Thread: Cardio while bulking

I'd just go with 30 minutes on the treadmill 3 times a week. High intensity cardio promotes catabolism, so while on the bulk stick with some treadmill or bike.

If it's HIIT I'd keep it to 20 min's. or a 45 min brisk walk 4-5 times a week

Originally Posted by namvet

So I want to keep the fat off while I'm bulking. Is 30 mins, 3 times per week of HIIT (squash and boxing, 2 very demanding sports) a good way to go about this? I'd be satisfied putting on one kilo (2lb) per month rather than my usual 2kg (4lb) per month I do when bulking if this means keeping the fat off.

Originally Posted by Akkers

I'd just go with 30 minutes on the treadmill 3 times a week. High intensity cardio promotes catabolism, so while on the bulk stick with some treadmill or bike.

The treadmill is perhaps the single worst form of cardio imaginable. Boring as bat shit. As beneficial as it may be, I cannot bring myself to stay on it for more than 10 minutes...

Haha. Fair enough. Well what about the stationary bike. Failing a treadmill, go for a walk through the park or something for half an hour.

Ahh I forgot to mention... the only thing worse than the treadmill is the bike :-) Lol seriously though running and biking are about as intense as boxing/squash... and boxing/squash are a lot more fun. My problem is whether that much cardio will use all of the surplus calories, or will it just make it a slower bulk? Also, I know this has been argued to death, but has anyone added 500 cals to a maintenance level, and burnt 300 of them through cardio? Thus burning the fat and using the protein?

I think you will find the intensity of the treadmill/bike a lot lower than squash or boxing...

Cardio on a bulk creates a lean bulk, whereby low bodyfat levels are maintained but muscle is not added at optimum rate.

I do DDR for cardio.

Originally Posted by Akkers

I think you will find the intensity of the treadmill/bike a lot lower than squash or boxing...

Cardio on a bulk creates a lean bulk, whereby low bodyfat levels are maintained but muscle is not added at optimum rate.

What would you call "optimal rate"? I don't really see putting on 25lb in 6 months followed by cutting 15lb in the following 6 months optimal. For 9 months of the year you are big but not ripped.

High carb-intake is needed to create an anabolic environment in the body and boost insulin levels to help get protein into your muscles. The problem with high-carb, high-protein for a person who wants to stay lean year round is that while helping build muscle at the fastest rate your body will allow, these diets also add bodyfat.

To reduce this bodyfat, just simply drop carbs. But the downside is that the environment gets a little less anabolic. This means that your body still builds muscle tissue, but not at its fastest rate.

If you wanna stay ripped, I would recomment the lean bulk (the bulk with the lesser carbs). This still allows you to put on muscle, while staying cut all year round.

Originally Posted by Akkers

High intensity cardio promotes catabolism

actually just the opposite. training at or near your V02Max for a short duration increases GH output. GH is very anticatabolic

Originally Posted by LAM

actually just the opposite. training at or near your V02Max for a short duration increases GH output. GH is very anticatabolic

What he said

Originally Posted by LAM

actually just the opposite. training at or near your V02Max for a short duration increases GH output. GH is very anticatabolic

30 minutes of HIIT cardio 5 times a week, in my opinion, will cause catabolism. I always thought that periods of high-intensity training were beneficial to a degree if kept under 15 minutes. I would appreciate any more info though LAM.

Originally Posted by Akkers

30 minutes of HIIT cardio 5 times a week, in my opinion, will cause catabolism. I always thought that periods of high-intensity training were beneficial to a degree if kept under 15 minutes. I would appreciate any more info though LAM.

That is an ignorant statement......................
But I'm sure LAM will set you straight.

??? - You're very quick to criticize, but very slow to offer your advice. I wonder if this is because you in fact know nothing?

LAM - The reason I say what I said above, is because, at low intensities, fat is the main source of energy (from adipose tissue as well as intramuscular triglyceride) as well as a little glycogen. As intensity increases, less fat and more glycogen are used as energy. I think this is because of the release of adrenaline, which promotes the utilization of glycogen and decreases the availability of fatty acids for energy. The higher the intensity, the more glycogen is used as energy and the more risk of glyconeogenesis taking place. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Akkers

??? - You're very quick to criticize, but very slow to offer your advice. I wonder if this is because you in fact know nothing?

.

So answer the question dummy.

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

So answer the question dummy.

He has been...

Originally Posted by Akkers

30 minutes of HIIT cardio 5 times a week, in my opinion, will cause catabolism. I always thought that periods of high-intensity training were beneficial to a degree if kept under 15 minutes. I would appreciate any more info though LAM.

I'm not doing 5 times per week, and I don't think squash would rate as high intensity as short sprints. Boxing would, I suppose, but where you claim that I should eat less carbs for a slower bulk, don't you think it would be more advisable to burn carbs rather than cut them? Adding carbs plus cardio has to be better than staying dormant plus lowering carbs. I was around 84kg before, with a bit of a gut, then I got sick and am down to 79kg, half of which I'd say was fat, luckily. I'd like to get back to 84-85kg while maintaining the lower fat levels I have now. I'm adopting my old diet, but adding the cardio also. I know it will take twice as long, but I'd rather that than put on a gut and then have to lose it again.

yes cardio burns 75%fat and 25% muscle. HIIT burns no fat unless your body is already in the fat burning state(ketosis), but during this time fat and muscle are burned constantly. If one wants to do HIIT, make sure you have some carbs before hand, if not you risk muscle loss because HIIT is anaerobic and anaerobic activity requires glycogen and it's going to come from glycogen stored in the body from eating carbs, or your body will break down muscle, via glucogenisis.

Akkers- As you see i agree w/ you. I mean it's scientific proof, but carbs do not make you FAT. Excess calories do. Dropping carbs doesn't make you lose more fat.

Well, I got the 5 times a week wrong!

ReelBigFish: The purpose of lowering carbs, not dropping tem altogether, is to promote the use of glycogen as fuel during workouts. Once glycogen is depleted, fat can be used as energy during low-intensity workouts. <---- LAM obviously knows more on this topic (low intensity vs high intensity).

Try swimming....or having lots and lots of sex

a lot more fun than running or riding a bike

plus you are helping someone else at the same time

But what both of you are saying is that once you have burned glycogen, your body starts burning fat, but then you say without glycogen, your body breaks down muscle and uses it to produce glycogen. I understand your body burns muscle while it burns fat, and it's a struggle to figure out how to burn the least of the former and most of the latter, but my question is wouldn't cardio be a better fat:weight loss ratio than cutting carbs?

i would say cardio for 40 mins and 70 -75% Max heart rate will do great for fat loss.

Akkers - I understand what you're saying, but when doing HIIT your body is using glycogen for fuel, no matter what. HIIT is anaerobic, and that type of activity always uses glycogen.

Originally Posted by Cowbell

Try swimming....or having lots and lots of sex

try not to post 3x in a row

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

try not to post 3x in a row

Try not to post at all

Originally Posted by Cowbell

Try not to post at all

That's interesting, I thought 8 year olds didn't have enough testosterone to build muscle. Which makes me wonder what you're doing in a bodybuilding forum. If you're not going to add anything constructive, take your petty arguments elsewhere.