PDA

View Full Version : The Only Ways to Limit the Amount of Fat Gained on a Bulk Are...



thetopdog
11-13-2003, 01:32 AM
1) Eat less high GI carbs, unless they are centered around your workout (pre/post WO)
2) Don't eat too many cals over maintenance (try to gain ~1lb per week)
3) Do HIIT cardio

Is this right? I've learned a lot on this site, and the stuff I've learned about diet has gone against everything I thought I knew before. I used to think that eating dietary fat made you fatter, that if you ate clean, you wouldn't get fat, no matter how much you ate, that tons of cardio burned fat, etc. Now it seems like the 3 things above are the only things that can be done that will have a significant effect on fat gain during bulking.

As long as you're getting the required amount of protein and EFAs, is it all just about cals in vs. cals out (assuming you're not eating too many high GI carbs)? Does it matter if my protein is comming from lean beef or McDonalds? It's seeming to me now like there aren't that many things that can be done apart from what I've listed to limit fat gain on a bulk. Even regular (non HIIT) cardio seems like it only burns fat because it burns more calories, which would kind of be counterproductive on a bulk anyways. Does anybody have any other ideas (please only list things that will make a significant effect, nothing that will only have a small effect). I'm starting to bulk again, but I'm trying to gain less fat than i did during my 1st bulk

geoffgarcia
11-13-2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by thetopdog
1) Eat less high GI carbs, unless they are centered around your workout (pre/post WO)

I WISH I could gain 1lb per week. If the goal is to gain LBM and not fat (as that seems to be the point of this thread) then try to limit your growth to 1lb every other week. This will ensure your not just packing on fat.
Also, I think the part about GI food isn't accurate and am looking for proof, so will edit this in a bit.



Originally posted by thetopdog
As long as you're getting the required amount of protein and EFAs, is it all just about cals in vs. cals out (assuming you're not eating too many high GI carbs)? Does it matter if my protein is comming from lean beef or McDonalds?
Hell yeah it makes a difference. Can you say saturated fat? Transfatty acids? Cholesterol?



Originally posted by thetopdog

3) Do HIIT cardio

as far as my understanding of HIIT goes, it raises your metabolic rate for a longer period of time than regular cardio does, thus while in a HIIT session you might not burn as many calories as in a full blown cardio session, over the course of a few hours you will burn more (in theory)
assuming this is true then doing HIIT while doing a bulk is about as useful as doing cardio...IMHO both should be avoided as it means you have to eat that much more food.

Shao-LiN
11-13-2003, 09:50 AM
I read that HIIT is pretty anabolic.

Manveet
11-13-2003, 10:08 AM
1) Do cardio (moderate or high intensity)

2) Eat only slightly above maintenance

3) Try to eat as clean as possible

thetopdog
11-13-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by geoffgarcia


Hell yeah it makes a difference. Can you say saturated fat? Transfatty acids? Cholesterol?


I'm strictly talking about gaining fat though, not overall health. I was under the impression that saturated and trans fats don't make you any fatter than other types of fat, they're just less healthy. Same with cholesterol, I don't see how cholesterol makes you fat. I'm not trying to kill myself, but I'm more concerned about reducing fat gain than anything else at the moment

geoffgarcia
11-13-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Manveet
1) Do cardio (moderate or high intensity)


I've yet to hear a convincing argument why someone on a cut should do cardio.
Do you have one manveet? I'm dying to hear one because when i cut I want to be as efficient as possible and I can't work out the logic behind why you would want to do cardio when doing a cut.

galileo
11-13-2003, 07:59 PM
Uh, what's there to work out? Cardio improves glucose disposal and burns calories. Two beneficial things while cutting.

geoffgarcia
11-13-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by galileo
Uh, what's there to work out?
Cardio improves glucose disposal and burns calories. Two beneficial things while cutting.
assuming your eating slightly below your your metabolic rate then why would you want to burn extra calories? doesn't eating less have the same result?

I'm not sure what you meant by cardio improves glucose disposal, can you put it in laymans terms for me (I'm slow)

thetopdog
11-13-2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by geoffgarcia


I've yet to hear a convincing argument why someone on a cut should do cardio.
Do you have one manveet? I'm dying to hear one because when i cut I want to be as efficient as possible and I can't work out the logic behind why you would want to do cardio when doing a cut.

I was talking about bulking, not cutting. But I guess there would be even less of a reason to do cardio when bulking

Manveet
11-13-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by geoffgarcia


I've yet to hear a convincing argument why someone on a cut should do cardio.
Do you have one manveet? I'm dying to hear one because when i cut I want to be as efficient as possible and I can't work out the logic behind why you would want to do cardio when doing a cut.

Feel free to do some research on this subject on pubmed. There are a myriad of studies on this topic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10941878&dopt=Abstract


"In summary, moderate aerobic exercise over a period of 6 mon resulted in a preferential loss in visceral fat in nonobese healthy women, and this may help to explain some of the health benefits associated with regular and moderate physical activity."

This one talks about the effects of aerobic excercise training, along with calorie deficit. The group that just used caloric balance alone lost the least amount of fat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9432085&dopt=Abstract



"Twenty-six sedentary young women (27.9% body fat) were randomized into three groups: nonexercising control (C, N = 8); 1-2 sessions/wk plus a 240 kcal caloric restriction (1-2SW, N = 9); and 3-4 sessions/wk without caloric restriction (3-4SW, N = 9). There was a equivalent decrease in the percentage of body fat and total fat mass in both exercise groups compared with that in C."

defcon
11-14-2003, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Manveet


Feel free to do some research on this subject on pubmed. There are a myriad of studies on this topic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10941878&dopt=Abstract


"In summary, moderate aerobic exercise over a period of 6 mon resulted in a preferential loss in visceral fat in nonobese healthy women, and this may help to explain some of the health benefits associated with regular and moderate physical activity."

This one talks about the effects of aerobic excercise training, along with calorie deficit. The group that just used caloric balance alone lost the least amount of fat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9432085&dopt=Abstract



"Twenty-six sedentary young women (27.9% body fat) were randomized into three groups: nonexercising control (C, N = 8); 1-2 sessions/wk plus a 240 kcal caloric restriction (1-2SW, N = 9); and 3-4 sessions/wk without caloric restriction (3-4SW, N = 9). There was a equivalent decrease in the percentage of body fat and total fat mass in both exercise groups compared with that in C."

Bump on that. If you Cut through diet only.. you will become "Skinny Fat". Thank You :)

As to cardio while bulking. I say do 30 mins of med intensity cardio 2-3 times a week for 2 reasons, IMO.

1. general health and i believe there are studies showing that cardio helps in nutrient partitioning, meanind you get less fat on a bulk :P

2. at med intensity your burn more fat while doing the excersise. We don't really want to raise the metabolism for the remainder of the day so save the HIIT for cutting, just do med intensity while bulking to reduce a little bit of fat.. but the main reason is #1.

geoffgarcia
11-14-2003, 09:18 AM
Manveet, I appreciate the time you put into the response to find those articles. And I would like to continue this debate.
However, Article 1 doesn't even deal with the difference between diet vs cardio.

My point is that decrease in calorie OR cardio have the same impact. This article says that with no calorie change that cardio makes a difference, it doesn't compare the control group to a calories defecit group so no conclusion can be drawn from this. I HOPE you can see this.

I had one impression reading the parts of the second article you clipped out, but I think you missed the main points in the article!!!!

Reduction in subcutaneous fat mass was significant in 3-4SW, but not in 1-2SW or C
Since this was tested on only 26 users where diet was self administered I find this to be inconclusive. For this to have been a definitive study saying that cardio reduces subcutaneous fat then the results would have showed that group C had insignificant loss, group 1-2SW had a slight loss and group 3-4 had significant loss (do you see my point?)

It is suggested that the decrease in SFM is proportional to the amount of aerobic exercise training.
again, I don't buy this based on what they've posted in the article, otherwise there would have been proof in the 1-2SW group. How can a group that does 1-2 workouts a week not show ANY results, yet a group that does 3-4 shows a significant change? = they can't, inconclusive data.

A negative correlation was observed between training frequency and changes in SFM (r = -0.65)
I'm not sure I get this statement, so the more frequently you train
the less SFM you lose? thats how I read it. (positive correlation would be more training = greater loss)

VFM decreased significantly and equivalently in both 1-2SW and 3-4SW. A change in visceral fat mass appears to be related to an deficit in caloric balance either by dietary restriction (decrease caloric intake) or by increased caloric expenditure.

uh...this line pretty much says that cardio and diet are just about equals and pick your poison....this certainly isn't proof that cardio is superior....


I'm not trying to be a dlck here, but do you have another study? the second one actually supports my theory partially*LOL*


Originally posted by defcon
If you Cut through diet only.. you will become "Skinny Fat"
I interpret this line as being "if you cut through diet only you will lose muscle and not lose fat = Skinny Fat"
Is this the correct interpretation? I still don't see anything that supports this (unless I'm missing the point?)

defcon
11-14-2003, 09:38 AM
Yeah that was interpreted right.. and from my understanding, agreeing with manveet, that you need to diet and excersise to lose V and S fat.

However, they studies youve posted are also conviencing :\

geoffgarcia
11-14-2003, 09:44 AM
I didn't post any new studies....I just read the two studies that manveet posted and picked out alternate quotes and what I found unconvincing.

I WANT to believe that cardio will help in one way or another.
I'm just looking for proof.

defcon
11-14-2003, 10:04 AM
hmm, well here is something from personal experiance... I dieted down, eating 1000 cals or less a day and got from 220 to 140 in the matter of 4 months or so. I became what you would call "skinny fat" ( look at my pics in the member pic page ). Well anyway, during this i did no cardio work.. i still had LOTS of SFM left, but lost a lot of VFM. Along with LOTS of muscle.

galileo
11-14-2003, 10:20 AM
Wow, there were a lot of responses, and I'm not individually going through them.

1. You do not need cardio to lose weight and dieting without it will not make you skinny-fat, but dieting without weight training of some sort will. Your body knows whether you need the muscle you have.

2. Glucose disposal, glycogen uptake, etc. Getting that stuff out of your blood and into your cells.

3. Cardio will increase your calorie usage even after the bout has ended, making it more valuable than the time you just put in.

4. When fat is released, it is released as glycerol and FFA's. The FFA's go into your bloodstream and the glycerol gets used for other stuff (required for glycogen production). These FFA's need to be mobilized in order to be burned. Cardio is a good way to do such.

Cardio is also catabolic in some ways, but when you are on a cyclic diet, I feel it is very very beneficial.

geoffgarcia
11-14-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by defcon
hmm, well here is something from personal experiance... I dieted down, eating 1000 cals or less a day and got from 220 to 140 in the matter of 4 months or so. I became what you would call "skinny fat" ( look at my pics in the member pic page ). Well anyway, during this i did no cardio work.. i still had LOTS of SFM left, but lost a lot of VFM. Along with LOTS of muscle.

Defcon,
I think...cardio would have done more harm than good.
Sub 1000 calories means you were in a catabolic state. (poor protein utilization, body tends to lose more muscle than fat)
This approach is undesirable if ur looking to lower bf and minimze muscle loss.
What you did was a recipe for high muscle loss/low fat loss which is exactly why you became skinny fat (in ur terms).


Galileo I'm not sure how any of the things you posted prove/disprove the argument at hand.


Originally posted by galileo
Cardio will increase your calorie usage even after the bout has ended, making it more valuable than the time you just put in.

this is the primary line being argued in this post, I fail to see how this is desirable. Why not just eat less!?


Originally posted by galileo

Glucose disposal, glycogen uptake, etc. Getting that stuff out of your blood and into your cells.

When fat is released, it is released as glycerol and FFA's. The FFA's go into your bloodstream and the glycerol gets used for other stuff (required for glycogen production). These FFA's need to be mobilized in order to be burned. Cardio is a good way to do such.

FFA = free fatty-acid
I agree that cardio does accomplish this.
However I'm still waiting for a study or rational argument that its needed if regular weight training is being done.



Originally posted by galileo
Cardio is also catabolic in some ways, but when you are on a cyclic diet, I feel it is very very beneficial.
some ways? depending on duration/intensity either it is, or it isn't...
How is a catabolic state beneficial to a person trying to minimize muscle loss and maximize fat loss?

galileo
11-14-2003, 11:27 AM
I was merely stating some points, not arguing anything. The primary argument is the FFA mobilization and glycogen uptake.

Unless you're weight training everyday, how could it not be of value? You're dieting, you have them in your blood stream. One bout of weight training 3x a week is not going to maximize the mobilization.

PowerManDL
11-14-2003, 11:30 AM
Weight training can only do so much unless you're doing it every day and using high-density methods.

The key here is using physical activity to create an energy deficit. It just happens that weight training is good at that. However simply lifting 3x a week generally isn't enough activity on its own to stimulate any major fat loss.

thetopdog
11-14-2003, 11:57 AM
Hey, thanks for all the relpies guys, but this thread is getting a little off topic. I'm asking about limiting the amount of fat gained on a bulk, not during a cut. Do any of you have any suggestions? It's seeming to me now like the ONLY thing you can do to limit the amount of fat gained on a bulk is to not eat too far over maintenance? Does it even matter what kinds of food you eat as long as you're getting the right amount of protein and EFA's? Does cardio matter at all during a bulk?

geoffgarcia
11-14-2003, 12:16 PM
sorry for getting slightly off track there:)

the above stuff relates to both cut and bulk

if you do cardio just make sure you adjust your diet accordingly on those days by eating more to make up for the burned calories + some that will be burned off from the upped metabolic spike

Avoid going into a catabolic state when doing cardio by monitoring the time your on the machines and your heart rate.

a combination of weight training and cardio on the days off, will keep your FFA and glucose flowing and will help minimze fat

as you said, dont eat to far over your metabolic rate. A gain of .5lbs a week would be fantastic, but if you get up to 1lb per week its possible you will be putting on quite a bit of fat as well.

There are arguments that say stay away from hi-gi carbs except around workout time

good luck and keep us posted!
NJ RULES!

thetopdog
11-14-2003, 12:28 PM
:thumbup: thanks a lot Geoff. I guess I was right about the ways to minimize fat gain. I thought there would be more ways (eg, eating very clean foods), but I guess I was wrong.

And I hate NJ ;) , I need to get out of here, but I have 2.5 years left :(

Manveet
11-14-2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by geoffgarcia
I didn't post any new studies....I just read the two studies that manveet posted and picked out alternate quotes and what I found unconvincing.

I WANT to believe that cardio will help in one way or another.
I'm just looking for proof.

I've been browsing around through one of my University's research databases and haven't found anything to support the general veiwpoint. I came across this quote from one study,

". It was also reported that in obese men, reductions in VAT induced by the combination of diet and exercise are not different from those observed in response to diet alone. It is unclear whether the results of these studies reflect a biological truth or are confounded by methodological problems associated with the control of energy intake and expenditure in free-living patients. "

Btw, I have yet to find studies done on weight lifters.

Manveet
11-14-2003, 08:19 PM
Bah, here's another quote from a different study.

"Investigators have used exercise to slow the depletion of lean body mass during very low calorie diets; however, the results are not conclusive. A host of different methodologies and questionable documentation and design of exercise protocols precludes a definitive statement for the benefits of exercise during very low calorie diets for the purpose of LBM retention."

Khar
11-17-2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by geoffgarcia


I've yet to hear a convincing argument why someone on a cut should do cardio.
Do you have one manveet? I'm dying to hear one because when i cut I want to be as efficient as possible and I can't work out the logic behind why you would want to do cardio when doing a cut.

Cardio mobilizes fat...Sooo if you are in a caloric deficit[cutting] and the fat is already mobilized...well it is going to get burned before say muscle as long as your diet isn't too catabolic. This would be greatly beneficial on a cut.

defcon
11-18-2003, 04:23 AM
any study that shows cardio mobilizes fat? If so, which kind of fat? SAT or VAT?

bradley
11-18-2003, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by defcon
any study that shows cardio mobilizes fat? If so, which kind of fat? SAT or VAT?

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/81/6/2445
"Arner et al. (3) have shown that during aerobic exercise in both genders, there is a marked increase in the mobilization of lipid from abdominal SAT, whereas only a minor increase in lipolytic activity was observed in femoral SAT. Thus it would appear that the inclusion of exercise has an influence on the reduction of abdominal SAT that is greater than DO (diet only). Because both VAT (11, 15, 45) and abdominal SAT (1) are related to metabolic disturbances, these findings provide strong support for the added benefit of exercise as a means of reducing abdominal adiposity and thus health risk."

**Cardio can reduce both VAT and SAT.

defcon
11-18-2003, 05:18 AM
Okay.. then its setteled, during a cut.. you gotta do sum cardio :P

* waits for sumone to argue *.

Here is a question for ya bradely.. right now i do this..

12:00 Pre cardio meal 1/3 rolled oats + 5 egg whites
2:00 cardio - med intensity for 35-40 mins ( depends on the radio station the gym has on :P )
2:50 - post cardio shake, Whey and creatine
4:00 - Post cardio meal, 1/3 rolled oats + 5 egg whites, or can of tuna.

This setup right?

defcon
11-18-2003, 05:24 AM
From skimming the entire article, this is a line i think is very IMP.

In response to all three treatments, a substantial reduction in whole body SAT volume was observed. For the DO group, the reduction in SAT was uniform over the entire body. However, for the two exercise groups we observed a greater mobilization of SAT from the abdominal compared with gluteal-femoral (leg) region.

bradley
11-18-2003, 05:24 AM
Looks fine to me, although if the above is an indicator of the rest of your diet, it looks as though you are not taking in enough fats.

defcon
11-18-2003, 05:25 AM
nonono, i get lots of fats :P 35% of my diet is from fat actually, mostly EFA from fish n nuts :)

thanx for the reply, now its class time! :\

galileo
11-18-2003, 06:27 AM
Just for the record, all these people who are requesting studies. Go to pubmed and do a search for your****ingself.

defcon
11-18-2003, 06:45 AM
I have dun searches, but using different keywords would yeild different results, what if i never used the proper keywords to get the study i was looking for, if sumone else did find a good study and they remember what they searched for then i dun think its that big of deal to ask them to post it...

galileo
11-18-2003, 07:36 AM
That statement was meant as impetus to research and learn. It's not a big deal, but if you're that concerned with "proof" then go out and get some.

geoffgarcia
11-18-2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by defcon
Okay.. then its setteled, during a cut.. you gotta do sum cardio
How did you come to this conclusion?
The findings aren't exclusive to cutting, they can also be applied to a bulk as this thread is geared, to gain the least amount of bf on a bulk.

Try these alternate quotes from the posted study and see if they convince you to change your stance...
DO = Diet only
DA = Diet + aerobic exercise
DR = Diet + resistance training

http://jap.physiology.org/content/vol81/issue6/images/large/japp0621303.jpeg
shows VAT loss between the DA and DR groups was very close and the the DR group lost more SAT.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/vol81/issue6/images/large/japp0621304.jpeg
shows SAT mobilization is higher in the DR group compared to the DA group in abdominal regions and in fact the DR group lost more in the legs!!!

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/81/6/2445/F10
shows relative loss between DA/DR/DO groups, again, DR comes out on top.



The findings reported here confirm a previous observation from this laboratory (38) and others (9, 19) that despite the greater negative energy balance induced by exercise within the DA and DR groups, the loss of body weight was not different from the DO group. For the DR group, this observation is not surprising, given the modest increase in energy expenditure attributable to the performance of resistance exercise per se in this study. However, the mean energy expenditure attributable to aerobic exercise for the DA group (~26,500 kcal) was substantial; thus additional weight loss should have been observed. Two lines of evidence support this view. First, because there was no change in MRI-LT, and, assuming that the energy equivalent of 1 kg of AT is 6,000 kcal, it is estimated that the reduction in AT due to the addition of exercise in the DA group should have been ~4.5 kg. Second, given the sample size in this study, an additional AT loss of this magnitude was well within the detectable limits of the MRI method employed to measure change in AT. Thus the fact that additional weight loss in the form of AT was not observed in the DA group is perplexing.
perplexing?! *LOL* thats gotta be the funniest thing I read all day! its perplexing if one study finds this out, but here they say that there have been FOUR studies that have come to the same results! *LOL* IMHO that goes beyond perplexing, dont you agree?


In summary, although our results do not support the hypothesis that the addition of exercise to a dietary regimen provides added benefit with respect to weight loss or AT reduction, it is unlikely that this observation reflects a biological truth but, rather, a weakness inherent to the methodology employed.


its late in the night, maybe I completely misread this article so I'm gonna reread it in a few hours, but to me it reads that resistance training is better than cardio and that cardio offers no additional benefits.

bradley
11-18-2003, 04:17 PM
When you are comparing diet only, diet+resistance, and diet+cardio, I doubt anyone will argue that diet+resistance will have the greatest overall benefit as far as body composition is concerned. To say that cardio will add no additional benefit when combined with diet and resistance training is quite a statement, and is not refuted by the above quotes that you posted.

geoffgarcia
11-18-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by bradley
To say that cardio will add no additional benefit when combined with diet and resistance training is quite a statement, and is not refuted by the above quotes that you posted.
ur right, I did go a little over the top there.

try to ignore that last line I put up...and let the rest of it stand for itself

defcon
11-18-2003, 05:24 PM
Well, i was assuming that we would still do resistance training either way..

The findings reported here confirm a previous observation from this laboratory (38) and others (9, 19) that despite the greater negative energy balance induced by exercise within the DA and DR groups, the loss of body weight was not different from the DO group. For the DR group, this observation is not surprising, given the modest increase in energy expenditure attributable to the performance of resistance exercise per se in this study. However, the mean energy expenditure attributable to aerobic exercise for the DA group (~26,500 kcal) was substantial; thus additional weight loss should have been observed.

They make no reference to the amount of calories on average above maintanice level either of the groups where.. did each group even follow a structured diet?

geoffgarcia
03-11-2004, 03:45 PM
a good post from AKA23 on another thread regarding the study posted above.


A few points about the study:

1. The study compares diet+cardio to diet+resistance training. I would expect a high intensity muscle building (muscle increases RMR) activity to have a greater effect on body composition than cardio. This does not mean that adding in additonal cardio would not offer greater benefit. I would expect the combination of diet+cardio+resistance training to be best of all. Several other studies have found this result. For example the study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8531622&dopt=Abstract found that the cardio+resistance training group significantly lowered BF more than the resistance training only group.

2. The study you quoted has some serious flaws. These include:
a. The resistance training group started with about 15% more fat than the cardio group or controls.
b. The resistance training group was about 8 years younger than the cardio group or controls.
c. The study does not list the intensity at which the cardio was performed.
It would be easier for the younger, fatter resistance training group to lose BF than the older, leaner aerobics group, regardless of training protocol.

3. You are grouping all of cardio and resistance training together based on a single study. Different types of cardio and weighttraining have different effects on body composition. Some very important factors are intensity, duration, and calories burned. I would expect different results from HIIT and low intensity "Reader's Digest" cardio. Some types of cardio and weightraining protocols are clearly more effective than others.

its unfortunate that its just an abstract...but what I found interesting was this quote

Fat-free mass is maintained in women following a moderate diet and exercise program (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8531622&dopt=Abstract) Results suggest that moderate levels of caloric restriction, aerobic cycle exercise, and/or resistance training are equally effective in maintaining FFM while encouraging body mass loss
so either cardio or resistance or both are all equally effective...
here is another study that found that resistance vs cardio gave similar results (however it didn't have a resistance+cardio group)


Mobilization of visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue in response to energy restriction and exercise (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7942575&dopt=Abstract)
These findings suggest that the combination of moderate energy restriction and either resistance or aerobic exercise induces significant reductions in VAT and SAT, with a preferential loss of VAT, and are thus effective means of reducing total and upper-body obesity in obese women.

DavidyourDuke
05-07-2004, 02:05 PM
Personally, I've noticed I do very noticably lose more fat on a cut EVEN when I sometimes cheat! It takes me ALOT longer to lose the fat if I just do cardio like 1x a week. Cardio really does work. Unless you got a thyroid problem or something.

Paladyr
05-10-2004, 09:41 AM
assuming your eating slightly below your your metabolic rate then why would you want to burn extra calories? doesn't eating less have the same result?

I'm not sure what you meant by cardio improves glucose disposal, can you put it in laymans terms for me (I'm slow)


I was doing great losing weight for the first 3 weeks but have stalled. I find it very difficult to consume around 1700 calories in a day because I get hungry so adding cardio on off days allows me to stay at my current caloric intake level and still lose weight by burning off extra calories.

Vido
05-10-2004, 12:00 PM
I was doing great losing weight for the first 3 weeks but have stalled. I find it very difficult to consume around 1700 calories in a day because I get hungry so adding cardio on off days allows me to stay at my current caloric intake level and still lose weight by burning off extra calories.

Exactly. Aside from the overall health benefits and improved glucose disposal, doing cardio allows one to eat more, which might be very helpful in sticking with one's diet.