Questions about cardio,

[Built]

Wow, I can't believe I'm hearing this. This is the trademark of all crappy diets. It's a red flag. Throw science to the wind and just BELIEVE. Put your blind faith in something and just hope that it's working. If it's some kind of extreme diet where your water weight is shifting drastically from week to week, measurements really will be futile. And we always have to do the extreme don't we? Let's find the weirdest diet out there with the coolest tagline and then we'll just all believe in it until it comes true. Why is there such a strong tendency to do this?

So what is it? What is the latest fad diet people here are following? There has got to be something warping your mind if your going to sit here and say, don't do measurements, don't use facts and data, just have blind faith. If something goes wrong, how will you know? How will you know how to adjust your diet if you take no measurements. You seem to be advocating guesswork so if that's the situation then the diet's going to work for a few by mere chance and not work for most. That is how the usual fad diet pans out. And everybody failing at the diet will just look to the person who it happened to work for by chance or genetics and think they must be doing something wrong. People eventually get frustrated enough that they switch to a new fad diet and the cycle repeats.

Me, I like facts and data rather than blind faith and I don't fall for fad diets. Since I know what I'm doing and am not on some whacko diet, it is not an exercise in futility for me to use a scientific approach. Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe it means you have a few things to learn.

^ I laughed.

So did I, but to be fair, our friend here doesn't know us very well yet.

gigaplex, I don't blame you for wanting to ensure what you are doing is working. I do too, and to address my own concern, I've had DEXAs taken at three different points in my training - one at the end of a cut where I got down to 14% (my profile pic, just click on my name to see it) - one at the end of a bulk, and one about halfway into a subsequent cut, at what I like to think of as a "maintenance" weight.

What I learned was that my lean mass is really stable. I've pretty much maxed out my natural potential, and neither gain much when I bulk, nor lose much when I cut. While the "not gaining much while bulking" does not charm me (hooray for getting old LOL!) I'm very much relieved to know that I lose almost no LBM when I cut down to very low levels of bodyfat.

Because of this, I am unconcerned with the day to day or week to week fluctuations in bodyfat levels. I trust the process and proceed accordingly because I've already tested the process with the most sophisticated bodyfat testing available. The methodology I follow is sound, scientifically-based and empirically substantiated with my own data.

Since any other method for testing bodyfat fluctuates by several percentage points with varying levels of glycogenation and hydration, should I attempt to employ, say, caliper or BIA testing from this point forward, I would learn nothing that would assist me in reaching my goals.

I've seen a lot of people place a great deal of cred on these methods, boldly posting how they gained three pounds of muscle and lost two pounds of fat in say a week's time. Anyone involved in physical culture knows this is simply not possible, but don't go arguing with a caliper reading!!!

I think that's why so many of us here will tell you that the frequent readings you're relying upon for information are really nothing more than mental masturbation.

Peace.

 

[gtbmed]

hmmm... you didn't seem to like facts when I presented them to you earlier about the connection between hunger and cardiovascular activity...

 

[gigaplex]

hmmm... you didn't seem to like facts when I presented them to you earlier about the connection between hunger and cardiovascular activity...

I didn't like them or dislike them. I didn't even claim they were false as that was not necessary. You apparently missed my post. If there's something further you actually want to address, you could always speak up and say what it is. Wouldn't that have been more productive than this post?

 

[gigaplex]

So did I, but to be fair, our friend here doesn't know us very well yet.

gigaplex, I don't blame you for wanting to ensure what you are doing is working. I do too, and to address my own concern, I've had DEXAs taken at three different points in my training - one at the end of a cut where I got down to 14% (my profile pic, just click on my name to see it) - one at the end of a bulk, and one about halfway into a subsequent cut, at what I like to think of as a "maintenance" weight.

What I learned was that my lean mass is really stable. I've pretty much maxed out my natural potential, and neither gain much when I bulk, nor lose much when I cut. While the "not gaining much while bulking" does not charm me (hooray for getting old LOL!) I'm very much relieved to know that I lose almost no LBM when I cut down to very low levels of bodyfat.

Because of this, I am unconcerned with the day to day or week to week fluctuations in bodyfat levels. I trust the process and proceed accordingly because I've already tested the process with the most sophisticated bodyfat testing available. The methodology I follow is sound, scientifically-based and empirically substantiated with my own data.

Since any other method for testing bodyfat fluctuates by several percentage points with varying levels of glycogenation and hydration, should I attempt to employ, say, caliper or BIA testing from this point forward, I would learn nothing that would assist me in reaching my goals.

I've seen a lot of people place a great deal of cred on these methods, boldly posting how they gained three pounds of muscle and lost two pounds of fat in say a week's time. Anyone involved in physical culture knows this is simply not possible, but don't go arguing with a caliper reading!!!

I think that's why so many of us here will tell you that the frequent readings you're relying upon for information are really nothing more than mental masturbation.

Peace.

If you could have had useful data on bodyfat % weekly while you were doing all this, would you do it? If the data was useful, I believe you would. Why? Because you would have had a better chance of success if you had that additional data. Just because you got along without it does not mean that it is useless to everyone else. Even if you had no data, not even the scale, not even being able to visually see your body or even feel it, it would STILL be possible for you to succeed by mere chance, it's just that your chances of succeeding would be much lower. In short, the more useful data you have, the better. If you can agree with that then maybe we can talk about whether or not this kind of measurement data is useful or not rather than if you specifically were able to succeed without it or not.

Now that that's out of the way, let's look at your straw man claims:

1) People that make a claim based on the difference between one week of data and the next week of data are often wrong because measurements fluctuate to some degree.

TRUE - I have not claimed otherwise. I even specifically said that the data is only useful as a trend, not week to week. Whether you honestly missed that or whether you desperately want me to be wrong so much that you will ignore any information to the contrary, I don't know.

2) Measurements will vary wildly when water levels and glycogenation are varying wildly

TRUE - Again, I have already stated that I take my measurements on the same day of the week and am at about the same level of hydration and glycogenation. I am completely aware of the effect that hydration and glycogenation have on these measurements. Since my hydration and glycogenation is consistent, it isn't something that screws with my measurements. This has already been discussed so again I wonder if you honestly missed it or want me to be wrong so much that you are ignoring any information to the contrary.

3) Personally I get by without the measurements

FINE - Then don't use them. I am not trying to convince you to use them and never said success was impossible without them but am merely arguing the case that they are not useless, they increase the chance of success in many situations and saying that nobody should use them week to week period is bad advice.


Weekly measurements are useful ONLY IF you know how to properly perform the measurements and if you know how to interpret the data. If I did the measurements the way you describe, then yes, they would be useless. If you commonly encounter people that do the measurements the wrong way and misinterpret the data then I am sorry for your pain but don't take it out on me by false insinuations about my methods or conclusions.

 

[Built]

If you could have had useful data on bodyfat % weekly while you were doing all this, would you do it? If the data was useful, I believe you would. Why? Because you would have had a better chance of success if you had that additional data. Just because you got along without it does not mean that it is useless to everyone else. Even if you had no data, not even the scale, not even being able to visually see your body or even feel it, it would STILL be possible for you to succeed by mere chance, it's just that your chances of succeeding would be much lower. In short, the more useful data you have, the better. If you can agree with that then maybe we can talk about whether or not this kind of measurement data is useful or not rather than if you specifically were able to succeed without it or not.

No. I actually value my time.

Seriously, I carb-cycle. The 3-7 lb fluctuation in hydration/glycogen due to this process would render weekly tracking by any method futile.

Now that that's out of the way, let's look at your straw man claims:

Straw man? Where did I pull a straw man on you. I was TRYING to be nice.

1) People that make a claim based on the difference between one week of data and the next week of data are often wrong because measurements fluctuate to some degree.

TRUE - I have not claimed otherwise. I even specifically said that the data is only useful as a trend, not week to week. Whether you honestly missed that or whether you desperately want me to be wrong so much that you will ignore any information to the contrary, I don't know.

Neither. I just don't see the point. Measurement error is going to be huge with this stuff. Why bother?

2) Measurements will vary wildly when water levels and glycogenation are varying wildly

TRUE - Again, I have already stated that I take my measurements on the same day of the week and am at about the same level of hydration and glycogenation. I am completely aware of the effect that hydration and glycogenation have on these measurements. Since my hydration and glycogenation is consistent, it isn't something that screws with my measurements. This has already been discussed so again I wonder if you honestly missed it or want me to be wrong so much that you are ignoring any information to the contrary.

What information? Have YOU paid for three DEXA scans out of your own personal interest in the process? No?

<sniff> Amateur.

3) Personally I get by without the measurements

FINE - Then don't use them. I am not trying to convince you to use them and never said success was impossible without them but am merely arguing the case that they are not useless, they increase the chance of success in many situations and saying that nobody should use them week to week period is bad advice.

I would like to see evidence that they increase the chance of success.

How ripped are you?

Weekly measurements are useful ONLY IF you know how to properly perform the measurements and if you know how to interpret the data. If I did the measurements the way you describe, then yes, they would be useless. If you commonly encounter people that do the measurements the wrong way and misinterpret the data then I am sorry for your pain but don't take it out on me by false insinuations about my methods or conclusions.

Pix please.

 

[gigaplex]

Yes, I think everybody gets it: you carb cycle. As I have said at least two times before this, the measurements will not be of any value if you are drastically changing your glycogen/water all the time. But here's something you may not have thought of.... Not everyone is doing the exact same thing as you. I know it's a strange concept but yes, there are other people out there that are not carb cycling. Wow, i know.

So to this post you will probably respond right back and say yeah but the measurements are useless cuz I carb cycle. lol. Perhaps I need to repeat it 4 times instead of only 3 times? There's your straw man. The ridiculousness gets knocked up a notch even above that because you use the straw man again in this latest post and then in the very next line of the same post act all offended that I'm calling out a straw man.

Insinuating that I am a liar and that I didn't lose a bunch of weight like I say seems pretty desperate to me. Obviously I just joined the forum and so don't have any pics up. Why would I lie about such a thing though? What would be the purpose of all this discussion? Some weird game? I don't get it. But sure, I mean if you really want to, we can put the whole debate on hold until I get some pics up to prove my fat loss. But you would only NEED that if you could not hold your own intellectually. If you could hold your own intellectually then it would not really matter if I posted a pic or not because you would actually be able to have a civilized debate and address all the issues. But that is just not the case, is it?

Honestly, I sense an emotional reaction from you. You do understand that this is just a debate on the internet, right? I'm sure you're a nice person and all and I don't actually even hate you. I just disagree with you. It's really nothing to take personally or get emotional about. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. Really, it just makes things interesting.

In any case, I made a new thread totally dedicated to the weekly body fat measurement in case you really are interested in actually debating it (something that stopped a few posts ago). Here's the link:
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/d...weekly-body-fat-measurements.html#post1912825

 

[gigaplex]

This thread has degenerated a bit so I am going to attempt to get it back on track.

The whole discussion about these measurements started because I said I lose about a pound of fat extra per month when I do cardio and showed how the math for that worked out.

Now does anyone actually think that it is impossible to maintain muscle while doing cardio? That is key question number one. I can agree that it is harder to maintain muscle if you're doing cardio but I don't believe that it is going to be impossible for everyone to do.

Merkaba asked a good question because if you have no way of being able to tell whether you are losing muscle or not then it might be a bad idea to do steady state cardio, assuming you are wanting to be very careful not to lose muscle. On the other hand, if you have some way of knowing whether you are losing muscle or not, then you don't have to guess. If you see you're not losing muscle or it's an acceptable amount, then you can continue with the cardio and if you see that you are losing muscle, you can look at other options. So key question number two is: If a person has the goal of losing fat and is able to do cardio without losing muscle, should they do cardio (assuming a pound of fat per month is significant to them)? The answer obviously is yes and this is the point I was making before the thread derailed. Does anyone actually disagree with me on this?

 

[Built]

Yes, I think everybody gets it: you carb cycle. As I have said at least two times before this, the measurements will not be of any value if you are drastically changing your glycogen/water all the time. But here's something you may not have thought of.... Not everyone is doing the exact same thing as you. I know it's a strange concept but yes, there are other people out there that are not carb cycling. Wow, i know.

There are plenty of other ways to deplete glycogen. Training for example, cardio, dieting...

There are also plenty of ways to mediate hydration levels. Creatine and salt come to mind.

My situation involves carb cycling at the moment, but it doesn't always. I don't necessarily carb cycle all year. Still, glycogen levels can change rather dramatically depending upon one's activity.

I don't know why you're so testy. I wasn't trying to attack you.

So to this post you will probably respond right back and say yeah but the measurements are useless cuz I carb cycle. lol. Perhaps I need to repeat it 4 times instead of only 3 times? There's your straw man. The ridiculousness gets knocked up a notch even above that because you use the straw man again in this latest post and then in the very next line of the same post act all offended that I'm calling out a straw man.

I'm not acting, and I'm not offended. I just didn't get it.

Insinuating that I am a liar and that I didn't lose a bunch of weight like I say seems pretty desperate to me.

Okay, where did I do this?

 

[gtbmed]

I didn't like them or dislike them. I didn't even claim they were false as that was not necessary. You apparently missed my post. If there's something further you actually want to address, you could always speak up and say what it is. Wouldn't that have been more productive than this post?

You originally stated that "if a person is hungry all the time it is likely due to their diet." I posted evidence that stated otherwise. You dismissed it because you said the information I posted talked about "severe caloric deficits" and wasn't relevant to you. I don't know how you came to such a conclusion.

The Q&A by Lyle McDonald wasn't limited to severe caloric deficits. You don't think problems with leptin, cortisol, and decreased activity occur with people who do cardio even while on a small deficit or not in a deficit at all? Those problems still exist regardless of the severity of the deficit. They have more drastic effects for those on a severe deficit, but their effects still exist without the severe deficit.

Your claim was that activity has little to do with hunger. I disagree. There is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that changes in hunger (and changes in results of a caloric deficit, which is more broadly relevant to this thread) are related to aerobic activity. It's not just as simple as saying, "If I burn 500 Kcals doing cardio, I can eat 500 Kcals more and still get the same results." There are other factors involved and it rarely works that way.

 

[gigaplex]

You originally stated that "if a person is hungry all the time it is likely due to their diet." I posted evidence that stated otherwise. You dismissed it because you said the information I posted talked about "severe caloric deficits" and wasn't relevant to you. I don't know how you came to such a conclusion.

The Q&A by Lyle McDonald wasn't limited to severe caloric deficits. You don't think problems with leptin, cortisol, and decreased activity occur with people who do cardio even while on a small deficit or not in a deficit at all? Those problems still exist regardless of the severity of the deficit. They have more drastic effects for those on a severe deficit, but their effects still exist without the severe deficit.

Your claim was that activity has little to do with hunger. I disagree. There is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that changes in hunger (and changes in results of a caloric deficit, which is more broadly relevant to this thread) are related to aerobic activity. It's not just as simple as saying, "If I burn 500 Kcals doing cardio, I can eat 500 Kcals more and still get the same results." There are other factors involved and it rarely works that way.

The guy states that cardio will slow down your metabolism on a severly low cal diet. It is well known and documented that a severly low cal diet will slow down your metabolism. Do you see how this is a problem? If someone is put on a non-crash diet and their metabolism lowers when doing cardio even when adjusting their calories THEN you've got something and that may very well be true. I'm totally open to the idea if you find something like that.

Now my point was not that cardio doesn't affect appetite. My point was that the situation can be handled by diet so it is not an excuse to get rid of cardio.

Now if you're eating at a 50% deficit or something crazy, then you're just screwed. You'll probably be hungry all the time, you'll wreck your metabolism, etc. And is that worse when doing cardio? I don't know, might be. I sure wouldn't want to be doing cardio if I was in that state.

Now I only did a quick google search so correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that PSMF is a very low cal diet and is promoted by this guy that you are quoting, right? I heard someone saying you try to survive on like 800 cals?

 

[Built]

The guy states that cardio will slow down your metabolism on a severly low cal diet. It is well known and documented that a severly low cal diet will slow down your metabolism. Do you see how this is a problem? If someone is put on a non-crash diet and their metabolism lowers when doing cardio even when adjusting their calories THEN you've got something and that may very well be true. I'm totally open to the idea if you find something like that.

This will happen to 100% of all dieters. As you lower your calories, you lose weight. At a lower weight, your maintenance will be lower.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your statement.

Now my point was not that cardio doesn't affect appetite. My point was that the situation can be handled by diet so it is not an excuse to get rid of cardio.

If you LOVE doing cardio, do it.

It isn't necessary for cutting, it doesn't burn that many calories, it does nothing to speed up metabolism after you're done, and it can - as you lean out - contribute to muscle loss.

A small amount of LISS can assist in suppressing appetite for some though, and it's a very good idea to do some form of modest activity during carbups, to enhance reglycogenation through increased translocation of GLUT4.

And of course, a little cardio is good for your heart. Just don't count on it for the majority of your caloric deficit - this strategy almost always bites you in the ass.

I can see from your posts you're only talking about sufficient cardio to burn off about a pound a month though. That's only about a hundred or so calories a day. Perfectly reasonable.

Now if you're eating at a 50% deficit or something crazy, then you're just screwed. You'll probably be hungry all the time, you'll wreck your metabolism, etc. And is that worse when doing cardio? I don't know, might be. I sure wouldn't want to be doing cardio if I was in that state.

On Lyle's Rapid Fat Loss, dieters typically consume considerably less than 50% of their maintenance calories, and do very little training.

I've done this several times and I can tell you, I'm less hungry on PSMF than I am on a modest deficit with higher volume training and regular cardio.

Now I only did a quick google search so correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that PSMF is a very low cal diet and is promoted by this guy that you are quoting, right? I heard someone saying you try to survive on like 800 cals?

Basically, yeah. Mostly protein. There are categories depending upon how fat you are, and carbohydrate refeeds to top up leptin and ensure you don't go into "starvation mode". I use this method to jump-start my cuts. Very satisfying, and of course, at the end of a bulk, most of us are plenty juicy to protect our LBM, even on a short-term scientifically structured crash diet.

It's a good book. Read it, even if it isn't something you'd choose to do yourself.

 

[danzik17]

The guy states that cardio will slow down your metabolism on a severly low cal diet. It is well known and documented that a severly low cal diet will slow down your metabolism. Do you see how this is a problem? If someone is put on a non-crash diet and their metabolism lowers when doing cardio even when adjusting their calories THEN you've got something and that may very well be true. I'm totally open to the idea if you find something like that.

Now my point was not that cardio doesn't affect appetite. My point was that the situation can be handled by diet so it is not an excuse to get rid of cardio.

Now if you're eating at a 50% deficit or something crazy, then you're just screwed. You'll probably be hungry all the time, you'll wreck your metabolism, etc. And is that worse when doing cardio? I don't know, might be. I sure wouldn't want to be doing cardio if I was in that state.

Now I only did a quick google search so correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that PSMF is a very low cal diet and is promoted by this guy that you are quoting, right? I heard someone saying you try to survive on like 800 cals?

PSMF (Protein Sparing Modified Fast) or "Protein Simply, Mother Fucker" is just like it sounds....basically between 800-1200 calories of protein with minimal fats and carbs. You only take in what's essential.

Crashing your metabolism over a short period of time is greatly exaggerated. You would run this diet for 1-2 weeks (for MY body type, it differs for your BF% level) and then run a refeed where you would take in around 1100g of carbs. Yes you will get *some* metabolic slowdown, but the refeed normalizes hormone levels and brings it right back up.

You would think you would be starving on that low level of food, but don't underestimate the power of protein satiety along with ketosis. I was more satisfied on that diet than when I was eating a "normal" diet if around 2000 calories.

 

[gtbmed]

The guy states that cardio will slow down your metabolism on a severly low cal diet. It is well known and documented that a severly low cal diet will slow down your metabolism. Do you see how this is a problem? If someone is put on a non-crash diet and their metabolism lowers when doing cardio even when adjusting their calories THEN you've got something and that may very well be true. I'm totally open to the idea if you find something like that.

Now my point was not that cardio doesn't affect appetite. My point was that the situation can be handled by diet so it is not an excuse to get rid of cardio.

Now if you're eating at a 50% deficit or something crazy, then you're just screwed. You'll probably be hungry all the time, you'll wreck your metabolism, etc. And is that worse when doing cardio? I don't know, might be. I sure wouldn't want to be doing cardio if I was in that state.

Now I only did a quick google search so correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that PSMF is a very low cal diet and is promoted by this guy that you are quoting, right? I heard someone saying you try to survive on like 800 cals?

So you choose to ignore the hormonal aspect (cortisol, leptin, etc.) in that article and in the study I posted?

Also, people can eat at 50% deficits without being hungry all the time.

 

[gigaplex]

This will happen to 100% of all dieters. As you lower your calories, you lose weight. At a lower weight, your maintenance will be lower.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your statement.

I can agree with that but I'm saying it even goes beyond that. If you lower your calories too much, then your metabolism will not only adjust to your new composition but will go down beyond that to an unnaturally low level.

So my issue is that he says cardio lowers your metabolism and he has determined this by watching people's metabolism slow down on very low calorie diets. The low calorie diet is already known to lower the metabolism so why would he not think that is the cause? If he was smart, he'd just do the same experiment on someone with a normal diet or a moderate deficit and see if their metabolism decreases too.

But maybe his aim is not to show that metabolism decreases with cardio on a moderate deficit or normal diet, maybe he is just interested in whether the cardio decreases metabolism on a very low calorie diet and so is only testing it with a very low calorie diet because he thinks results on that would be different than a normal diet. But a key factor here would be whether or not the people's calories were adjusted when they started doing cardio. If their calories were not adjusted, then we're back to the same issue: how do you know the decrease in metabolism wasn't because of the increased deficit? He does not mention that their calories were adjusted so there's no way to know if his conclusion is valid (at least not from the text posted).

On Lyle's Rapid Fat Loss, dieters typically consume considerably less than 50% of their maintenance calories, and do very little training.

I've done this several times and I can tell you, I'm less hungry on PSMF than I am on a modest deficit with higher volume training and regular cardio.

Well that is quite the trick. I would have guessed you'd be starving even with all the protein! So yeah, I totally see your point and that makes sense.

 

[Built]

I can agree with that but I'm saying it even goes beyond that. If you lower your calories too much, then your metabolism will not only adjust to your new composition but will go down beyond that to an unnaturally low level.

After how long?

So my issue is that he says cardio lowers your metabolism and he has determined this by watching people's metabolism slow down on very low calorie diets. The low calorie diet is already known to lower the metabolism so why would he not think that is the cause? If he was smart, he'd just do the same experiment on someone with a normal diet or a moderate deficit and see if their metabolism decreases too.

Yeah, too bad Lyle's not very smart.

Listen, extended steady-state cardio teaches your body to become efficient, drop muscle and convert transitional fibres to slow-twitch analogues. Marathon runners are a prime case here. I wish I had a dollar for every fat person I've known who took up marathon training to lose weight. Not one of them managed to lean out through this. They lose SOME weight, but not enough, and they can NOT keep it off.

Maybe you've met someone who has managed to do this. I have not.

<- former fat 10k runner

But maybe his aim is not to show that metabolism decreases with cardio on a moderate deficit or normal diet, maybe he is just interested in whether the cardio decreases metabolism on a very low calorie diet and so is only testing it with a very low calorie diet because he thinks results on that would be different than a normal diet.

Lyle isn't an experimental scientist. He took advantage of existing research as he built this diet. Just an FYI.

But a key factor here would be whether or not the people's calories were adjusted when they started doing cardio. If their calories were not adjusted, then we're back to the same issue: how do you know the decrease in metabolism wasn't because of the increased deficit? He does not mention that their calories were adjusted so there's no way to know if his conclusion is valid (at least not from the text posted).

Read the book.

The deal here is that Rapid Fat Loss is how to drop the most fat possible in the shortest amount of time. Cardio burns so few calories for the risk of catabolism and the work, Lyle's point is "why bother"?

I tend to agree.

Unless you LOVE it (and I really don't, personally), why bother eating in such a way so as to allow you to do more cardio while cutting?

Well that is quite the trick. I would have guessed you'd be starving even with all the protein! So yeah, I totally see your point and that makes sense.

Satiety is indeed a fascinating area.

 

[gigaplex]

So you choose to ignore the hormonal aspect (cortisol, leptin, etc.) in that article and in the study I posted?

He then mentions that cardio can increase cortisol levels. Yeah, okay.

I guess I'm not really sure what your trying to prove with the second part.

Also, people can eat at 50% deficits without being hungry all the time.

Funny, everyone was just saying that you can't fix the problem of hunger with diet and now there's been a 180. I kind of wonder if people sometimes disagree just to disagree. But okay man, I believe you. The power to control hunger with diet is more powerful than EVEN I had suspected. And I was already saying that you could go far enough with diet to control hunger on a moderate deficit even while doing cardio so you've just taken it one step further.

 

[Built]

He then mentions that cardio can increase cortisol levels. Yeah, okay.

I guess I'm not really sure what your trying to prove with the second part.

Huh?

Funny, everyone was just saying that you can't fix the problem of hunger with diet and now there's been a 180.

We were?

I kind of wonder if people sometimes disagree just to disagree. But okay man, I believe you. The power to control hunger with diet is more powerful than EVEN I had suspected. And I was already saying that you could go far enough with diet to control hunger on a moderate deficit even while doing cardio so you've just taken it one step further.

 

[gigaplex]

Huh?

We were?

You said:
"If I ate this way while trying to cut, I'd be chewing my arm off."

Just before I had said that if cardio affected appetite at all, you should be able to handle any hunger problems with the diet therefore it is just not a good excuse for dropping cardio.

So maybe you meant something different and we were really in agreement the whole time?

 

[gtbmed]

Are you saying that you don't believe that cardio can increase cortisol levels? What about leptin?

 

[gigaplex]

Are you saying that you don't believe that cardio can increase cortisol levels? What about leptin?

No, no. When I said "Yeah, okay", I meant it literally not sarcastically. Yes, cardio can increase cortisol and other things. I never said it didn't and I don't think anyone was confused about that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

 

[gtbmed]

Well - cortisol has big effects on hunger and also on muscle breakdown. Aren't those things relevant to the discussion we're having and to the success of a person trying to cut body fat and maintain muscle mass?

Leptin as well...

You stated clearly, "If a person is hungry all the time, it is probably due to their diet." I've provided you with evidence as to why cardio can have big effects on hunger and affect the results of a person's weight-loss attempts.

 

[Built]

Funny, everyone was just saying that you can't fix the problem of hunger with diet and now there's been a 180.

We were?

You said:
"If I ate this way while trying to cut, I'd be chewing my arm off."

Just before I had said that if cardio affected appetite at all, you should be able to handle any hunger problems with the diet therefore it is just not a good excuse for dropping cardio.

So maybe you meant something different and we were really in agreement the whole time?

Well - cortisol has big effects on hunger and also on muscle breakdown. Aren't those things relevant to the discussion we're having and to the success of a person trying to cut body fat and maintain muscle mass?

Leptin as well...

You stated clearly, "If a person is hungry all the time, it is probably due to their diet." I've provided you with evidence as to why cardio can have big effects on hunger and affect the results of a person's weight-loss attempts.

Bingo.

Put simply, this:

My maintenance at 140 lbs is 2200 calories per day.
To drop a pound a week, I could eat 1700 calories per day, or do 500 calories per day of cardio, or any combination of diet and cardio that make up a 500-calorie deficit.

If I do it through diet alone - and I'm careful to avoid eating things like oats and grains, loading up instead on proteins, fats and produce - I'm comfortable.

If I do this on a low-fat diet with whole grains - even if this is at maintenance - with or without cardio, I'm chewing my arm off.

When I try to maintain a caloric deficit while doing more than minimal cardio, my appetite goes through the roof. I'm less comfortable on 2200 calories and 500 calories' worth of activity than I am on 1700 calories and sitting on my ass.

That being said, I don't JUST sit on my ass. But I assure you, I keep my activity down to a very dull roar while cutting. I do more cardio at maintenance, or while bulking.

 

[david100proof]

cardio

just started doing cardio again been going to the gym at 7 in the morning everyday do cardio till 8 in the morning then at 12 in the after noon i do 2 hrs of high and low reps different body part 5 days a week my diet consits of small breakfast after workout then small meal at dinner time ive cut my calories intake down to nothing just about plus doing my supplements before noon work out ive lost 2 inches off my waiste and 10 pounds have not lost any muscle or strength
super pump 250
whey isolate
slim xtreme
vitamine pack
waxy maize
bcaa
this has proven so far to be the best way for me to do a cut i been needing to do for a long time it works for me

 

[gtbmed]

Don't get me wrong, I see the potential benefits of cardio. You're talking to someone who has trained for 5ks/10ks and triathlons. I love road cycling and swimming and sometimes I'll drop my weightlifting for a while to get serious about training for these things.

But I believe training should follow from specific goals. I do things like cycling, swimming, or running when my goals are to get better at those things (if I'm racing or something). If not, then I don't do it much. You have to understand the demands of your training, what your training does to your body, and how to plan a diet and workout program together IMO. Moderately intense cardio will cause higher levels of cortisol, especially for those in a caloric deficit. Sure, cortisol can be somewhat controlled by the proper diet, but that diet includes lots of carbohydrates, and eating lots of carbohydrates IMO is hard to do on a deficit, because carbohydrates simply don't fill me up much.

If you can do it and have good results, I see no need to change. But I wouldn't recommend cardio while on a deficit in general. Then again, it is hard to answer questions about training generally.

 

[Built]

^ Indeed. If you love endurance activities, lose the weight, THEN start your training. Don't use it to lose the weight.

 

[gigaplex]

just started doing cardio again been going to the gym at 7 in the morning everyday do cardio till 8 in the morning then at 12 in the after noon i do 2 hrs of high and low reps different body part 5 days a week my diet consits of small breakfast after workout then small meal at dinner time ive cut my calories intake down to nothing just about plus doing my supplements before noon work out ive lost 2 inches off my waiste and 10 pounds have not lost any muscle or strength

The hardest part sometimes is just starting so good job getting started! Now you just got to keep it going and make sure you don't lose any muscle. There are good reasons to do cardio on some cuts but you do have to watch that muscle closely. Good luck and keep us updated

 

[gigaplex]

Well - cortisol has big effects on hunger and also on muscle breakdown. Aren't those things relevant to the discussion we're having and to the success of a person trying to cut body fat and maintain muscle mass?

Leptin as well...

You stated clearly, "If a person is hungry all the time, it is probably due to their diet." I've provided you with evidence as to why cardio can have big effects on hunger and affect the results of a person's weight-loss attempts.

The whole point was not that cardio doesn't affect hunger (notice I never agreed or disagreed with that). I mean excessive masturbation probably affects hunger in some way but you don't tell hungry people, "oh your problem is that you masturbate too much". The issue is whether or not the diet can satisfy the hunger of your activities. If the diet can satisy the hunger then hunger is not in itself a reason to stop the activity.

I have seen my roommate eat unbelievable amounts of food. I have seen him eat 2 large pizzas all in one sitting to himself. I put this guy on a deficit, had him doing cardio with me and guess what? He did not have hunger problems. I don't have hunger problems either. I haven't run into anyone on the BFFM diet that has had these kind of hunger problems and lots of them do cardio. So reality wins here. Maybe you can't think of a diet that would work but other people have.

As an example:

• 50% carbs, 30% protein, 20% fat
• Stick to complex and fibrous carbs
• Stay away from sat fats and trans fats
• No high fructose corn syrup or other weird crap
• Eat 5-6 times a day
• Do a moderate deficit like 15-20%
• Take a mulitvitamin/mineral

There's more to it like zig zagging and things but that's the basics and would basically get someone started. With a diet like that, most people will not be constantly hungry EVEN if they go do cardio a few times a week.

 

[Built]

just started doing cardio again been going to the gym at 7 in the morning everyday do cardio till 8 in the morning then at 12 in the after noon i do 2 hrs of high and low reps different body part 5 days a week my diet consits of small breakfast after workout then small meal at dinner time ive cut my calories intake down to nothing just about plus doing my supplements before noon work out ive lost 2 inches off my waiste and 10 pounds have not lost any muscle or strength
super pump 250
whey isolate
slim xtreme
vitamine pack
waxy maize
bcaa
this has proven so far to be the best way for me to do a cut i been needing to do for a long time it works for me

You're doing an hour of cardio, two hours of high rep training and low calories while CUTTING?

I urge you to reconsider your approach.

 

[Built]

The whole point was not that cardio doesn't affect hunger (notice I never agreed or disagreed with that). I mean excessive masturbation probably affects hunger in some way but you don't tell hungry people, "oh your problem is that you masturbate too much". The issue is whether or not the diet can satisfy the hunger of your activities. If the diet can satisy the hunger then hunger is not in itself a reason to stop the activity.

I have seen my roommate eat unbelievable amounts of food. I have seen him eat 2 large pizzas all in one sitting to himself. I put this guy on a deficit, had him doing cardio with me and guess what? He did not have hunger problems. I don't have hunger problems either. I haven't run into anyone on the BFFM diet that has had these kind of hunger problems and lots of them do cardio. So reality wins here. Maybe you can't think of a diet that would work but other people have.

As an example:

• 50% carbs, 30% protein, 20% fat
• Stick to complex and fibrous carbs
• Stay away from sat fats and trans fats
• No high fructose corn syrup or other weird crap
• Eat 5-6 times a day
• Do a moderate deficit like 15-20%
• Take a mulitvitamin/mineral

There's more to it like zig zagging and things but that's the basics and would basically get someone started. With a diet like that, most people will not be constantly hungry EVEN if they go do cardio a few times a week.

I moderate an entire board of people who couldn't diet this way without freakish hunger. The people you have associated with who did this were the ones for whom this approach was comfortable.

You might want to reconsider the "ratio" approach you're following. It's not really meaningful under the paradigm of reduced calories, since it means you will reduce your protein when you reduce your calories - that is to say, at the very time you need it higher, not lower.

I would also never recommend eating six meals a day to a dieter. Some like this approach, but many of us prefer to eat three or four larger meals over five or six microsnacks.

Oh, and saturated fats are very healthy for you - they're important for proper endocrine and nerve function. For those on a modest fat intake (ie 0.5g fat per pound LBM), the general recommendation is to get about a third of your fats from saturates.

 

[danzik17]

The whole point was not that cardio doesn't affect hunger (notice I never agreed or disagreed with that). I mean excessive masturbation probably affects hunger in some way but you don't tell hungry people, "oh your problem is that you masturbate too much". The issue is whether or not the diet can satisfy the hunger of your activities. If the diet can satisy the hunger then hunger is not in itself a reason to stop the activity.

I have seen my roommate eat unbelievable amounts of food. I have seen him eat 2 large pizzas all in one sitting to himself. I put this guy on a deficit, had him doing cardio with me and guess what? He did not have hunger problems. I don't have hunger problems either. I haven't run into anyone on the BFFM diet that has had these kind of hunger problems and lots of them do cardio. So reality wins here. Maybe you can't think of a diet that would work but other people have.

As an example:

• 50% carbs, 30% protein, 20% fat
• Stick to complex and fibrous carbs
• Stay away from sat fats and trans fats
• No high fructose corn syrup or other weird crap
• Eat 5-6 times a day
• Do a moderate deficit like 15-20%
• Take a mulitvitamin/mineral

There's more to it like zig zagging and things but that's the basics and would basically get someone started. With a diet like that, most people will not be constantly hungry EVEN if they go do cardio a few times a week.

Why do you feel you need to eat the 5-6 times per day? How do those percentages stack up or make sense at all? Why do you feel saturated fats are bad (hint: they're not in reasonable quantities, they boost natural test production)

I would submit that your roomate wouldn't be hungry on a diet based around high protein/high fat/lowish carbs either.

I've also heard (and Built can put this into more sciency technical jargon I'm sure!) that if you were once obese your body chemistry changes. Males that have been generally lean and not obese seem to glean a lot more satiety from the insulin release due to carbs than one that was previously obese. I can speak from personal experience here, carbs do NOT fill me up (unless I'm eating 1000g of them on a refeed).