 exercise to exercise 5 times a week for half a year, put on muscle mass affecting their TDEE over time) loses half as fast for almost 3 months, then slowly starts to catch up towards, the end, the catching up occurred due to the DIET+Exercise group gaining muscle mass.
The graph compliments this very nicely.
Also, >>35042408
>>35047423
If your right, then the muscle added to the CR+EX group should have caused them to pass the CR group easily over time, but they only just managed to catch up at the end.
>>35047497
Mate check your brain, you might have cancer lmao.
If they put on muslces and their TDEE was affected, the calories intake would need to be adjusted. Otherwise the deficit is not 25% anymore and the study is wrong.
Also the study even says that the strength did not change.
The CR+EX group and CR group had the same weight loss after 24 weeks. If the CR+EX group really built some muscles which affected their TDEE like some retards think, they would have significantly lost more fat compared to the CR group.
>>35047548
Strength=/=muscle mass.
The TDEE was not adjusted for muscle mass gained in the Cr+EX group, that is what proves the point.
But think about what you just said, you said the calories would need to be adjusted for the increase in TDEE by the group who put on muscle. If they did adjust calories for the addition of muscle mass, then the CR+EX group would have lost EVEN LESS weight compared to the CR group, that doesn't help your argument at all......
>>35047570
just have to be clear
1. You think a normy who has never exercised, will NOT put on any muscle if he starts doing cardio 5 days a week for half a year?
2. You do NOT believe muscle mass affects base metabolism?
3. The first graph Y axis is weight not bf%. They obviously couldn't do Bf% because one group is adding muscle and one isn't. Weight was the better choice.
>>35047586
>The TDEE was not adjusted for muscle mass gained
Alright mate whatever you say. In this case it's not a 25% deficit anymore and the whole study is nuked :^)
>>35047626
Say they did adjust it, that means the CR+EX group would eat more calories to compensate and keep the same deficit as the CR group, eating more calories means even less weight loss, means even more deviation from the CR group, how is this helping you prove your point?
any consensus on HIIT cardio?
>>35047609
>1. You think a normy who has never exercised, will NOT put on any muscle if he starts doing cardio 5 days a week for half a year?
What I think is not relevant, we're talking about the study here right dumbass
>2. You do NOT believe muscle mass affects base metabolism?
Where did I say this? I only believe you are schizophrenic
>3. The first graph Y axis is weight not bf%. They obviously couldn't do Bf% because one group is adding muscle and one isn't. Weight was the better choice.
The graph I posted shows how many fat the groups lost. If one group added muscles but had the same weight like the other group, they would also need to lose more fat.
I think it would help if you posted the graph from the other thread, people are probably too lazy to go and look at it.
>>35047688
1. The answer is yes they will put on muscle mass, and a significant amount compared to their 0 exercise bodies. The study doesn't talk about/consider this.
2. Glad you understand that part at least.
3. You have to use your brain and think about what would have happened if this was an experiment with only seasoned lifters, (where no one gains muscle mass from cardio) then you will understand.
2.
>>35046763
Ok.
I sort of read through the entire thread and it seems like these are the conclusions.
>To lose WEIGHT (not body only FAT) a deficit is more than enough
>The CR (Calorie Restriction) group lost more weight during the first 10 weeks than the CR+EX (Calorie Restriction + exercise)
Which is why OP was arguing that exercise ALTHOUGH it has HEALTH BENEFITS, is not REQUIRED to lose WEIGHT and even was recommending people NOT to do SS CARDIO because it seems like your body adapts by reducing your metabolism to conserve energy. (Less T3 and that shit)
>People argued that maybe the CR+EX group GAINED MUSCLE which explains why they WEIGHT more than the CR group
>The muscle the CR+EX group gained raised their metabolism which is why after the first 10 weeks they CATCH UP to the CR group.
Correct?
So OP was not arguing for health benefits, body composition, or many other factors. He was PURELY arguing that if you want the numbers of the scale to drop, it was better not to exercise since you'd end up losing weight faster than if you did exercise. I AGREE with him.
But if we take into account body composition, and health, I think we all can agree exercise is beneficial and we will end up with a better body composition doing exercise + a calorie restriction.
Correct?
>>35047765
Exactly. If you're doing cardio, you are actually gaining weight.
>>35047765
> and we will end up with a better body composition doing exercise + a calorie restriction.
Replace exercise with lifting, and you're right, unless you're a normy with no exercise experience, you will not change body comp by adding cardio.
>>People argued that maybe the CR+EX group GAINED MUSCLE which explains why they WEIGHT more than the CR group
The added muscle mass in no way accounts for the near double weight loss the CR group incurred for the first 10 weeks, also that added muscle mass should be helping raise TDEE over time making the weight from muscle even less associated to the overall weight of the CR+EX group.
>>35047803
Not gaining or losing* at least not anywhere close enough to make a difference on the scale.
>>35047806
>The added muscle mass in no way accounts for the near double weight loss the CR group
True.. Did the researchers offer any explanation as to why this might have been the case?
>>35047806
>Replace exercise with lifting, and you're right
Agreed
>>35047765
> it was better not to exercise since you'd end up losing weight faster than if you did exercise
He's saying exercise makes little to no difference in EITHER direction.
As in, people who say runninng 1 hour will result in x calories burned, lets say x is 300 calories.
After your 4-5 hours when you've factored in your TDEE lowering post cardio, it probably comes out somewhere closer to 50 or less calories burned, compared to if you never did anything. It's not worth your time/effort. I would even argue it's not worth the cartilage reduction over time, unless you need the other health benefits related to your circulatory system.
>>35047765
thanks for summing that up, I was about to read it too. Well yeah, it makes sense, if you are already in a mode where your body doesn't get enough kcal's and you burn extra energy, this probably means you will get into some kind of slower metabolism (body trying to keep the little energy inside you there as long as possible).
BUT
exercise is still beneficial and probably better to include, because your overall goal would likely to be fitter/leaner/stronger, which you would only become by adding exercise
>>35047842
What's the verdict about HITT?
>>35047853
Cardio is still massively beneficial, but you can get all the benefits and more AND IN FAR SHORTER TIME, from HIIT, than doing steady state of any sort.
>>35046763
>cardio is very ineffective at causing weight loss
You are seriously fucking retarded if you believe this
>>35047867
>>35047870
HIIT is fucking god tier, do it.
Uphill sprints are the only form of cardio anyone ever needs.
>>35047106
>>35047204
Whatever it takes dude. You did it and I'm glad for you. I was you last year by october. Now I run 10 k every 2 days.
Keep improving your 5k for at least a month, or stay there if it works for you. Congrats
>>35047873
lmao don't even try it's confirmed long ago that OP is retarded
>>35047873
Read thread, come back with an argument. It could change your life anon.
>>35047873
GTFO you don't even lift
>>35047881
Is there a /fit/ guide to HITT?
>>35047682
People who say they do HIIT are lazy fucks who can't run a mile let alone a 5k without wheezing like an old man.
Get out there run and do some cardio.
>>35047941
Here you go buddy.
Good job swallowing the pill, hopefully more will follow.
>>35047958
I think I'd rather be able to run really fast for 5 min, than really far for 3 hours, idk.
>>35046763
> board is called HEALTH AND FITNESS
> People actually advising others not to do cardio
You fuckers take memes way too far, you are legitimately other peoples health by giving them bad advice.
>>35047982
You are so scared of cardio that you have to make an excuse. Stay fat /fit/
>cardio
>literally all the people of the study did was walking at a fast pace
>>35047970
im too lazy to spend 5 minutes looking for a timer app on my phone, would sprinting half a track (200m) then walking the other 200m then repeating be good? i have been doing this the past week
>>35048014
The guy who can sprint fast, is less likely to die from something he could have gotten away from if he was faster. Survival wise it makes more sense in a modern society. I don't think many people die because they didn't run "far" enough
>>35048015
Walking at a fast pace is steady state cardio, i don't get what you're trying to say?
>>35048073
I live near black people, I have to consider this too anon. I'd much rather be able to duck around a corner asap if I'm getting shot at, than be able to run around the corner 17 blocks down the road.
>fat fucks making excuses as to why heart health isn't important
>>35048045
I don't know, I would highly consider finding a way to time it, you just have to time it once, then you know how far to go forever. I'm sure you'll figure out a way, count 20 seconds in your head if you have to while you run.
ITT: PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO FUCKING LAZY TO DO CARDIOVASCULAR EXERCISE FOR OVERALL HEALTH AND WELLBEING
>>35048091
No one said cardio doesn't have health benefits, just that weight loss isn't one of them. You can get those benefits with HIIT though too. Read the thread anon, change your life.
>>35046889
Skinny permabulker here. Never count calories just focus on eating as much as possible every day.
>>35048080
You are right man. Walking is really a hard exercise. Honestly I can't imagine what I would do without cars, escalators and motoric shopping carts. I can't believe how the group didn't lose a lot of weight with such a demanding extreme sport. I am American btw.
>>35048104
Some of us have a resting heart rate at <55, and perfectly fine v02 max, and no cholesterol/blood pressure issues. Why do I need to wear out the cartilage in my knees again?
>>35048104
OP here, I do HIIT
>>35048125
Fast pace walking puts your heart rate in the range of steady state cardio.
Then you factor in that these are normies going from 0 exercise to 5 days a week, and ya that's a big fucking shock to someones body.
>this thread again
>>35048157
Make an argument that hasn't been refuted already.
>>35048148
>To prevent skeletal muscle soreness and injury, the exercise load was progressively increased during the initial 6 weeks while energy intake was adjusted so that the energy deficit always equaled 25% of daily energy requirements.
>>35048173
Right. They made the deficit controlled. This was a good thing for OP's argument.
>>35048080
It's literally not cardio if you are fit... even weightlifting which is aboslutely awful for cardio should boost you above that.
My heart rate doesn't break 95bpm even with very fast walking in a park with hills... the fuck? You need to get your heart checked out if you get to 140+ heart rate walking.
>>35047970
Thanks
>>35048128
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-is-good-not-bad-for-arthritis-201305086202
Cmon lad. stop kidding yourself. dont be a lazy cunt and go exercise
>>35048201
It is cardio, cardio is decided by your heart rate increasing, not EL OH EL THIS IS SO EZ FOR ME GUYZ, PFFT MORE LIKE NOT CARDIO AMIRITE???
>>35048220
I do HIIT, I wear out my knees for 30 min, not 2 hours. Should have mentioned HIIT in that other post mah bad.
Amierkeks probably believe that walking from the parking lot to the McDonalds entrance is cardio
>>35048201
The study was done on Normies who never exercised regularly, not weightlifters/fit people. What point are you trying to make?
>>35048222
If you consider walking difficult you need to have your health checked. You should have to at least be in a light jog to have your heart rate at 140+, don't worry, if you start doing things that get your heart rate over 140 for an extended period of time you will improve quickly :)
>>35048235
I've heard people say, "I had to climb a lot of stairs today"
That one gets me every time.
>>35048201
If the study had been on fit people, they obviously would have done some form of cardio required to get them to a steady state range.
Do you really think the researchers overlooked if their heart rates increased during the exercise?????
>>35048249
"The elevator didn't work so I did some intense cardio today and afterwards I rewarded myself with 3 Big Macs. Living the American dream"
>>35048267
Yes
>>35048278
Then I accept that you've given up defending your point.
>>35046763
ITT: Fat acceptance reaches a new level. Americans believe that exercising is bad and you should not do it. They base their claims on a study which says exercising is good.
>>35048248
theres not much difference between fast paced walking, and a light job.
For example, I've been at a fast walk on a setting on the treadmill, while someone next to me on the same setting is in a light job. The only difference was he was going slightly airborne for a second.( aka light jog)
>>35048357
You didn't read the thread.
1. No one said it was bad, they said it was good, just not for weight loss.
2. Read the thread.
3. Read the thread.
>>35048357
>>35048379
In actual fact, the medical article itself states that both sets were good for overall weight loss
Obviously the graphs show an immediate steeper slope for the CR only group, where other thread anon made his assumptions, and everyone has just paraphrased him crudely with keks and memes.
If you read the article itself, you'll see how it doesn't state cardio is bad, in fact they hardly mention the intermediate weight loss stages, concluding that after 6 months both groups had similar, if not near identical, weight losses
TL;DR If you want to lose weight through cardio, you need to be in it for the long haul
If you want to lose weight asap, short term benefits will be more intense through Calorie Restriction ONLY
CR only of course will lose more quicker. .. like 20 lbs of water weight in the beginning because the EX group is probably staying extremely hydrated
>>35048461
Carb intake+sodium decides water weight, not how much they drank. We do this thing called urination.
>>35048442
taken from the article weight loss conclusion;
"Briefly, and as summarized in Figures 2 and and3,3, body weight was significantly reduced from baseline (p<0.001) by ~10% in both the CR and CR+EX groups at the end of the 6-month intervention (Figure 2). Total body fat mass and visceral abdominal fat were significantly (p<0.005) but similarly reduced in both intervention groups (by ~25%) and unchanged in controls"
pic is fig 2.
>>35048442
Re-read the thread, you're are not thinking about the muscle mass added to a normie after 6 months of exercising from 0 exercise.
If you are not a normie and have lifted consistently, you will not gain that muscle mass that the normies did, altering their TDEE over the long haul. (which is why the CR+EX group eventually could catch up)
This study takes place over nearly half a year people.
>>35048442
It stupid though, they fed the cardio group more to equal out the calorie deficit which defeated the entire point of doing cardio to help lose weight in the first place.
Obviously if they adjust the calorie intake so that both groups have the same deficit neither is going to lose more weight. In fact the cardio group will gain weight slower because they will be putting on muscle at the same time which weighs more.
OP is just retarded.
I don't know why everyone is being so resistant, it makes sense.
Op is trying to teach us.....well repeating what some other anon already said, to not waste our time with steady state for weight loss reasons.
He is doing god's work.
>>35048483
Hence why I said.... if you want to lose fat through cardio... you need to be in it for the long haul, ie 6 months or longer
Speculating over what the effects on a lifter would be is just that, speculation.
After all, muscles used in most explosive lifts are a different time to muscle groups used in endurance training like cardio, so arguably some muscle mass would still be built for a lifter who has never done endurance cardio
As I said, trying to extrapolate the data with regards to lifters is ambitious at best, folly at worst. You simply don't have that data or fact
>>35048523
>to not waste our time with steady state for weight loss reasons
That's not what OP is arguing
>cardio is very ineffective at causing weight loss
>>35048517
1. there is no problem with doing that if you believe exercise creates a deficit, that is them making the calories controlled, which is what they should do. Not sure where you got lost.
Also, >>35047765
>>35047806
read the thread, all of this has been answered.
>>35048538
Yes it is, those are the same thing.
>to not waste our time with steady state for weight loss reasons
Cardio for weight loss
>cardio is very ineffective at causing weight loss
Cardio for weight loss
>>35048539
>1. there is no problem with doing that if you believe exercise creates a deficit
Exercise burns calories which helps create a bigger deficit. They ate more food to compensate for what was burned exercising, thus negating the deficit created entirely.
>>35048472
Yeah but you piss out 25-50% of that water, where's the rest go? Yeah carbs pull 2.7g watee to 1g carb, and salt hangs on but the body can absorb about 1 liter an hour if needed
>>35047765
Looking at the initial study in that thread it seems like the base arguments are all wrong
> CR had a 25% deficit induced by a 25% reduction on their calorie intake
> CR+EX had a 25% deficit induced by reducing calories consumed by 12.5% and increasing calories burned by 12.5%
> Don't do biomed and cba to read thread so I ain't gonna attempt to explain why CR lost weight more rapidly
In the end the results were the same. The CR group losing weight more rapidly for a time could be due to a number of reasons. The point is, after a meaningful period of time there was no change
This study basically reaffirms calories in = calories out, and that a net metabolic increase from cardio is bullshit
> Is any of this actually new?
Somehow the fuckwits decided that this means restricting calories is bestus way to lose weight
>>35048517
No they weren't?
The CR group were on 25% reduction from base
The CR+EX group was on 12.5% CR reduction from base, and expended 12.5% through excercise. 12.5+12.5=25, ie same deficit at the beginning
Maybe you're the retarded one?
>>35048551
Cardio is highly effective for weight loss though, the study OP is referring has the Cardio group eating more than the CR. If they were eating the same amount the Cardio would have lost much more weight.
So it should be
> Cardio + Eating More is not effective for weight loss
>>35048559
You need to read the study, the researchers agreed with you, you are still lost.....
CR group -500 calories eaten each day
CR+EX group -250 calories from CR, -250 from exercise, -500 deficit.
The deficit is the same, and controlled for both groups. How are you lost? Just go re-read the thread.
>>35048567
>Dont do biomed and cba to read thread
So why don't you stfu, because what you said is, surprise surprise, wrong.
>>35048235
My mom is an obese diabetic with rotted teeth, so one day i went for night time jogging and she complained that it was too dark and said that walking to the bus stop and walking home from the bus stop is enough, the walk is about 3min. im in canada btw.
>>35048565
Salt+carbs decide water weight, rest is pissed out. You can't just drink water to increase weight for the long term......
You ingest 2 liters of water, carbs +sodium says we need 1L of that, body pisses out the 1L
you ingest 2L and you exercise, carbs+sodium decide the body keeps 1L, body uses the other 1L in the exercise. You piss out a little drop.
Get it? People who drink insane amounts of water don't put on insane water weight lol
>>35048586
>The deficit is the same, and controlled for both groups
That's the problem, the cardio group should have a much bigger deficit.
>>35048567
Read the thread, you didn't account for muscle mass in CR+EX group, which is talked about extesnively.
Seriously read the thread, your posting things that have been refuted 4 times already in this thread, and 5 times in the other.
>>35048583
>If they were eating the same amount the Cardio would have lost much more weight.
And if the Cardio group ate more to compensate(which they did) then they should have lost weight at the SAME rate(according to your green text)......but CR lost twice as fast.....
>>35048618
Sigh...
As stated a million times, starting excercise, especially from doing 0 excercise prior, triggers the body into a defense mechanism, in order to not lose too much too fast which is damaging to cells etc
So, starting excercise, your TDEE lowers as defense to the excercise. After time, with increased muscle mass through excercise and efficiency of cells, your tdee slowly rises, which is why both groups end up at the same point
Now please fuck off if you still dont understand
>>35048618
That would be the opposite of a controlled experiment.
And the results would yield the same conclusion.
The only difference is that instead of the CR group losing twice as fast, they would have lost at the same EXACT rate. You need the CR+Exercise group to surpass the weight loss of the CR group to prove your point.
In other words, l2math.
>>35048268
haha u funny yuropoeans sure are funny ha ha lol good joke desu
>>35048687
glad you could add that to the thread amerikek
You know whom also doesnt like cardion? Zyzz and now he is DEAD
CARDIO KEEPS YOU ALIVE
>>35048644
>which is why both groups end up at the same point
They ended up at the same point because they had the same deficit. If they had ate the same amount of food the Cardio group would have a higher deficit and thus would have lost more wight.
ITT: Trolls trolling trolls
>>35048676
>That would be the opposite of a controlled experiment.
Depends what they are trying to prove. If they were trying to prove cardio alone didn't improve weight loss, both groups should have ate the same amount.
>>35048676
This and losing at the same exact rate, with a higher deficit (through exercise) proves the exercise was not a factor in the weight loss. Use brain anon.
>>35048720
but that's not the point of the test you retard.
if you have the same deficit, logic would pertain that the cardio group would lose weight faster, but they didnt
obviously if one group had a larger deficit theyd lose weight faster, can you even see how retarded your point is? it wouldnt be a controlled excercise in that respect
I enjoy.doing hiit sessions with the prowler
>>35048720
They can't have the same deficit, when one group is putting on muscle for 6 months. Think.
>>35048676
>>35048725
You need to read the second sentence which explains why it doesn't fucking matter, and you can extrapolate the same results regardless.
>>35046763
Arnold lost 35 pounds by running to be able to do Conan, maybe you faggots are just pathetically bad at it and life because running miles and miles is easy af.
>>35048746
> but that's not the point of the test you retard.
Exactly, but OP is arguing that it is which is what's bullshit. OP is arguing that Cardio on it's own isn't efficient for weight loss, which is as you just said not what the test was about at all and not what it shows.
>>35048722
None of this is bait, read the thread, change your life, or come back with an argument that hasn't been brought up at least 3 times already, and I'll respond.
>>35048781
troll is troll
read the article or gtfo
>>35048794
>thinking that I seriously respond to a bait thread
top kek, you must be new here m8.
>>35048781
We are talking about 2 or less hours of steady state cardio in a day, for the purpose of losing weight.
Diet was not mentioned, nor what kind of running he did, could have been high intensity etc.
>>35047239
No mental discipline that's why you child.
HIIT cardio is the best way to lose fat for me.
I dont like the idea of eating less, so I just create a deficit with cardio.
I just like eating too much, I'd rather do more sport.
>>35048791
re-read the thread. They would have lost the SAME weight not more weight. (excluding the muscle mass added by the exercise) Proving the cardio making no difference.
>>35048791
I don't care about OP mayn, in fact in my original post I said that both OP and the troll memers were in the wrong because neither was actually referring to what the article had stated
see >>35048442
Also should add that even though weight loss was initially slower in the CR+EX group, overall health benefits were greater so obv it's good, so long as you stick to it
>>35048804
Your loss.
>>35048833
>They would have lost the SAME weight not more weight
How? They would have had a significantly larger calorie deficit over the entire period.
>>35048846
>implying one could win an argument against trolls
>not playing soccer to be both sprinting and jogging while engaging in the only good sport in the world
>>35048835
>Also should add that even though weight loss was initially slower in the CR+EX group, overall health benefits were greater so obv it's good, so long as you stick to it
Those are newbie health benefits acquired from going from 0 exercise, to exercise 5 days a week.
Now would this apply if all the subjects had been seasoned runners/lifters (which is what we care about on (/fit/)
No one is saying that adding cardio to your life, from doing nothing in your life, isn't go to help your health dramatically, but is it going tot help ME? (who has lifted/HIIT for 3 years) NO!
>>35048851
Look at graph, CR group lost twice as fast, Doubling the calorie deficit of the CR+Ex group through diet would have made them even, CR+Ex wouldn't beat surpass CR and the cardio would be proved prointless in the CR+EX group.
>>35048872
>but is it going to help ME?
m8 I honestly don't care. the article was written with dyels in mind, for dyels who should take up excercise and/or CR to lose weight
as I said in >>35048526
we simply can't use any of this data with regards to lifters. it cant work, and trying to use it for anything else than dyels/none cardio fatties is stupid
>>35048872
>avoiding the type of exercise that brings the most physical pleasure rather than cumshotting your ego
>>35048897
>CR group lost twice as fast
Yes but they ended up at the exact same point. Where if they had eaten the same amount and thus had a higher calorie deficit they would have lost much more weight at the end of the study,
I think the graph is confusing people, due to the muscle mass and newbies variables being too hard to comprehend.
THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE BY THE END IF ALL SUBJECTS WERE SEASONED LIFTERS (No muscle mass added by the cardio)
>>35048918
Muscle mass addeed over 6 months(because normies) increased TDEE allowing the CR+EX group to eventually catch up. The graph shows this perfectly.
Re-read the thread.
>>35048929
Im not even gonna bother with this b8, someone else can reeee
>>35048929
Exactly., thank you. The results from week 10 would have simply persisted the whole way through to the end.
>>35048961
>>35048929
Proof? Oh yeah you have none.
BTFO
>>35048974
1. Do you believe 6 months of cardio 5 days a week, from 0 exercise, will cause an increase in muscle mass for normies?
2. Does muscle mass increase base TDEE?
answer those then let me know if you need more proof.
>>35049002
that's not empirical evidence
again, theory doesn't cut the mustard. we have empirical evidence for the effect of CR and excercise on dyels, but none for lifters.
Your assumptions mean jack shit
>>35049023
I accept that you gave up defending your point.
>>35049029
>>35049039
Why did CR lose weight twice as fast for 10 weeks?
Just answer the 2 questions he asked, you're just avoiding admitting you're wrong.
>>35049070
read the article you'll find out that in the first part of the experiment diets were controlled you c u c k
you cant use data for one set of individuals and assume the same of a COMPLETELY different group.
your opinion is just an opiinion until research is conducted. until then, read the actual article bby
>>35049094
I have no idea where people keep getting this idea that controlled diet's is somehow not a good thing for the experiment.
>>35048567
>>35048586
>>35048618
>>35048676
>>35048760
>>35048725
>>35048774
Also, read the fucking thread before you reply again.
>>35049124
>I have no idea where people keep getting this idea that controlled diet's is somehow not a good thing for the experiment.
Cardio burns a lot of calories, a larger calorie deficit makes you lose weight faster. By having the Cardio group eat more than the Control and CR group, they are negating this benefit.
>>35049189
>>35049124
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEAD
>>35049189
Dude that would only put the Cr+Ex group ON PAR with the CR group. Proving the exercise didn't matter.
CR loses twice as much the first 10 weeks.
>>35049189
BECAUSE
THEY
WANT
TO
SEE
EFFECT
OF
EXCERCISE
ON
25%
DEFICIT
COMPARED
TO
CR 25% DEFICIT
RETARDS FUCKING EVERYWHERE
>>35049233
>Dude that would only put the Cr+Ex group ON PAR with the CR group
That's a big assumption. The whole thing would need to be re-done in order to prove that.
>>35049241
That's not what OP is arguing though
>>35047106
Nice man. Before you know it you'll be leading the pack. I ran a 5 mile race today at an abysmal (for me) 32:02. I love hearing about people accomplishing running goals, stops me from being bummed and reminds me how far one can come.
It's funny how broken down that graph has become, when in reality we get all the information we ever need to know, just from the CR group in the first 10 weeks. All the people arguing this are clinging at their attempts to explain the results at 24 weeks, no one has even dared try to explain the first 10 weeks kek.
>>35049259
Noone give a shit about OP
I already said in previous posts OPs statements are wrong
Why can't retards like you actually read instead of making these threads run circles?
I'm going sleep anyway, keep running circles you fucking imbecile. I seriously worry about your cranial capacity
>>35049248
Well if CR group loses twice as much, and you double the calorie deficit of the CR+Ex group, that's actually just basic math as to what the results would be, you're still just avoiding admitting you're wrong.
>>35049281
This experience was good for you. The pill will go down easier in the future now. I have done good to your life, you will see. Sleep well.
>>35049301
>>35049325
Not trolling, hence why every response has been with logic, and not el oh el funneh picturez
>>35049333
>every response with logic
>couldnt even gather simple information from the article which would answer his questions
>not retarded
el oh el, funneh human-bean
>>35049360
I accept that you have also given up defending your point or making a rational argument. This was good for you sleep tight.
>>35046763
Are you fucking retarded?
They teach this shit to 10 year olds.
lifting/IC
>high burst of energy usage
cardio
>constant energy usage
you need both to have an efficient body and maximize both gains and cutting.
Even without a calorie deficit, you'll lose more weight doing cardio
While with just lifting you have to cut out food sources or else no matter how much you lift you'll be fat.
A mixture of both is ideal.
>>35049333
> I will surpass my opponents in the gym not with inferior brute effort, but rather by working smarter with logic
captcha = select all mountains, fitting because I just jogged up & down one.
>>35049389
Read the thread
>>35049406
No, I will spend an extra hour playing fallout, while you spend an hour on the treadmill thinking you're burning calories.
End result is the same, I just have more fun.
>>35049561
0/10
>>35049389
You do know that science has come a long way since most people here were 10 right? We used to think 6 meals a day was maximum fat burn, and that fasting was counter productive. this is just another huge pill for normies to swallow.
>>35049561
naw fuck a treadmill. spent an hour doing hiit up a mountain & met some cuties while you play your vidya. ps I'm bulking not cutting, because I already made it.
I don't care what your studies fucking say. If you're not fat its simple to go test it out, I exercise regularly & need to increase my calorie intake accordingly to maintain/keep gaining. I don't care what your shitty study says.
>>35049585
>getting baited so easily
Is it your first day on /fit/ or what?
>>35049580
mfw they still teach 6 meals a day at my college's mandatory wellness and nutrition class.
>>35049595
No logical argument. Keep trying man, we all know you won't saying anything since you have nothing new. Resorting to pics and yelling bait is the same as giving up friend.
>>35049612
It truly must be your first day on /fit/.
Enjoy your stay but dont let me bait you this easy again :^)
>>35049585
>HIIT
You didn't even read the thread.
>>35049623
Glad you agree then, if you were baiting.
>>35046889
> implying the bulk ever stops
>>35049612
Wrong person m/b
>>35049633
>implying this whole thread isnt bait
>implying I dont know you are baiting aswell
You did a good job aswell m8.
>>35049644
None of this is bait, hence why no one has made a substantial argument yet. Would you like to try to be the first?
>>35049650
>None of this is bait
Sure, mine wasn't either :^)
>>35048123
Same. I always make sure I get enough protons though
>>35049275
Most educated post in this thread.
What is best cardio for someone who is fat and trying to lose fat, and broke his ankle as a kid so now it hurts when I run? I've been doing eliptical for 3 weeks now but I feel it could be more intense. Did treadmill and it was ok, but I felt my ankle sore. I've been lifting weights and making good progress, but my gut is still pretty big.
Note: I wasn't always super fat, so I'm still somewhat 'atheltic' but nowhere near where I was before. I have a decent muscular foundation.
>>35049689
Try swimming, goat imo for fat loss IF you are fat or have problems with your joints.
>>35049689
Lifting weights is your best cardio.
Read the thread. You are only going to lose weight through
1. added muscle mass
2. Calorie deficit through diet ALONE (Do not factor in activity level ever)
Do this until you are able to perform HIIT.
After reading this thread and seeing this study it seem that HIIT cardio really is pefered if you want to lose fat in comparison to steady state cardio.
Will switch routines now.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502
>>35049697
Swimming? Fuck, the only pool around me is so goddamn disgusting looking. That's a good idea though, maybe I can find somewhere.
>>35049707
Reading the thread now actually, thanks!
I scrolled through this thread.
All what you need to do to lose weight is a deficit. How it's created doesn't matter. One study done is obviously helpful but we need more evidence. Plus fitness is evidence based as countless examples have been shown in gyms around the world.
And obviously what is best for weight loss is whether you can stick to the diet or diet + cardio.
I am currently cutting at the moment. I have been on my maintenance calories for nearly 4 weeks now with a deficit created by cardio while tracking my macros roughly whilst dropping 3lbs of weight. Next week I dropping my calories by 250 cals (removing carbs only) and keeping the cardio there.
>>35050039
Too many variables friend, I can manipulate my weight by 7-8 pounds a week if I want through carb manipulation alone. I don't you are controlled enough. I did a study on myself a long time ago, but I never brought it up in this thread because no one would believe I accounted for all the variables.
Holy fuck, thank you OP.
1) High intensity weighlifting IS cardio, the best form of cardio
2) "Cardio" is poor at adapting the cardiovascular system because it involves only a few muscles at a low level of intensity/stress.
3) Endurance is not the same thing as cardiovascular health, endurance athletes can have terrible cardiovascular health.
4) Cardio is not effective for weight loss since it burns a minute amount of calories yet increases appetite drastically, usually resulting in a net increase in calorie balance.
5) the best approach to fat loss is infrequent high intensity weighlifting followed by several days of rest, high protein, and caloric restriction.
>>35052138
Get a load of this faggot
> Cardio is not effective for weight loss since it burns a minute amount of calories yet increases appetite drastically, usually resulting in a net increase in calorie balance
Maybe not if you're a fat-ass, but for normal people a 10 mile run burns a significant amount of calories and it's not that easy to replace them if you don't eat like a retard.
>>35048941
If both groups lost 10% of their weight, but one group added muscle mass, this group would need to lose more fat to account for the added muscle mass. You can see from the graph that they lost the same fat mass. So where did the muscle mass come from? Did their bones lose weight? Did they remove some organs?
Also are you seriously believing someone will put on extensive muscle mass by walking 30 minutes 5 days a week.
>Amerikeks
>>35047226
>SS cardio burns glycogen preferentially, not fat
That's untrue, glycogen is only used during high intensity exercise. That's why sprinters get large leg muscles but marathon runners don't, depleting your glycogen makes your muscles store more glycogen next time: sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
>>35053637
Is /fit/ really this retarded when it comes to cardio? Sprinting uses glycogen more than steady state cardio, true, since cardio can burn fat instead of glycogen. But it still burns glycogen. Hence why marathon runners carb-load before a race, and why distance runners and bikers can bonk or hit the wall when they run out of glycogen. Yes, steady state cardio is possible on keto/low carb while sprinting is not, but that doesn't mean steady state cardio doesn't use glycogen preferentially.
>>35052138
0/10
>>35046763
Well losing weight is easy.
>leave for a foreign country with food that doesn't appeal to you
>lose appetite
>eat very little
>have low intensity activities like walking around visiting shit, going on short hikes and swiming
>lose a ton of weight
>come back
>still don't feel like eating
>maintain low weight forever
Almost all people who are overweight simply have bad eating habits, it's not even so much about exercise.
>>35053637
you are always burning a mixture of glycogen, fats, proteins, but the higher in intensity you go the more glycogen is used as a percentage
an average person doing 1 hour of weightlifting won't put a fucking dent in their glycogen levels which is why over the minimal amount of carbs are not really required for people doing weightlifting of something like 30 minutes of cardio
you tax glycogen when doing stuff like an hour of your HR averaging 170+ (for a person with a 200bpm max)
>>35053706
you can have differen't states of steady state cardio using different amounts of glycogen
someone just starting out might have a hard time keeping their HR at over 80% of max for an hour, someone whos really into running or cycling might feel like their not working nearly hard enough for an hour of SS at 90% of max HR
Can anyone tell me, if i do cardio the same day after lifting will it affect muscle gain in any way?
>>35054660
According to Scoobs cardio helps with muscle recovery, which is obviously an important part of building strength and muscle. I do cardio along with working out and it might have a benefit but I'm not sure myself. Just eat a bit more to compensate for the caloric deficit from cardio.
>>35046763
>2015
>not doing cardio and weights
>not trusting what every athlete and ancient warrior in the world does/did to get at the peak
utter manlet plebs endurance gainz from cardio and strength/size from picking things up and putting them down is KING
its fucking hilarious watching weights only faggots get red faced and sweaty mess from having to move slightly faster after a mere 2 minutes
>>35054687
it depends, he's a cyclist so he's probably talking about 'recovery rides' which is just tooling around for 30-60 minutes with your HR never going very high, this helps blood circulate and aid in recovery, but it's such a low intensity that there will be no adaptation/additional stress/meaningful contribution to why people do cardio in the weight lifting weightlifting/aesthetics realm of things
it could help with mental stress though which could be beneficial.
>>35052316
Both of those have been refuted, read the thread.
I get on a stat bike, pedal for an hour, about 40 km in distance and when i get off, my shirt is sweaty all wet and i'm sweaty as fuck.
Do i not lose weight? Or not as much as if i lifted for an hour?
>>35056471
No it wasn't fucking retard. Lmao you're so pathetic if you can't answer it you just say it has been answered before.
Also from the study
>isokinetic muscular strength did not change
"muh strength does not mean mass"
Yeah right they added so much muscle mass that the TDEE was affected but the strength was not.
>>35056532
You lost weight. Read the thread.
The problem is you will lose LESS weight over the next 4-5 hours, compared to if you didn't do the cardio for an hour. (assuming it was steady state, not HIIT)
It doesn't matter which one used more energy. Adaption to the stressful event will happen regardless.
>>35056579
Please just read the thread, it's answered multiple times.
>>35047765
>>35047806
>>35047832
You need to look into how a normies body functions going from 0 exercise to, to exercise 5 days a week.
Strength=/=mass. you need to learn some basic principles.
Last time I answer a question without you reading the thread.
>>35048941
tl;dr Skip leg days and just walk 30 minutes a day, you will make huge gains in muscle mass. Cardio is the new steroids
>>35056579
The muscle mass was from cardio, not lifting. Of course the strength gains would be hardly anything compared to the muscle mass.
>>35056661
If you are a normy, yes it will cause you to gain muscle mass.(Look up what newbie gains are and do some research) It's the largest muscle in the body.
This was not done on seasoned lifters, please read the thread. It will take you 5 min to read it all, and you won't look like a retard posting the same things that have been discussed.
>>35056645
Are you seriously retarded you fucking moron?
Let's make a calculation so even you degenerated stupid fucktard can understand it.
Person A (no exercise):
Assume: 120 kg in the beginning, 25% bf (30kg)
Lost 10% of body mass according to the study = 12kg
Lost 25% of body fat mass according to the study = 7.5kg body fat lost
12kg - 7.5kg = 4.5kg lost water, muscle mass, visceral fat
Person B (exercise):
Assume: 120 kg in the beginning, 25% bf (30kg)
Lost 10% of body mass according to the study = 12kg
Lost 25% of body fat mass according to the study = 7.5kg body fat lost
Added 3kg muscle mass through exercising
12kg - 7.5kg + 3kg = 7.5kg lost through ???
It can't be from the body fat because they lost the same amount. So where are these 3kg coming from?
Also tell me how much muscle mass you think they gained. Then we can calculate the TDEE difference and check if that's possible according to the graph. And remember my little friend with brain cancer, 1kg of muscle mass raises the TDEE ~24kcal
>>35056895
You can't use body fat% at all, because one group is exercising and one isn't. One group is going to add muscle and one isn't, greatly altering body fat% differences. Which is why the study relies on weight% change. This is also talked about in the thread.
You also are still not comprehending just how much muscle is added to a someones body who never exercised->5 days a week for 6 months. Also, you don't comprehend that a seasoned 200lb lifter adding 1lb of muscle is a far smaller % addition to his total muscle mass, than the guy who is 150lb and put on a 1lb of muscle. It is a BIG difference.
Even if that isn't enough to help you brain. Explain the first 10 weeks baby.
>>35057182
>You can't use body fat% at all, because one group is exercising and one isn't. One group is going to add muscle and one isn't, greatly altering body fat% differences.
What are you saying? Did you even read the study? Both groups lost the same amount of body fat mass % and total weight mass %.
Literally what you are saying makes no sense so I'll just hope that we'll be able to cure people like you in the future.
>>35057301
The green text literally answered the question you asked in the same post. This is going over your head.
>>35057301
He's saying that even if you lose the same body fat %, the two groups will still end up with different overall body fat (not percent) due to the muscle mass difference.
Like he said, nothing your saying matters, because you still are not explaining the first 10 weeks. That one question alone is trumping everything you are saying. You're avoiding answering it.
>>35049689
walking
>>35054713
We do HIIT, better results 1/4 the time.
>>35057334
>what is percentage
You're too stupid, please stay away from interacting with other people.
>>35057359
Explain me what happened in week 11 to 12 and what caused the rapid weight lost then I'll explain you the first 10 weeks.
>>35057414
Muscle mass, that's been answered 40 times in this thread.
READ the THREAD
>>35048929
>>35048961
>>35048974
>>35049002 (you really need to read this one, and answer it)
>>35049023
>>35049029
mfw he still hasn't read the thread. I would ignore him.
>>35057414
Look at the 2 lines at week 12, they BOTH steep down together, now look at the 2 lines sticking north and south of the circles, those are the deviations within each group. Now compare both of the dots at week 12, and their deviations. You will see that there was hardly any difference in a "catching up" sense, you need to learn how to read graphs. There was no monumental catching up of CR+EX, just a slow catching up after 3-4 months, (Which coincidentally is when newbie gains start to die off.)
>>35057474
Alright. Basically in week 11 the gains fairy came over night and gave the group which exercised huge gains in muscle mass resulting in a huge unnatural weight loss in the next week.
Your story is cringeworthy. Making up something and using assumptions to make your belief true. The real autist.
>>35057511
Pic related because your eyes somehow don't function properly. I hope I don't need to explain that 0.5% difference is a lot.
>>35057702
You didn't look at the deviations, you need to learn how to graph. Also, both groups decreased on week 11 like eh said. week 11 has a big drop, but it was for both groups, the overall catching up was minimal, like the entirety of the last 12 weeks.
>>35057702
You are trying so hard to make sense of it all =p
both groups decreased. Overall difference was negligible not extreme like you're trying to say.
still didn't answer the dudes question about the first 10 weeks in general.
>>35057702
I think you are trolling now. Will ignore. Good luck swallowing the pill friend.
>>35057182
You realize that body fat% is not the same as what the study talks about (% of body fat mass lost)?
So guys since fat people are doing this not just for the number but also for the looks which person do you think looks better in the end and has less lose skin, etc.
The guy who just ate less
or
The guy who also exercised
That should answer which method is better.
>>35057887
the question isn't exercise vs. no exercise, or cardio vs. no cardio
The question is, will steady state cardio cause weight loss in someone who is not a Normie (no newbie gains)
Lifting is exercise also. Adding cardio for a seasoned lifter who has good cardiovascular health, is literally doing nothing but running through his knee cartilage.
read the thread.
>>35057887
The entire thread is talking about how this study would affect someone who has lifted for 6 months already. Not a fatty who never exercised results.
>>35057976
>The entire thread is talking about how this study would affect someone who has lifted for 6 months already.
Okay. And you are basing your thoughts on a study done with obese people who have never exercised before?
>>35058065
Read the thread before posting.
They weren't obese either, just normies with no regular exercise in their lives.
Every single argument here is still grasping at trying to explain what happened at 24 weeks, ignoring the first 10 weeks still, kek.
Protip: Those first 10 weeks have shat on everything anyone has tried to say, but OP is being so nice as to still try to help you all understand by using your 24 week logic against you.
This poor dude is trying to help you all. He doesn't have to prove anything, the first 10 weeks does that for him, but he still wants to help you all understand. Keep doing god's work man.
>247 posts
>45 unique IPs
same thing as last thread, OP being a fucking retard, ignoring all the counter-arguments and backpedaling to say "I never said that"
and the worst part is some people will believe him
>>35047387
Probably bc ss cardio conditions the body to hold more water bc you sweat like shit when you do it so the body figures it needs to hold on to that shit for future sessions.
Or something idc i'm talking out my ass
>>35058147
>Read the thread before posting.
>They weren't obese either, just normies with no regular exercise in their lives.
Quoted from the study
>Thirty-six overweight participants
Did you even read the study lmao
>>35058207
That's true actually. Since the group who exercised also ate more, they stored more water.
>>35058205
I've responded to every single argument, even answered some question 3 or more times, trying to use different examples, even though they didn't read the thread.
I haven't once said "I never said that" (or even another phrase that mean that) You didn't even read the thread either...... jesus people. It takes 5 min to read a thread and catch up.
Twice in my life I have lost a large amount of weight by adding excercise to my daily routine without changing diet at all
>>35058205
>and the worst part is some people will believe him
Ya god forbid someone switches from SS to HIIT.
What a fucking monster OP is.
>>35058232
No that's not true tell me what happened in the first 10 weeks then, come on fight me bro
>OP
>>35058209
Overweight =/= obese (but you already know this troll)
Normies are mostly all overweight.
