Calories and Cardio.

[MS1605]

So some random thoughts I had while showering and thinking about Zilla, because im sure he can quote studies on this....


In general, is there any difference in cutting if you (Just puling numbers out of the air to make this simple):


A, Eat 500 kcals below maintenance, no exercise.

Vs

B, eating maintenance cals but burning 500 kcals during cardio?

in regards to fat loss, muscle loss, etc?


I would assume at the end of the day both would do the same for fat loss but the latter might be a little better at spairing LBM loss?

Again, random Saturday thoughts in the shower....

<3

 

[BigSwolePump]

Burning 500 calories doing cardio can burn alot more fat calories than simply eating 500 less calories. For example, if you do cardio when your glycogen storage is down ie(first thing in the morning before eating or after weight training), you burn primarily fat. If you skip a meal to save 500 calories from your daily intake, you could actually make your body store fat so it doesn't starve.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

If you skip a meal to save 500 calories from your daily intake, you could actually make your body store fat so it doesn't starve.

Except that fails to follow the laws of thermodynamics and is therefore complete bullshit.
Plenty of studies have induced diet only deficits, zero have reported increased fat storage. Zero.


I'm at the gym at the moment but will answer your questions when I get home MS. I also need some time to recover from the "thinking about zilla in the shower stuff".

 

[PillarofBalance]

Burning 500 calories doing cardio can burn alot more fat calories than simply eating 500 less calories. For example, if you do cardio when your glycogen storage is down ie(first thing in the morning before eating or after weight training), you burn primarily fat. If you skip a meal to save 500 calories from your daily intake, you could actually make your body store fat so it doesn't starve.

I think this has been shown to be untrue. What is used for fuel has more to do with the type of work you are doing - is there oxygen (LISS) will use fat as a fuel. If the work is anaerobic like HIIT then glycogen is your source.

Honestly my best cuts is where I kind of disregarded both and just did work and ate a bit less.

 

[Bro Bundy]

Except that fails to follow the laws of thermodynamics and is therefore complete bullshit. I'm at the gym at the moment but will answer your questions when I get home MS. I also need some time to recover from the "thinking about zilla in the shower stuff".

I think about you often in the shower..You know how i feel about rippedness

 

[Bro Bundy]

Healthy choices in food and consistantly doing a form of cardio u dont hate is the key to fat loss..People think in 2 months you can get ripped..Not happing

 

[MS1605]

I also need some time to recover from the "thinking about zilla in the shower stuff".

Should I have bought you dinner first?

 

[MS1605]

I think this has been shown to be untrue. What is used for fuel has more to do with the type of work you are doing - is there oxygen (LISS) will use fat as a fuel. If the work is anaerobic like HIIT then glycogen is your source.

Then why his HIIT supposedly touted as the best way to lose fat?

 

[Seeker]

Then why his HIIT supposedly touted as the best way to lose fat?

I see hiit as just a more efficient way of burning calories faster. It's more exciting and challenging than walking on a boring ass treadmill for long periods.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

The problem we have with relying science to answer this question is that we have no data examining the effects of a diet or cardio-induced deficit on the lifting population. As a result, your left to extrapolate from other populations and that isn't ideal (lean vs obese, lifting vs not lifting, make big differences).

The data shows no difference in terms of body comp, I agree with this, but there is a very obvious difference in terms of efficiency - which is why the vast majority of the data focuses on diet-only, rather than exercise-only, deficits.
The target population, fat folks, can easily drop 500 cals from their diet since their maintenance level is no doubt higher than average.
However, those same folks are going to have a hell of a time trying to burn 500 cals a day. That's 1-2hrs of cardio EVERYDAY for someone with zero work capacity. Good luck with that.

I'm being vague here because this girls hamstrings are a bit too mesmerizing at the moment. Suffice to say that I'm a diet first, cardio if necessary, kind of coach.

Then why his HIIT supposedly touted as the best way to lose fat?

Because people who should know better, don't.

 

[MS1605]

Thanks Zilla, that all makes sense.

Now go get you sum...

 

[Superhenry]

Believe to the people who know

 

[BigSwolePump]

Except that fails to follow the laws of thermodynamics and is therefore complete bullshit.
Plenty of studies have induced diet only deficits, zero have reported increased fat storage. Zero.


I'm at the gym at the moment but will answer your questions when I get home MS. I also need some time to recover from the "thinking about zilla in the shower stuff".

Ok so, reducing calories for a long period of time will slow metabolism. Otherwise, the initial weight lose rate would be constant until you eventually reached your ideal weight. It in fact does not work that way. Your body adapts and therefore begins to use other energy sources such as muscle. My point was that you can somewhat control your weight loss to more fat burning by doing cardio at ideal times vs just lowering calories. I can tell you from experience, you cannot get to competition bf by diet alone. You have to do cardio or you will lose more muscle than fat. So whether you store fat or simply don't burn it as efficiently, that is fact sir. If you can find one bodybuilder to disagree, Ill show you a liar.
I don't have time to look up studies but I think that we can agree that you absolutely have more control of fatloss by doing cardio vs just cutting calories.

No disrespect and maybe I didn't explain it properly but I assure you, cardio vs cutting calories while they do go hand in hand, cardio will burn fat more efficiently in the end.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

Ok so, reducing calories for a long period of time will slow metabolism. Otherwise, the initial weight lose rate would be constant until you eventually reached your ideal weight. It in fact does not work that way. Your body adapts and therefore begins to use other energy sources such as muscle.

Adaptive thermogenesis occurs regardless of the method of fat loss and in fact cardio, if done excessively, will make the adaptation worse. This is also why the difference between the two approaches in terms of body comp is insignificant.

My point was that you can somewhat control your weight loss to more fat burning by doing cardio at ideal times vs just lowering calories.

Your making an absolute statement that simply isn't true. I posted a study about this not too long ago that shows some peoples appetites increasing due to cardio, which completely negates your "more control" point:
https://www.ugbodybuilding.com/threads/22977-The-effects-of-a-cardio-induced-deficit-on-appetite

I can tell you from experience, you cannot get to competition bf by diet alone. You have to do cardio or you will lose more muscle than fat. So whether you store fat or simply don't burn it as efficiently, that is fact sir. If you can find one bodybuilder to disagree, Ill show you a liar.

Since we're going the anecdotal route, I can tell you from experience, since I've competed as a natural and coached many competitors, that you can indeed get to competition bf by diet alone. If you wish to see me as a liar that's fine
Your points regarding the need for cardio at that stage of the game due to stubborn fat stores are valid BUT we're talking about a tiny % of the population here. There is a difference between going from 15-10% and 10-5% which, I hope, you can understand and remember that those competitors are NOT relying on cardio as the main method for fat loss.

1) I don't have time to look up studies but I think that we can agree that you absolutely have more control of fatloss by doing cardio vs just cutting calories.
2) No disrespect and maybe I didn't explain it properly but I assure you, cardio vs cutting calories while they do go hand in hand, cardio will burn fat more efficiently in the end.

I disagree on both points because the data, if you find time to look into it, says otherwise. That data is firmly supported by my experiences.


This really isn't that difficult to understand.
The effect on bodycomp between diet & cardio-induced deficits is similar. Cardio involves more effort. Therefore, cardio is more inefficient. Done.

 

[BigSwolePump]

Adaptive thermogenesis occurs regardless of the method of fat loss and in fact cardio, if done excessively, will make the adaptation worse. This is also why the difference between the two approaches in terms of body comp is insignificant.

Adaptive thermogenisis is a reduction in energy expenditure. I am not sure how this pertains to fat burning. I can tell you that I have more energy when I do cardio as compared to when I don't.

Your making an absolute statement that simply isn't true. I posted a study about this not too long ago that shows some peoples appetites increasing due to cardio, which completely negates your "more control" point:
https://www.ugbodybuilding.com/threads/22977-The-effects-of-a-cardio-induced-deficit-on-appetite

Well obviously everything changes if you actually eat more. You get hungry because your metabolism increases which also helps in weight loss. I didn't say that you had more self control, I said that you could control what energy source was used more as in burning more fat vs burning more carbs, protein or even muscle.(Good read on the study though)

Since we're going the anecdotal route, I can tell you from experience, since I've competed as a natural and coached many competitors, that you can indeed get to competition bf by diet alone. If you wish to see me as a liar that's fine
Your points regarding the need for cardio at that stage of the game due to stubborn fat stores are valid BUT we're talking about a tiny % of the population here. There is a difference between going from 15-10% and 10-5% which, I hope, you can understand and remember that those competitors are NOT relying on cardio as the main method for fat loss.

So you have and have trained competitive bodybuilders who didn't do cardio while prepping for a show? Did they place?

I totally agree that diet is the key component to building a better body. There is definitely no argument there. I even agree that cutting calories(if below maintenance) will absolutely result in weight loss. I just can't wrap my head around a guyA with 25% bodyfat who drops 500 calories will burn the same amount of fat as guyB who has the same bodytype, physical exercise and a 500 calorie surplus of guyA if he does cardio that burns 500 calories lets say first thing in the morning on an empty stomach.


I disagree on both points because the data, if you find time to look into it, says otherwise. That data is firmly supported by my experiences.

So again, poor use of words on my part. I meant effectively not efficiently(Ill blame spell check ). Cardio is obviously more work but in my experience, nothing positive has ever come to me without hard work. If simply cutting calories would make everyone lose fat, everyone in the gym would be ripped. It takes a hell of a lot more that cutting a meal out. I mean c'mon, I eat 3 combo meals from mc donalds but don't get the extra big mac on your last meal, I am going to cut up and lose fat? Sorry brother. No way. I can agree that you can lose weight that way but you are losing more than fat. There is more to it then cutting calories. The diet itself has to be controlled in order to just burn the fat off.

This really isn't that difficult to understand.
The effect on bodycomp between diet & cardio-induced deficits is similar. Cardio involves more effort. Therefore, cardio is more inefficient. Done.

Obviously with the above clarification(effectively not efficiently), while I agree with you here, is pointless to debate.

Again, I feel like both of us are missing each others points somehow. You are like the science guru here so I know that you know what you are talking about.

 

[knightmare999]

So some random thoughts I had while showering and thinking about Zilla, because im sure he can quote studies on this.... In general, is there any difference in cutting if you (Just puling numbers out of the air to make this simple): A, Eat 500 kcals below maintenance, no exercise. Vs B, eating maintenance cals but burning 500 kcals during cardio? in regards to fat loss, muscle loss, etc? I would assume at the end of the day both would do the same for fat loss but the latter might be a little better at spairing LBM loss? Again, random Saturday thoughts in the shower.... <3

For "A"--do you really mean "no exercise," or no aerobic exercise? Just curious.

http bayesianbodybuilding com gain-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time

The above isn't directly to your point, but does pertain to body recomposition with muscle growth (i.e., lbm increase) in a caloric deficit. Hope you enjoy.

Regards.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

Again, I feel like both of us are missing each others points somehow. You are like the science guru here so I know that you know what you are talking about.

Adaptive thermogenesis refers to the reduction in EE that occurs when dieting regardless of how that energy deficit was created. I'm simply making it very clear that a cardio-induced deficit will not under any circumstances bypass this adaptation (the only way to do that is with pharma intervention).

The partitioning differences I have addressed already. The data shows no difference in muscle loss/fat loss between cardio and diet-induced deficits.
Your making the mistake of assuming that the physiological environment of a competitive bodybuilder is the same as that 25% obese dude. It isn't.
More fat = less chance of muscle loss, insulin resistance = advantageous, believe it or not, to fat loss plus a bunch of other stuff that automatically makes muscle loss a non-issue for the obese.
Same mistake applies to the assumption that fasted cardio is somehow magic to this population - it isn't.
Both topics addressed in the following papers using women (which is why I'm referencing them) - cardio vs diet-induced deficits equal same body comp results, fasted cardio has zero advantage vs non-fasted:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25429252
- Both papers have their issues but the results line up with what the data as a whole states.

All my competitive clients place, yes. That has more to do with my coaching stance than anything else though so don't read too much into it (I wouldn't have them compete unless they had a good chance of placing in the first place).

The idea that you need to work hard is a fatal mistake a lot of folks make when it comes to fat loss. It's one of the reasons many fail due to this idea that you must "work hard" to achieve everything in life; the idea of a goal being achieved by working less is not something that we are accustomed to. In fact, working your ass off is more than likely going to backfire in a deficit environment (as I mentioned earlier, too much cardio = working your ass off = increased adaptive thermogenesis = harder to loss fat for the rest of the journey or the classic training really hard = getting drained = binging because **** it).

Final point - "if simply cutting calories would make everyone lose fat" - your assuming that diet adherence and dieting are the same thing. They are not. A caloric deficit causes people to lose fat, this is a fact that I am not going to waste anytime arguing with anyone.
The reason people fail is due to behavioural issues, which is why a bunch of pharma stuff is currently being researched in order to change certain signalling patterns to the brain.


Forgive me for the vague-ish responses but without scientific data to counteract my views, I don't have much desire to go back & worth with anyone on this stuff. No disrespect intended on my side either, just only so many hours in the day.
Oh and don't call me a "guru", I ****ing hate that term

 

[BigSwolePump]

Adaptive thermogenesis refers to the reduction in EE that occurs when dieting regardless of how that energy deficit was created. I'm simply making it very clear that a cardio-induced deficit will not under any circumstances bypass this adaptation (the only way to do that is with pharma intervention).

The partitioning differences I have addressed already. The data shows no difference in muscle loss/fat loss between cardio and diet-induced deficits.
Your making the mistake of assuming that the physiological environment of a competitive bodybuilder is the same as that 25% obese dude. It isn't.
More fat = less chance of muscle loss, insulin resistance = advantageous, believe it or not, to fat loss plus a bunch of other stuff that automatically makes muscle loss a non-issue for the obese.
Same mistake applies to the assumption that fasted cardio is somehow magic to this population - it isn't.
Both topics addressed in the following papers using women (which is why I'm referencing them) - cardio vs diet-induced deficits equal same body comp results, fasted cardio has zero advantage vs non-fasted:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25429252
- Both papers have their issues but the results line up with what the data as a whole states.

All my competitive clients place, yes. That has more to do with my coaching stance than anything else though so don't read too much into it (I wouldn't have them compete unless they had a good chance of placing in the first place).

The idea that you need to work hard is a fatal mistake a lot of folks make when it comes to fat loss. It's one of the reasons many fail due to this idea that you must "work hard" to achieve everything in life; the idea of a goal being achieved by working less is not something that we are accustomed to. In fact, working your ass off is more than likely going to backfire in a deficit environment (as I mentioned earlier, too much cardio = working your ass off = increased adaptive thermogenesis = harder to loss fat for the rest of the journey or the classic training really hard = getting drained = binging because **** it).

Final point - "if simply cutting calories would make everyone lose fat" - your assuming that diet adherence and dieting are the same thing. They are not. A caloric deficit causes people to lose fat, this is a fact that I am not going to waste anytime arguing with anyone.
The reason people fail is due to behavioural issues, which is why a bunch of pharma stuff is currently being researched in order to change certain signalling patterns to the brain.


Forgive me for the vague-ish responses but without scientific data to counteract my views, I don't have much desire to go back & worth with anyone on this stuff. No disrespect intended on my side either, just only so many hours in the day.
Oh and don't call me a "guru", I ****ing hate that term

I am totally willing to try the calorie deficit that you are suggesting. My only question is what your opinion would be to keep muscle mass as a caloric deficit is sure to impact it. Supplements, simple testosterone maybe? I am interested in this. I have dropped calories before and I just haven't seen weight loss that didn't include muscle wasting when dropping 500+ below maintenance levels. Is the key to only drop a certain amount of calories at a time? Maybe Im missing something?

 

[PillarofBalance]

Cardi oh look the squat rack is over here

 

[knightmare999]

I am totally willing to try the calorie deficit that you are suggesting. My only question is what your opinion would be to keep muscle mass as a caloric deficit is sure to impact it. Supplements, simple testosterone maybe? I am interested in this. I have dropped calories before and I just haven't seen weight loss that didn't include muscle wasting when dropping 500+ below maintenance levels. Is the key to only drop a certain amount of calories at a time? Maybe Im missing something?

Check out the link I posted above. I cannot post proper links, yet, but the formatting is an easy fix.