Hey Icklemoley - another cardio question

klirosi

Cathlete
Hey, Wayne. I've read several of your posts, both recent and from a while ago, where you've written about your cardio "philosophy." I'm curious about a couple of things. I've read several different sources that claimed you don't start burning fat until 20-30 minutes into a cardio workout. Do you think that's true, and if so, are you not concerned about cardio for fat burning since you only do 30 minutes? I imagine at your intensity, you aren't burning as much fat anyway, and wonder what your goals are. For someone with more fat to burn, would you recommend a longer, slower workout? Just curious, and thought I'd pick your well-informed brain if you are willing to share. Thanks for all your posts.

Kerrie
 
I'm not Wayne but I have an answer to your question. I recently read a book called The Fat Free Truth and it says the following about fat burning exercise:

"Question: Is it better for weight loss if I do short workouts at a fast pace or long workouts at a slow pace?

The short answer: The best workout for weight loss is the one that burns the most calories. Period

The treadmill at your gym probably has a slow-paced fat-burning program. And the stationary bike probably has a heart-rate chart on its display that recommends a range of heart rates best for weight loss and fat burning. Ignore these. They're vestiges of an outdated belief that long, slow workouts are always better for weight loss than faster, shorter workouts.

This mistaken belief stems from and actual truth: When you burn calories at slower speeds, your body's primary fuel source is fat, whereas at higher intensities, you use primarily the carbohydrate circulating in your bloodstream or store in your muscle. Misguided exercisers sometimes reason that using higher percentages of fat as fuel must translate into quicker fat loss. But the truth is, the more calories your burn, the closer you inch toward your weight-loss goals, regardless of what type of fuel your body uses for energy.

So does this mean that if your goal is weight loss, you should set your treadmill on warp factor 6 every single workout? Of course not. Too much high-intensity exercise can leave you burned-out, sore, or prone to injuries. You're better off striking a balance between high- and low-intensity workouts that fall some where between a leisurly walk and a killer sprint"

Hope that helps.

Elaine
 
Exactly. Thanks Elaine for quoting this.

So, the answer is that you need to include workouts each week that cover all apporaches: some long and steady state and some short, intense, interval style.

Variety prevents boredom, burn out and injury and trains your heart in the best way posssible.

Clare
 
Hi Elaine - thanks for your reply! I have heard that the more intensity the better, for the sake of more total calories burned. But I'm wondering if there is a minimum, and if that minimum is at least 30 minutes. I've lessened my cardio sessions since I've been focusing more on strength training, and it seems like I'm getting thicker in the middle, where I've never really gained weight before. I just didn't know if the shorter cardio sessions (even though more intense) were the reason. Thanks again for your insight.

Kerrie
 
I have absolutely no scientific backing for what I am about to say but I think that individual people benefit differently from different forms of exercise.

I personally lose more weight, my clothes fit better, and I lean out the most after incorporating long (1 hour or more), steady state cardio sessions into my routine. Jogging at a slow pace (10 minute + per mile) for over an hour is almost exclusively the only cardio I do now. I have lost over 10 pounds by virtually changing nothing else.

I used to think I had to go all out with the Imax videos (twice weekly) to bust past my plateau. But those, plus 4 other cardio videos and 3 strength routines a week did nothing for me. I now run 5 miles 3 times per week for an hour and 15 minutes at a time and strength train 3 hours per week. Finally result!

I am not suggesting that anyone adopt one approach over another, I am just suggesting that different things work for different people.
 
Hi, it does come down eventually to total calories burned. Higher intensity training does burn more calories per minute of exercise but you can only keep it up for a shorter period of time. For HIIT training (usually about 20-30 minutes in duration) you are alternating high intensity intervals with lower intensity training. Steady state cardio can be kept up for a longer period of time and although calories burned/minute may be lower than with HIIT or other high intensity cardio, the total amount of calories burned in a longer but lower intensity aerobic workout is usually higher. According to my HRM, I burn more calories with LowMax than I do with any of the IMAXes and PowerMax and MIC are the winners of "most calories burned" with any of the Cathe cardios that I have done.
I have been having the best results recently by linmiting my cardio to about 3-4 hours/week (mix of HIIT and steady state) and focusing on strength training (not more time..just smarter workouts...using progressive overload technique and and keeping my weight work separate from my cardio.... unless you count circuits...I do a lot of circuits but this is cardio and not true weight training as the weights are usually no where what I use for strength training and you are not working those muscles to failure).
 
Okay - so I guess I should go back to my longer, more frequent cardio sessions and see if I notice any changes, right?? This may just be what my body needs. I get it now....;)

Thanks for all the posts!
Kerrie
 
Mix it up, Kerrie. You get the best results by doing different things, letting the body only to guess what's going to happen. If you do an hour wo at the same intensity every day, your body will adjust to that sooner or later and you won't see the result that you want. Good luck, Mari
 

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top