Too much cardio... (Read 1811 times)

We should ask the Kenyans about this....

Sounds like typical jock type mumbo jumbo......

I am assuming they are pushing their "personal training" services and to encourage more weight training to illicit more change in a person's appearance by adding muscle and also promoting the metabolic effects of more muscle. Those who push the "super slow" method of training are not strong advocates of cardiovascular training.

Adding consistent, full body weight training will change the look of your body. Of course, if you want to perform better in races you need to be smart about your weight lifting. I know, I continue to lift but have gone from 196 lbs 175 lbs. My body feels better and I am faster. I do miss the muscle though but have a more sleek look but look normal in clothes now.

Even after reading that link, I still think they have the wording wrong. Cardio does not increase body fat. Consuming too many calories increases body fat.



I find it hard to believe that anyone putting in 7 hours of cardio a week and cutting their calorie intake by half will be able to increase body fat regardless of how well they adapt. Unless they cut 8000 calories down to 4000 calories, I don't see it happening.

The more likely scenario is 30 minutes of half-ass cardio with less than 20 minutes in the zone, and cutting their calories from 3500 to 3000 and expecting to suddenly be thin.

Quote from mikeymike on 3/9/2009 at 12:39 PM:

From the article:



Makes sense to me. Its all about the fat burning flame. I know mines been looking might weak lately.

Damn so you're saying my hormones can "bottom out"? That sounds bad.

Quote from Ennay on 3/9/2009 at 12:55 PM:
Sorry sister it's called BEING OLD.

Quote from pnthuntr on 3/7/2009 at 4:15 PM:

Ahah. Here is the source of the campfire and metabolism metaphor used in a prior thread (that I can't find at the moment). The metaphor is pushed well beyond its limits and really does not follow. The premise is, as pointed out above, that loads of cardio leads to less weight loss than the exercisor expected, so they stop just as their muscles become efficient and so they gain back far more weight than they lost.

The metaphor is this: Our body is a campfire, exercise is air and food is wood. If we decrease the wood and increase the air (i.e., as wind), the fire will get blown out. After that, the wood that keeps getting put on the fire accumulates (i.e., you begin to gain weight).

The specific words: "Your body has a fat burning engine that we can compare to a campfire. To turn the engine on you will need the proper mix of wood (nutrition) and air (exercise) to keep the flames (metabolism) burning fat."

Erm, okay. Some points:

1. In the metaphor, the fire going out logically means that the person dies. Um, okay. I know that the metaphor says that the "fat burning engine" dies and somehow that the "slow metabolism" remains. Erm, okay. Fat burning metabolism IS slow burning metabolism (as opposed to the carb burning that happens at high effort) AND the body always burns both fat and carbs in varying combinations. So the only way for the fat burning fire to stop in real physiology is for all metabolism to stop. Which happens when you die.

2. To be correct, you would need to increase the partial pressure of oxygen in the metaphor, not the wind velocity. An increase in PPO2 would increase the flame despite a decrease in wood, and the wood would continue to burn until it is gone.

3. The metaphor REQUIRES that the fire stops (which, presumably, means that you die but somehow keep eating and exercising) for the weight gain to happen. I am not quite sure how this works in the real world.

4. The metaphor is based on the premise that exercise would stop and weight gain would then happen (well, duh). But in the world of the metaphor, exercise (i.e., air) going away would cause the fire to extinguish (i.e., we would again die since a fire requires air). So if I were to stop exercising, I would die? And also gain weight?

In sum: bad bad bad metaphor. And the physiology it proposes is wrong UNLESS you include that a period of exercise is followed by a period of nonexercise while food intake remains the same. Well, duh.