Daily reminder that ''cardio kills gains'' is /fit/'s worst meme, along with SS+GOMAD
Pros of cardio:
>better erections
>better lifting sessions, better muscle recovery
>better looking skin
>better mood
>better stamina (better sex, better running after the nigga that stole your bike)
>better fat loss (and better aesthetics)
>better sleep
>better lungs, better all-around health
>runner's high
cons of cardio
>might make you lose some muscle mass if you run 1+ hour every single day and don't eat enough calories to compensate for the calories you used running
I hope you're talking about HIIT and not steady state. As /fit/ has already ripped apart steady state cardio.
>>35061710
Running 5-8 miles will in no way negatively impact your health, this is myth.
>>35061710
Steady state is great for cardiovascular health.
Your heart is the most important muscle in your body. Why work out every muscle except for the one that matters the most?
>>35061710
I hope you're not referring to that study about calorie deficits + exercise that was completely debunked several dozen times.
>>35061738
That's not what anyone is saying or means.
>>35046763
>>35061750
HIIT does the same thing is 1/4 the time, that's why.
>>35061752
Where/how was it debunked, from what I read every argument got pwned.
>>35061765
HIIT isn't as good as steady state for general cardiovascular health.
>>35061802
Actually it is. HIIT athletes and SS cardio athletes have had comparable resting heart rate.
Not sure if you knwo this, but resting heart rate is the determing factor of "cardiovascular health" rest is diet related.
InB4 mah cholesterol, they both reduce cholesterol.
whether it's HIIT or steady, both are beneficial to you. There is no reason to skip cardio
>>35061851
and no reason to choose SS ;)
Unless you know, you need to be able to chase your dinner for 5 miles or more.
>>35061834
>>35061802
Also in the studies comparing HIIT to liss, the Hitt participants came out with a far better endurance, despite less time spent exercising, lost more fat and spared more muscle despite less calories being burned than the LISS participants.
Hitt is about maximizing the effectiveness of your cardio training. Just like a strength training routine tries to get you the most results in the shortest time, Hitt gives you the most results in the shortest amount of time, it just requires some serious energy.
Tl;dr HITT is GOAT.
>>35061760
see
>>35061710
>I hope you're talking about HIIT and not steady state. As /fit/ has already ripped apart steady state cardio.
Running a 5k is considered steady state.
It is not unhealthy, it has just as many positive benefits as any other workout.
How much time should you spend sprinting vs walking should you do for hiit?
>>35061925
You shouldn't spend any time sprinting or walking...
You should be running for an entire 2-3 miles when performing cardio, or swimming your laps back to back.
This is how you strengthen the heart and cardiovascular system.
Sprinting is a leg workout, it's pushing your body really fast, then stopping all together for muscle recovery.
If anything you run a mile, sprint at x interval that you want to, then go to a light jog speed after for recovery.
>>35061776
Basically the calorie deficit in the study was the same for both groups.
In a nutshell the groups were
Group A: 500 Calorie deficit from eating 500 calories less
Group B: 500 Calorie deficit from eating 250 calories less and burning 250 calories through exercise
The OP assumed both groups had the same calorie deficit through diet, which wasn't true. Group B was eating 250 calories more than Group A
>there are people on fit that think cardio doesn't help with weightloss because of some debunked studies
I try guys I really do try give good advice but some of you people are so damn stupid
>>35061954
>I have no idea what I'm talking about
Sprinting absolutely is good for your cardiovascular system I can't believe someone could be so fucking stupid. HIIT is defined as hitting 90% of your VO2 max. You will ABSOLUTELY receive cardiovascular benefits from that kind of activity. Spend just 5 minutes researching it and you'll find that it is MORE effective ALL AROUND than LISS.
>>35061925
Start with a 1:4 to 1:6 work to rest ratio then move towards a 1:1 ratio.
>>35061954
No, that's how you increase one type of muscle fibers oxygen efficiency.
The only thing you are doing over HIIT is this >>35061863
>>35061966
Actually, he responded to that question multiple times.
>>35049124
>>35061983
SS cardio* for <2 hours is what was said
Where did he get debunked?
>>35061710
eh, nothing wrong with steady state.
Personally, I run steady state 20 minutes for 2 days a week... Sure, it's not a lot, but I am sure it is more than enough to reap the positive benefits from cardio, won't steal my gainz and won't tear down my joints too much.
But I used to run 10k, and that was pretty much a gainz killer. If you are gonna be doing long distances, you are really better off doing hiit
>>35061966
Man people have a hard time using brain don't they, keep lifting, you need to make money off that body, cause you sure as hell are never going to make money off that brain.
CR group lost weight twice as fast, if you doubled the calorie deficit of the CR+EX group, that means the lines would be the same. In your experiment, both would lose the same weight, except one group was exercising=no difference in weight regardless of additional exercise.
>>35062074
If you are only doing 20 min, why not do HIIT and actually get results from your effort?
>>35062087
honestly? Because I can't be fucked.
I do HIIT when I am trying to lose weight, but right now I am clean bulking anyway
>I like to run for 5 hours a day, instead of 3x a week for 30 min, for nearly no additional health benefits besides "Hey guys look hooow faaarrr IIII ccaaaann ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun........" (nipples bleeding)
>>35062099
that 20 min of SS is doing nothing different from your hour of lifting, besides wasting 20 min.
>>35062043
What? There is no question. The methodology of the study doesn't support his conclusion. The group that was exercising gained muscle that offset the weight loss. That's all the difference means, the two groups ended 24 weeks identically, but the group that exercised were a lot fitter with more muscle.
>>35062110
yeah, I know. I am literally just doing it for the health benefits. Like, literally all I want to do is get my heart rate up for a while and keep it there. I mean, it's not like I run at turtle pace neither; and lifting just won't do that for me.
>>35061124
>>35061738
>>35061919
>Citation required
You can't just present information as this is the best and everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot 'because i said so'. Everything I've read indicates long term cardio (30+min) that has your bpm reach above 120 or so depending on the persons height/weight, generally leads to catabolism in some sense. Can you point me towards where you've read otherwise? I am genuinely interested and would like to further educate myself if im missing something. Unless you're just talking nonsense which im fairly convinced you are
>>35062105
>(nipples bleeding)
kek
For the past month, I've been ending my lifting sessions with 20-30 minutes of steady pace cardio, at a heart rate of 165 to 190 bpm (180 average)
Works wonder for me. My lifts are up, my bf % is going down, and I stay at the same weight because I eat a lot more food. (I do have a flawless nutrition however, only drink water and eat a shitload of vegetables)
But you guys will probably think this can't be true and cleanbulk doesn't exist...
>>35061983
if you control for the calories that cardio burns, it doesn't help with weightloss.
but this is unsurprising, because cardio is used to burn calories....
if you don't "control" for "the variable" of the calories burnt, you don't get the same result
>>35062119
All of those were also answered.
>>35047765
>>35047806
>>35047832
And
>>35057474
Reading the thread would help, before talking about it.
>>35062145
>steady pace cardio, at a heart rate of 165 to 190 bpm
You are really out of shape.
>>35062145
Cause bulking doesn't affect TDEE. Try to think about the variables before you post.
>>35062173
People are dumb, and might not get the sarcasm in your post.
>>35062161
Nothing was answered because the study doesn't prove what he said it does.
Let me put it in the simplest possible terms, that study doesn't say ANYTHING about cardio for weightloss, ok? It is comparing cardio with eating less by controlling both, and eating less very slightly won out. Nobody here disagrees that eating less is the best way to lose weight, everyone acknowledges that fact. The point is cardio ON TOP of eating less can only help and that's a fact.
If you want to dispute that show me a study where both groups eat the same amount of calories with one group performing 30 mins of cardio with results that support your assertion. If you can't do that kindly shut the fuck up and stop coming to retarded conclusions that the study you're pedaling does not support you enormous fucking retard.
>>35062187
If you believe in calories in, calories out (if you believe it's even remotely accurate as a theory) Then it is just basic math from that point.
>>35062082
His post was insulting, but the second part is spot on.
You're just avoiding admitting you're wrong now =[
>>35062170
I do run at a very fast pace and weight 220lbs (15-20% bf)
>>35062173
I don't care about the science or calculations, I was simply describing the effects of cardio on my body. I am breaking PRs every single time I lift and my pants keep getting loose while my weight stays the same. This is a fact.
It should be noted however that I train 5 times a week, 2 hours of lifting and then 20-30mins cardio.
>>35062207
The cardio is not affecting your lifts brah, it is no different from the steady state you put your body into during that hour of lifting, you are just wasting 20 more min without the benefits of lifting.
>>35062145
>at a heart rate of 165 to 190 bpm (180 average)
errrr....that's not steady state brah....
>>35062225
Listen I"m telling you, from personal experience, that my lifts went up since I picked up cardio a month ago. I feel healthier and recover better from my workouts.
Are you saying I'm lying or hallucinating PRs ?
>>35062232
...
fuck I guess you're right. I do slow down the threadmill speed when I feel like it's getting too hard... then I raise it when I'm ok and a good song kicks in.
I don't sprint/walk/sprint/walk however... I keep jogging from a normal to high pace
>>35062293
You literally just described HIIT. Jesus Christ dude.
Are you messing with us???
>>35062300
no, hiit would be sprinting.
its HIGH intensity interval, jogging is not high intensity
>>35062269
YOUR LIFTS WENT UP BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING LIFTING
>guys I've been practicing progressive overload, and my PR's are going up.....but I started masturbating 5 times more a day. I'M PRETTY SURE THIS INCREASE OF MASTURBATION IS WHY MY PR'S ARE GOING UP.
Do you see how stupid what you're saying is?
>>35062309
YOUR HEART RATE DECIDES WHAT THE INTENSITY IS, NOT THE EXERCISE.
CAPS FOR RETARDATION
>>35062309
He IS trolling. Ignore.
>>35062317
I forgot to mention I've been lifting natty for 7 years and gains have been very slow for the past 2 years or so. I noticed a huge difference since I picked up cardio
>>35062317
>i feel like my lifts are going up because i am recuperating faster
>hurr this is progressive overload
kek i am not even that guy but you are a silly faggot.
>>35062319
>standing up is HIIT if you are type 3 obese
kek
>>35061897
HITT means sprints, and thats sprinting at 80%+ of max sprint. Thats really taxing on your muscles. Does this not negatively effect your recovery? HIIT sprints is serious shit, its not like "just going for a run"
Do you even do HIIT or do you just say its good because you read about it?
>>35062336
If you recuperate 8 hours faster, does that mean you hit the gym 8 hours sooner? Or do you have a routine and days you lift on, regardless of your recovery?
WTF are you talking about??
Even if he is saying (I recover faster and I go to the gym way more often now)going to the gym more often is still 100% progressive overload at work, not his cardio.
>>35062341
Standing up is HIIT if it brings your heart rate into HIIT range.
>>35061124
>cons of cardio
You forgot "will fuck up your knees and tibiae beyond repair".
>>35062349
HIIT means 70-90% heart rate. What you do to get there, doesn't fucking matter
Do you think people sprint at 80% of their max speed for 2 minutes straight????
>>35062369
people actually believe this
>>35062371
>Do you think people sprint at 80% of their max speed for 2 minutes straight????
If you are not sprinting up hill for at least 80% max for 2 mins then its not HIIT.
are you all fucking pussies?
>>35062373
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7dVO7xikZ4
This guy has nearly NO cartilage left in his knees.
This is what you are doing to yourself over time, you only have a finite amount, do not waste it on something that gives 0 benefits.
>>35062391
>If you are not sprinting up hill for at least 80% max for 2 mins then its not HIIT
[citation needed]
>>35062401
he was being sarcastic anon.
>>35062396
He is a fucking maniac, he is the equivalent of a powerlifter who grinds out serious years of straight up mean lifting. That does not apply for your average joe who goes for a run 2 times a week.
>>35062408
oh haha
whoops
>>35062416
Its even worse then that. How the fuck can you even compare that maniac cyclist with a average smuch doing some cardio? ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED YOU DYEL FAGGOT
>>35062416
You are not understanding the "finite" concept, that guy ran out of cartilage a lot sooner than just when that video was made.
You are deciding if you want your knees to give out at 60 vs 50 vs 40. You want to prevent that as long as possible, and the more you run the SOONER it WILL happen.
not to mention
(bicycling is far less detrimental to your knees than running) if that's a factor in your cardio.
>>35062426
The video was just to show that cartilage is finite, and IS affected by activity level, to this guy.
>>35062373
You have to apply this information to years of cardio.
>>35062442
I am not not understanding shit. Fuck you and your shitty nonsense. Enjoy dying of of a heartattack you fucking milk guffling goblin squattr
>>35062396
looks like he still has cartilage f>am
>>35062460
I do HIIT I'll be fine, and laughing at your knee pain that develops 20 years sooner than mine.
>>35062465
X-ray vision eh? Go watch the documentary, half of it is about how fucked his knees are.
He literally ignores it due to the addiction.
>>35062468
hahahaha sure thang pooty tang
>72 replies
>16 posters
Wew lad, you really do some hiit shitposting.
>>35062479
This is what we call giving up defending a point. Let it sink in, swallow the pill, enjoy life and your longer lasting knees.
>>35062490
Just responding to the questions asked.
I'm doing god's work, just like when intermittent fasting was being discovered. You have no idea how bad it was convincing the 6 meals a day people, but thinking about how mainstream IF knowledge is now, and how hard they tried to prove me wrong, is a more satisfying feeling than anything in this world, because deep down......I know I helped them swallow that pill. (assuming they ever kept looking into/heard about IF)
>>35062502
>I'm doing god's work,
You are sitting on internet getting a sense of self worth for lecturing people about something they never heard of and or feeling superior because you have a piece of information they don't. Hey whatever floats your boat !
>>35062527
this to be honest
>>35062527
I don't feel superior, I firmly just want to save my bros their precious time while on this Earth, besides I'm just watching anime. I don't mind sharing my knowledge in between.
>>35062502
>>35062527
He even said he just wants to help people.
SS+GOMAD just cracks me up.
>>35062527
The self-worth and gratification is from finding out I was right.(what is wrong with that) You have no Idea how terrified I was that a study was going to come out that just shat all over IF. Each new study kept helping IF though. I believe this will be the same thing.
I accept that my idea can be wrong at any moment,(It's not MY idea, many professional bodybuilding trainers have begun to pick this up) but with the information we have now I have to say this is the best way to interpret it.
>>35062396
And most major bodybuilders from the 90's are dead or dying and the pro powerlifters you fucktards worship are dying as we speak.
Even rippletwat's joints, every single one, are fucked beyond repair.
Most exercise pushed here and elsewhere is not healthy long term or at the levels of excess that are oft talked about here.
It just isn't.
>>35062644
the 80 y-o natty lifter at my gym that does elder lifting competitions around the world and that has been lifting for 50 years disagrees with you
>>35061124
>better erections
I always forget about this. Going to start running when my DNP cycle is over.
>>35062644
Bodybuilders and pro powerlifers are wee bit outside the bell curve. (Not even gonna bring up steroid use, or the volume differences in their work outs)
That's a whole different discussion of # of sets/reps volume in general.
Are natty bro's who are naturally lifting 3x a week at normal volume experiencing detrimental joint damage early on in their lives. NO
Besides you can't compare cardio and lifting to begin with, because cardio causes this damage so much faster.
>>35062680
Name of said lifter?
Cause..even base LaLane had to have surgery. And that motherfucker was a certified superhuman.
>>35062701
Fucked joints happen in lifting I don't give a fuck how safe you are. It just happens.
No such thing as someone who does the BIG THREE LIFTS and is without or forever will be without injury. Espescially if they approach it and do it as a side thing and toy to simply be played around with.
I remember reading a study showing that people who are active in cardio such as runners, cyclists, etc. have higher test levels than when they quit their sport in the off season. Can't find link to confirm but I remember a long ass thread on /fit/ about it months ago.
>>35062680
> my anecdotal evidence is better than observable, logical proof
>tfw some people already fell for the "cardio is useless" meme
Something started by a fat Amerikek who hates cardio and wants to justify that he is just a lazyass who doesn't want to exercise.
The study got debunked, the OP of the other thread literally couldn't prove anything and just made some assumptions besides writing "read the thread" in every reply.
There were even studies shown to prove him wrong and he still said those studies are shit and wrong.
>>35062854
It doesn't change the fact that cardio degrades the joints at a faster weight.
this is /fit/ no one is going to give up lifting because it puts on muscle mass. the cartilage damage is worth it/
However, steady state cardio is something most people think they need to ADD to their routine, but.....it doesn't give us any benefits, this is why it needs to be dropped.
No one here is trying to pick BETWEEN cardio and weightlifting.
>>35062919
>Something started by a fat Amerikek who hates cardio
Steady-state cardio*
Where is it debunked? He has still beat every argument brought up so far.
What studies? No one brought up any other studies in those 2 threads, the whole thread revolved around 1 study.
>>35063001
weight was supposed to be rate* getting late over here.
>>35063009
No he didn't. He is saying that the group that exercised did gain muscle and thus had a higher TDEE.
1. If the study was done properly, they would have adapted the calories intake in that case to still get a 25% deficit
2. You would need to gain a ton of muscle to seriously affect your TDEE in a way that they could catch up with the other group
3. Muscle gain is an ASSUMPTION, it is no where stated in the study, in fact, it is even stated in the study that the group didn't gain any strength and body composition was NOT altered.
This is just an example where his post got debunked, there are also other posts.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815
This study shows that only the energy deficit is important and that steady-state cardio also gives such a deficit
>Subjects were randomly divided into either a diet alone (D, -2,095 +/- 659 kJ/day) or a diet (-1,420 +/- 1,084 kJ/day) plus exercise (DE, three 60-min sessions per week at 60% of VO(2)max or -5,866 kJ/week) group.
>Body mass and body fat decreased significantly [...], but there was no significant difference observed between the groups.
>This study showed that independently of the method for weight loss, the negative energy balance alone is responsible for weight reduction.
Been doing steady state for about a month now almost every day. (so, a beginner)
Should i try HIIT?
How long intervals? Never done HIIT before.
>>35063009
He said that 1lb muscle burns 50kcal. When he was proven wrong using a study, he said this study is wrong and referred to google (instead of showing another study).
>>35058389
>>35058516
>>35058566
>>35058716
Then he said standing vs sitting already makes a big difference. When he was proven wrong using a study, he said this study is wrong.
>>35059006
>>35059033
>>35059104
>>35063030
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815
That study was never brought up (aka you we're lying in your first post) and I'll let him reply about your study whenever he comes back.
1. As was said here
>>35062206
and here
>>35062082
You can extrapolate from the data if you believe in and calories out (because everything else was controlled)
2.No you wouldn't, 1 lb muscle is ~50 extra calories burned a day by normies. The study in the last thread used was this one here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26467968
Measures over 10 minutes.
This one measures over MANY hours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22971879
I think it's obvious which one is more relevant to the discussion. If you can find a study that supports your claim AND is over many hours, I'll believe ya.
3. Answer the 2 question here
>>35049002
Then ask if you still think it is an "assumption".
>>35063047
Standing vs. sitting is answered in number 2 by accident =] Got those 2 posts mixed up.
And as for the 50k cal burned, he didn't say the study is wrong, he said it was not relevant because to your point because there is a difference between Maintenance and Activity calories.
>>35058566
>>35058613
>>35058632
>>35058661 This is where the guy admitted defeat.
It's kind of cringe that your pretending like his responses don't exist. you know I'm just gonna link them lol.
>>35063100
>That study was never brought up (aka you we're lying in your first post)
I never said that this specific study was shown before, this was just to make it more clear for you.
The studies shown are here
>>35063047
>This one measures over MANY hours.
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22971879
Okay then, let's use your study. Standing vs sitting burns 20kcal more then. Still nowhere near the 50kcal you are saying, even though standing uses a lot more muscles.
What you quoted just shows again how the OP argues. He is using terms like
>do you believe
>it's just math
>do you think
As long as it's not written in the study, it's an assumption.
>>35063148
Another study proving OP wrong
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17558730
>one of four groups: (1) no advice, (2) low-fat, high-carbohydrate (including sucrose) energy-reduced diet, (3) 60 min/day brisk walking, and (4) diet and activity advice as previous.
>Group 4 achieved greatest weight loss of 4.2 kg and greatest reduction in waist circumference of 6.5 cm.
And now before you crawl back and say OP never said something like that, he said that cardio does not burn any more calories. Like for example in the post you quoted
>>35062082
>>35063168
You implied it here.
>>35062919
>>35063009
>>35063030
Can't let you try to get away with that sneakiness.
The 50k cal burned was never brought up in the sitting vs. standing debate, only the 1lb muscle mass debate. I told you I responded to that by accident in the last post of mine.
as for sitting vs. standing this is what happened.
>>35059033
So my study says that 4 calories an hour, is actually 20 calories burned an hour.
500% DIFFERENCE.
10 hours of standing from your study (whos data comes from 10 minute intervals) = 40 calories burned.
10 hours standing in my study(whos data comes from several hours) says= 200 calories burned.
It is a big difference, he was right.
>>35063148
Another study right here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7572699
>randomly assigned to diet alone (D) or diet and exercise (DE) for 8 wk
>DE resulted in a significantly increased loss of fat mass compared with D
>Energy balance data show that the DE treatment resulted in a significantly greater energy deficit than the D treatment
>>35063228
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17558730
That study doesn't tell us any of the variables we need to know.
They even had different diets.
Do you even know what you are trying to argue anymore?
>>35063244
>obese women
That instantly makes it irrelevant.
Dude, you need to look at the study the threads were based on. Everything is controlled that needs to be, and ALL of the information on the subjects is given to us. that is why the study is so relevant to have two 300+ threads about it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2806223/
>>35063259
>They even had different diets
> (2) low-fat, high-carbohydrate (including sucrose) energy-reduced diet, (3) 60 min/day brisk walking, and (4) diet and activity advice as previous.
>as previous
It's useless to argue with you. I bet you are even the OP from the other thread. You completely ignore all the studies here shown again and just make up some bullshits.
>>35063278
You just green texted the part that proved you wrong. I'll respond anyways though, only because I love you.
subjects were assigned to one of four groups: (1) no advice
(2) low-fat, high-carbohydrate (including sucrose) energy-reduced diet
(3) 60 min/day brisk walking, and
(4) diet and activity advice as previous.
Group 1 has their own diet
Group 2 has their own diet
Group 3 walks
Group 4 walks and diets.
This is not controlled in anyway for what we are discussing.
>>35063310
I think you are letting him troll you. He's posting random pubmed articles now without even reading them. Stop replying to him.
>>35062919
Well no one really debunked the original study which is was all about, and everyone kept talking about "but muh 24 weeks!!!" when no one could argue over the first 10 weeks which the graph was all about. The only thing that got debunked was the fact that you are a somewhat clever individual
>>35063046
The argument in all these threads are that HIIT > steady state cardio, and a lot of people are defendig steady state cardio. What no one is doing is talking shit about HIIT, because it is great and most people agree. Doesnt hurt at all to give it a try instead of steady state for a period of time. Try it out and see for yourself if you like it or if it gives you better results
>>35063046
>>35063374
this works fine
>>35047970
I don't understand hopw people don't understand that the Cr+EX group would of course put on muscle mass.
They were overweight(not obese) normies going from 0 exercise, to cardio 5 days a week for half a year. Of course they will add muscle.
then when you remember that they are OVERWEIGHT, that means their steps(on the treadmill) are even closer to weightlifting.
What I mean is.
150lb normy takes a step.
250lb normy takes a step.
Which person is more likely to develop hypertrophy from their steps.
Everything OP said in the other thread about muscle mass being added is 100% true, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them not to put on muscle.
Saying it's an "assumption" is 100% denial.
>>35063310
>>35063328
Samefag
>>35063359
>>35063374
>>35063384
>>35063422
Samefag
You two guys are so pathetic, you realize that you can see how many original IPs are posting in the thread? No one will fall for your troll meme.
>>35063422
Also, don't forget that if you put on a pound of muscle mass, that 1lb is going to burn an extra 50 calories a day EVERY DAY UNTIL THE END OF THE EXPERIMENT. at 50 calories a day (50 calories is the lowest it could be, could be upwards of ~100, but lets ignore that) it would only take 70 days(3,500 divided by 50) for the muscle to have burned enough calories to make up for it's weight, everyday after that is just more calories into a deficit, which is exactly why you see the Cr+EX group eventually start to catch up.
>>35063439
Your denial is hitting new levels friend. Go to bed.
>>35061897
Nearly everyone does both. Running a longer distance per week (getting the miles in) has also been shown to increase your vo2max substantially compared to not doing it. Plus LISS needs no warm up or as much timing or anything like that.
>>35063471
>as also been shown to increase your vo2max substantially compared to not doing it.
We are talking about Steady state cardio vs. HIIT
Not Cardio vs. No cardio.
Of course cardio has health benefits, that was never the subject.
>>35063486
>Not Cardio vs. No cardio.
Also not talking about that. Someone who runs 70 miles a week however will have a better vo2max increase than someone running 30 and better economy of movement to boot.
Try filling up 70 miles with hiit
how come cardio is so much fucking harder than lifting
Like I've been running for 5 years and I still feel like shit when I run. Sure I'm better at this now than when I started, still waiting for the time it actually get easier. Lifting is so much fun in comparison.
>>35063562
30 miles a week is not HIIT
>>35063636
Higher heart rate=more shit going on in the body=more uncomfortable
I usually do mixes between LISS and HIIT. Either do LISS for 20 minutes and go faster towards the end until I can't handle it anymore, or do a 5 minutes LISS warm up before a HIIT session.
Who here doing cardio + yohimbine? Anybody got any real results? Im a week in right now and it seems to be working. I do eating and drinking so much on Thanksgiving.
Oh for fuck sake, just do it if you want to do if you dont then dont do it
I do 40 min intervals on the rowing machine twice a week, eat 3100 calories am a 5'7 manlet, my lifts are all going up, not putting on any fat so high intensity intervals work for me.
Every now and then i do HIIT
1 min sprint rowing then 30 sec's rest, repeat 8-10 times. Im totally fucked by the end of it and it doesnt mess with my weight training
>>35063278
It was useless to argue, because you had no useful information or knowledge to argue with.
