MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
is cardio really needed?
- Thread starter regno1
- Start date
regno1 said:
No cardio is not needed to lose bodyfat.
Fat gain or loss would have more to do with the glucagon to insulin relationship more than cardio.
Lifting weights is critical to keeping lean muscle while dieting.
Controlling insulin when dieting is your primary tool against fat.
I have lost 25 lbs myself in 14 weeks with over 6 inches on my waist.
I did zero cardio, although I lift 5 days a week.
So for every 4 lbs I lost 1 inch on my waist.
Now that seems like a good arguement for fat loss with no cardio eh?
Ramstein II
New Member
Necessary? No. Getting cut is fat loss with muscle retention. For that formula these things are NECESSARY: 1. Calorie deficitburn more calories than you eat. 2. Dietary protein. 3. Resistance training. Cardio makes #1 easier. Personally, Im a huge believer in cardio to get cut. I think if you do it right you can burn fat while you do your cardio and really speed up the process. I also like being in great cardiovascular shape. But thats just me.
Grizzly
New Member
DLMCBBB said:
Agreed with Ram. VERY few can get REALLY shredded with no cardio. There are some who compete and do no cardio. But honestly, if they are competing, they already have that genetic advantage. Do you?
Cardio does seem to make the process faster, and it's great for active recovery from the weight training sessions. It also gives you something to do rather than think about eating. Which is all you'll do when you get really low in the bf relhm.
Cardio does seem to make the process faster, and it's great for active recovery from the weight training sessions. It also gives you something to do rather than think about eating. Which is all you'll do when you get really low in the bf relhm.
Not true guys.
I will repeat myself. Cardio is not needed for fat loss.
Will it work better?............Nah!
Fat gain is controlled by the production of insulin. Insulin is a storage hormone. Beings that carbs are either injested in large volume or of the high glycemic index, this will spike blood sugars which in turn spike insulin and beings that insulin is a storage hormone that meal can easily be stored as fat.
Oh and not only that but to make matters worse how about this. In the presence of insulin fat loss stops dead.
Or GH production is highest when insulin is lowest.
So saying that insulin has nothing to do with it is a foolish incorrect statement.
95% of all the calories burned is fat cals.
Fat is the most efficient source of fuel.
It will leave you with the most stable blood sugars.
It curbs appitite for up to 3 times as long.
Fat supresses insuilin.
Glucagon on the other hand is insulins's opposite, when insulin is low, glucagon is high, when glucagon is high fat burning is present.
Toss some insulin in the mix and POW fat loss stops dead.
Not only that but beings that insulin is driving down blood sugars and storing that meal as fat, the brain will call out for fuel as it never got fed due to insulins responce to the elevated blood sugars.
So the brain sends a signal of hunger and then you end up eating again only to find out that that meal got stored as fat.
Insulin if high is not good, it can give you insulin resistance where your vary likely to have higher amounts of insulin to do the same job as lower amounts of insulin.
When this happens it actually makes matters worse.
If that all wasnt bad enough, insulin resistance can cause belly fat, aromatase enzme resides in belly fat. The more aromatase enzyme the more conversion of our precious testosterone to estradiol (E2 estrogen), the lower the test levels become, the lower test levels, the more insulin resistant, the more insulin resistant the fatter we get.
So I will ask you this.
If stuffing your face got you fat, what makes you think you will lose it with cardio?
If most of your calories are burned as fat why have such a high supply of carbohydrates?
You have a limited storage capacity of glycogen, any more than that (most people do) it wont store as glycogen but as a triglyceride in the form of fat.
By reducing the carbohydrates, upping the fats, keeping the protein high enough to support lean muscle mass, you are better off.
When I said diet I never said calorie restriction.
Calorie restriction is not a good idea. There are many studies that support calorie restrictions and muscle loss.
There are also many studies that support high fat diets and fat loss.
Calorie restrictions actually will slow down the production of T3, and also slow metabolism.
This makes dieting even worse.
What about when you start eating again when your metabolism is slowed due to calorie restrictions?......You get fat or even worse fatter.
So, if you design your diet (way of eating), you can lose bodyfat, support lean muscle mass with less loss, feel better with less food cravings, have more even blood sugar levels just by the way you eat.
Again if you dont control insulin to unlock fat burning you will never win the war on fat loss.
How do I know this?
I am doing it right now.
I have more information on this subject than anyone of you will ever know.
Go ahead and challenge me.
Or try it for yourself and lose up to 2-3 lbs a week with zero cardio and not feel hungry or weak.
Cardio?....................NO!
Diet?..................Absolutly "IF" you know what you are doing.
The last thing you need to lose is lean muscle mass, if you are smart you will lose very little, if you are not you will lose much more.
I will repeat myself. Cardio is not needed for fat loss.
Will it work better?............Nah!
Fat gain is controlled by the production of insulin. Insulin is a storage hormone. Beings that carbs are either injested in large volume or of the high glycemic index, this will spike blood sugars which in turn spike insulin and beings that insulin is a storage hormone that meal can easily be stored as fat.
Oh and not only that but to make matters worse how about this. In the presence of insulin fat loss stops dead.
Or GH production is highest when insulin is lowest.
So saying that insulin has nothing to do with it is a foolish incorrect statement.
95% of all the calories burned is fat cals.
Fat is the most efficient source of fuel.
It will leave you with the most stable blood sugars.
It curbs appitite for up to 3 times as long.
Fat supresses insuilin.
Glucagon on the other hand is insulins's opposite, when insulin is low, glucagon is high, when glucagon is high fat burning is present.
Toss some insulin in the mix and POW fat loss stops dead.
Not only that but beings that insulin is driving down blood sugars and storing that meal as fat, the brain will call out for fuel as it never got fed due to insulins responce to the elevated blood sugars.
So the brain sends a signal of hunger and then you end up eating again only to find out that that meal got stored as fat.
Insulin if high is not good, it can give you insulin resistance where your vary likely to have higher amounts of insulin to do the same job as lower amounts of insulin.
When this happens it actually makes matters worse.
If that all wasnt bad enough, insulin resistance can cause belly fat, aromatase enzme resides in belly fat. The more aromatase enzyme the more conversion of our precious testosterone to estradiol (E2 estrogen), the lower the test levels become, the lower test levels, the more insulin resistant, the more insulin resistant the fatter we get.
So I will ask you this.
If stuffing your face got you fat, what makes you think you will lose it with cardio?
If most of your calories are burned as fat why have such a high supply of carbohydrates?
You have a limited storage capacity of glycogen, any more than that (most people do) it wont store as glycogen but as a triglyceride in the form of fat.
By reducing the carbohydrates, upping the fats, keeping the protein high enough to support lean muscle mass, you are better off.
When I said diet I never said calorie restriction.
Calorie restriction is not a good idea. There are many studies that support calorie restrictions and muscle loss.
There are also many studies that support high fat diets and fat loss.
Calorie restrictions actually will slow down the production of T3, and also slow metabolism.
This makes dieting even worse.
What about when you start eating again when your metabolism is slowed due to calorie restrictions?......You get fat or even worse fatter.
So, if you design your diet (way of eating), you can lose bodyfat, support lean muscle mass with less loss, feel better with less food cravings, have more even blood sugar levels just by the way you eat.
Again if you dont control insulin to unlock fat burning you will never win the war on fat loss.
How do I know this?
I am doing it right now.
I have more information on this subject than anyone of you will ever know.
Go ahead and challenge me.
Or try it for yourself and lose up to 2-3 lbs a week with zero cardio and not feel hungry or weak.
Cardio?....................NO!
Diet?..................Absolutly "IF" you know what you are doing.
The last thing you need to lose is lean muscle mass, if you are smart you will lose very little, if you are not you will lose much more.
Last edited:
The problem is trying to look at anything in isolation. For example, someone training a high volume, short rest weight training with diet probably doesn't need cardio. Especially if they are male. Someone doing pure strength training, low reps/long rest is arguably more likely to need some.
A female with a lower caloric requirement or even a smaller male probably needs cardio to create a suitable deficit.
Some people, from a hunger issue, run into problems by cutting calories. As well, caloric intake reaches a point where further reductions are not realistic in the long term. Leaving cardio/training as the only option for increasing the deficit. This arguably becomes more of an issue near the end of the diet when metabolic rate is really crashing. Some folks like to wait to bring in cardio until simple weight training + caloric restriction ceases working.
And there is good old genetic diversity. My old training partner clearly had low sympathetic tone (his blood pressure was very low) and a relatively low metabolic rate for his size. He had to cut calories to 800 AND do a high volume of training to get lean. But he didn't like cardio, felt it caused him muscle loss.
But even that was based on having done a high volume of running in conjunction with a monster caloric deficit.
I tend to run a low metabolic rate on top of a low daily activity so when I was dieting hard, I had to lift, cut calories fairly hard (8 cal/lb) and do cardio regularly.
So, basically, it just depends.
A female with a lower caloric requirement or even a smaller male probably needs cardio to create a suitable deficit.
Some people, from a hunger issue, run into problems by cutting calories. As well, caloric intake reaches a point where further reductions are not realistic in the long term. Leaving cardio/training as the only option for increasing the deficit. This arguably becomes more of an issue near the end of the diet when metabolic rate is really crashing. Some folks like to wait to bring in cardio until simple weight training + caloric restriction ceases working.
And there is good old genetic diversity. My old training partner clearly had low sympathetic tone (his blood pressure was very low) and a relatively low metabolic rate for his size. He had to cut calories to 800 AND do a high volume of training to get lean. But he didn't like cardio, felt it caused him muscle loss.
But even that was based on having done a high volume of running in conjunction with a monster caloric deficit.
I tend to run a low metabolic rate on top of a low daily activity so when I was dieting hard, I had to lift, cut calories fairly hard (8 cal/lb) and do cardio regularly.
So, basically, it just depends.
MANWHORE
Subscriber
Just got to read the 1st line of reply above but i agree it has to do with training program that you use at this time ... If you currenty us a Heavy Duty style training,i do not believe cardio is needed at all .. I also believe weight training to be better for fat lose than cardio anyway .. Cardio only uses calories when doing it but weight training helps body to use calories all day long .. Many many hrs after training is finished .. You can train your type II fibers to burn more fat than type I by increasing the mitochondria in the type II. training all out until you are breathing very heavy after ea set .. Taking sets to concentric failure wil l do much more for fat lose than cardio will IMO .. Do a 30min Mentzer workout then come back and ask about needing cardio for fat lose LOL .. Just make sure you get enough rest/protein and have enough androgens in your blood because you can overtrain very easially ..
DLMCBBB said:
So dustin you are telling me that insulin does not store fat?
Insulin is not a storage hormone?
Go back to school.
Many guys go on high carb diets using restricted cals and have far less results that using lower carb high fat.
I have mounds of studies on this if you want me to take the time to put them here I will.
I have quite a few friends that compete and every one of them carb cycles, EVERY ONE OF THEM!!!
So, are they wrong too?
.....haaa haaa this is laughable.By telling me I am incorrect then I am willing to put up the studies for you.
Will you be willing to put up anything other than you opinion (which at this point tells me you are not too sharp on hormones).
Fat gain is hormone controlled.
Yes this is right.
All using food to add or lose fat.
Tell you what, some of these studies I have (which will prove my point but the truth needs no defense), compare restricted calorie diets to non restricted higher fat lower carb diets and the guys on the low carb lost more bodyfat (tested by immerson) even though they took in more calories.
Seems that there is a big hole in your arguement.
Like I said, as of this morning I lost 25 lbs and 6.5 inches on the waist.
If you do the math that is a tone of inches compared to the weight.
I would be willing to bet I lost almost all fat.
There is a big diffrence of weight and fat.
I did zero cardio too.
Dropping calories to where you are thinking is suicide and destined to fail.
Why?
Because you will lose alot of muscle, in fact the muscle loss will only make you get fatter due to less requirement of fuel.
Fat aids in fat burning.
Fat does not make you fat.
Fat supresses insulin.
Restricting calories is not necessary.
If you know what you are doing fat loss is super easy, all this and sparing lean muscle.
Carb cycling also allows to reload glycogen levels to get all the benefits that the restricted diets wont.
Not only that but in this environment you are insulin sensitive and less prone to store fat with all the anabolic effects of insulin, increased IGF-1, boost in thyroid, and some studies suggest a testosterone boost.
The body has two types of fat.
Can you name the two types of fat and explain how each one can be reduced?
Hint: if you say cardio you are actually wrong twice.
If you want I will post the studies, they are already here on this board, but this will prove my point and make you a liar.
Last edited:
hackskii said:So dustin you are telling me that insulin does not store fat?
Insulin is not a storage hormone?
Go back to school.
Many guys go on high carb diets using restricted cals and have far less results that using lower carb high fat.
I have mounds of studies on this if you want me to take the time to put them here I will.
I have quite a few friends that compete and every one of them carb cycles, EVERY ONE OF THEM!!!
So, are they wrong too?
By telling me I am incorrect then I am willing to put up the studies for you.
Will you be willing to put up anything other than you opinion (which at this point tells me you are not too sharp on hormones).
Fat gain is hormone controlled.
Yes this is right.
All using food to add or lose fat.
Tell you what, some of these studies I have (which will prove my point but the truth needs no defense), compare restricted calorie diets to non restricted higher fat lower carb diets and the guys on the low carb lost more bodyfat (tested by immerson) even though they took in more calories.
Seems that there is a big hole in your arguement.
Like I said, as of this morning I lost 25 lbs and 6.5 inches on the waist.
If you do the math that is a tone of inches compared to the weight.
I would be willing to bet I lost almost all fat.
There is a big diffrence of weight and fat.
I did zero cardio too.
Dropping calories to where you are thinking is suicide and destined to fail.
Why?
Because you will lose alot of muscle, in fact the muscle loss will only make you get fatter due to less requirement of fuel.
Fat aids in fat burning.
Fat does not make you fat.
Fat supresses insulin.
Restricting calories is not necessary.
If you know what you are doing fat loss is super easy, all this and sparing lean muscle.
Carb cycling also allows to reload glycogen levels to get all the benefits that the restricted diets wont.
Not only that but in this environment you are insulin sensitive and less prone to store fat with all the anabolic effects of insulin, increased IGF-1, boost in thyroid, and some studies suggest a testosterone boost.
The body has two types of fat.
Can you name the two types of fat and explain how each one can be reduced?
Hint: if you say cardio you are actually wrong twice.
If you want I will post the studies, they are already here on this board, but this will prove my point and make you a liar.
Bro,
The whole don't eat protein + fat or don't eat carbs + whatever is a bunch of crap within this context .
The whole reasoning behind don't eat carbs + fat is based on a simplistic and outmoded model of fat cell metabolism
Dustin
hackskii said:
Sounds like ketosis
If so, a great amount of water weight is first noticed on this diet.
What hackskii conveniently ignores is that
a. protein raises insulin
b. it takes only miniscule amounts of insulin to affect fat cell metabolism
c. dietary fat itself affects fat cell metabolism with NO CHANGE In insulin becuse of a little bastard protein called acylation stimulation protein (ASP).
But, again, most of the tastsy high calorie stuff most people overeat contais fat/carbs. IF you make them separate fat from carbs, you limit what they can eat at any given meal. It's a way to trick them into eating less.
Hackski... you're wrong here. First, you're way off base if you think you can lose fat with no calorie restriction and just a low carb diet. That's a bunch of BS.
As for insulin/glucagon, it makes little to no difference when you're on a caloric deficit. Yes, insulin is a storage hormone. I agree that there's no reason for your body to burn fat when its preferred fuel is present: glucose. But assuming you control for calories and protein, what difference does it make? Absolutely none. If you have a high carb intake, but low fat intake, then the resulting insulin will likely store all the fat and some of the glucose. But if you're restricting calories, you're going to burn that glucose and then start burning the fat, such that you burn more fat than you ate (since you ate very little)... that's fat loss on a high carb diet, and people lose fat all the time that way.
Now consider it the other way around: with a high fat diet and low carb intake, you won't have high insulin, but it makes no difference. Fat can still store itself without insulin, not to mention that protein is insulinogenic. If you're on the same caloric deficit, you're going to burn that fat (which is a lot) and then some. Either way, you burn just as much additional fat.
Now you say you have tons of studies. I say you don't have one that shows what you claim. I just got done talking about this same thing with That's That... you're not going to find one study that controls for protein and calories that shows any additional fat loss from a low carb diet.
Keep in mind: 1) the study needs to control for calories. If it doesn't, then a low carb diet can appear to result in more fat loss simply because people eat less food. Cutting out carbs cuts out a ton of food options. But we want to see if a low-carb diet itself shows some metabolic advantage, not just leads us to eat less. So any non-retard study is going to control for calories between the low carb and high carb group.
2) the study needs to control for protein. If it doesn't, the low carb diet invariably increases protein intake, and it's well known that protein has a significant impact on body composition. So the study should keep protein constant (control for it) between the control group and the low-carb group... otherwise it says nothing about low-carb diets and just tells us that high protein diets are superior, but that's not the issue.
3) the study needs to look at fat loss. It's well known that at the onset of a low carb diet, a couple kg's of water weight will be lost. This, of course, says nothing about fat loss. So we need a study that concludes a change in fat mass, not weight!
These three things should be obvious. I'll be impressed if you find even one study hackski, because low carb diets confer no additional metabolic advantage. They don't magically make you lose more fat since less insulin is produced. Such an idea is far too simplistic.
As for insulin/glucagon, it makes little to no difference when you're on a caloric deficit. Yes, insulin is a storage hormone. I agree that there's no reason for your body to burn fat when its preferred fuel is present: glucose. But assuming you control for calories and protein, what difference does it make? Absolutely none. If you have a high carb intake, but low fat intake, then the resulting insulin will likely store all the fat and some of the glucose. But if you're restricting calories, you're going to burn that glucose and then start burning the fat, such that you burn more fat than you ate (since you ate very little)... that's fat loss on a high carb diet, and people lose fat all the time that way.
Now consider it the other way around: with a high fat diet and low carb intake, you won't have high insulin, but it makes no difference. Fat can still store itself without insulin, not to mention that protein is insulinogenic. If you're on the same caloric deficit, you're going to burn that fat (which is a lot) and then some. Either way, you burn just as much additional fat.
Now you say you have tons of studies. I say you don't have one that shows what you claim. I just got done talking about this same thing with That's That... you're not going to find one study that controls for protein and calories that shows any additional fat loss from a low carb diet.
Keep in mind: 1) the study needs to control for calories. If it doesn't, then a low carb diet can appear to result in more fat loss simply because people eat less food. Cutting out carbs cuts out a ton of food options. But we want to see if a low-carb diet itself shows some metabolic advantage, not just leads us to eat less. So any non-retard study is going to control for calories between the low carb and high carb group.
2) the study needs to control for protein. If it doesn't, the low carb diet invariably increases protein intake, and it's well known that protein has a significant impact on body composition. So the study should keep protein constant (control for it) between the control group and the low-carb group... otherwise it says nothing about low-carb diets and just tells us that high protein diets are superior, but that's not the issue.
3) the study needs to look at fat loss. It's well known that at the onset of a low carb diet, a couple kg's of water weight will be lost. This, of course, says nothing about fat loss. So we need a study that concludes a change in fat mass, not weight!
These three things should be obvious. I'll be impressed if you find even one study hackski, because low carb diets confer no additional metabolic advantage. They don't magically make you lose more fat since less insulin is produced. Such an idea is far too simplistic.
Conciliator,
I would also be surprised to see the studies he tries to post on here. Why is it, when one's position is challenged on this board, the first thing that your opponents write is "go back to school", or "you should have not slept in class".
Bottom line is in a calorie surplus (no matter what the macronutrient intake), you spend less time in the fasting state over a 24 hour period.
This is also why, generally speaking, shuffling around fats and carbs has no real impact on things, at least not within an identical calorie intake. As you eat more carbs, you lower fat intake so even though you burn less fat, the difference may be identical to a diet where you're eating less carbs and more fat.
That is, what matters at the end of the day is fat balance (fat oxidation - fat intake). Under most circumstances, fat balance will be identical to calorie balance. A positive calorie balance will turn up as a positive fat balance (fat gained) and vice versa.
Raising the seminal question: why bother with one diet vs. another?
Because there are other factors including adherence, maintaining training intensity, food preferences and others that go into a diet. If you can't stick to a high-carb/low-fat diet (b/c you're hungry or whatever), it doesn't matter if it should generate the same fat loss at a given calorie level: if you eat more, you'll lose less fat. So why the question marks Grizzly?
I would also be surprised to see the studies he tries to post on here. Why is it, when one's position is challenged on this board, the first thing that your opponents write is "go back to school", or "you should have not slept in class".
Bottom line is in a calorie surplus (no matter what the macronutrient intake), you spend less time in the fasting state over a 24 hour period.
This is also why, generally speaking, shuffling around fats and carbs has no real impact on things, at least not within an identical calorie intake. As you eat more carbs, you lower fat intake so even though you burn less fat, the difference may be identical to a diet where you're eating less carbs and more fat.
That is, what matters at the end of the day is fat balance (fat oxidation - fat intake). Under most circumstances, fat balance will be identical to calorie balance. A positive calorie balance will turn up as a positive fat balance (fat gained) and vice versa.
Raising the seminal question: why bother with one diet vs. another?
Because there are other factors including adherence, maintaining training intensity, food preferences and others that go into a diet. If you can't stick to a high-carb/low-fat diet (b/c you're hungry or whatever), it doesn't matter if it should generate the same fat loss at a given calorie level: if you eat more, you'll lose less fat. So why the question marks Grizzly?
jasthace
New Member
I agree with hackskii,insulin is the storage hormone,
If you can control the storage of food/energy as fat, with your diet, you have a better diet for fat loss.
Hi carb diets cause an insulin spike and you store the energy instead of using it as fuel.
So there's is debate on these two diets.What of the original question? do you need cardio to lose fat and get cut?The fat diet says no cardio.What about the carb diet supporters?
If you can control the storage of food/energy as fat, with your diet, you have a better diet for fat loss.
Hi carb diets cause an insulin spike and you store the energy instead of using it as fuel.
So there's is debate on these two diets.What of the original question? do you need cardio to lose fat and get cut?The fat diet says no cardio.What about the carb diet supporters?
You obviously still don't get it though. If you swap out fat calories for carbs, you get more insulin, but you're also storing less fat. At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter, since you're burning more than you're consuming. It's not that hard.jasthace said:
Conciliator said:
Dude, the above statement is not true.
Fat is very difficult to store as fat on its own.
Monounsaturated fats and Omega 3's have zero impact on insulin what so ever.
Carbohydrates on the other hand the opposite is true.
Searching for the articles now to prove my point about the same amount of calories will yield the same amount of weight loss.
Isn't that my point? If you control for protein and calories, you'll lose the same amount of fat with either a low-carb or a high-carb diet. The low carb diet makes no difference here.hackskii said:
