PDA

View Full Version : What role does cardio play in bulking?



ultimate
03-07-2006, 10:15 PM
If all I want to do is gain weight, should I be doing any cardio (besides to warm up)? Some day don't do any, and others say do them on off days. If I don't get any cardio at all, won't that encourage fat gain instead of muscle gain? Thanks.

WildCard
03-07-2006, 10:20 PM
8 time mr. olympia does cardio even while bulking.

Cardio burns more fat than muscle , so it keeps bulking fat in check.

ShockBoxer
03-07-2006, 10:23 PM
You don't think lifting hard for a half hour or an hour is more cardio than the average person gets in a week?

All physical activity that raises your heartrate is 'cardio'. Do some 'dedicated' cardio if you like it but realize that unless you increase your food (slightly... it doesn't take much to wipe out an hour of cardio calories burned) it will slow down the weight you put on.

Meat_Head
03-07-2006, 10:52 PM
Cardio performed CORRECTLY while bulking goes a long way towards keeping your gains lean mass.

WildCard
03-07-2006, 11:55 PM
You don't think lifting hard for a half hour or an hour is more cardio than the average person gets in a week?

All physical activity that raises your heartrate is 'cardio'. Do some 'dedicated' cardio if you like it but realize that unless you increase your food (slightly... it doesn't take much to wipe out an hour of cardio calories burned) it will slow down the weight you put on.

lifting burns mainly glycogen. traditional cardio (running) burns mainly fat.
of course, with the right type of lifting, one builds muscle which burns more calories, but that is a secondary effect.

brickt.
03-08-2006, 12:33 AM
Cardio is good during all phases of training.

Stimulates positive nutrient balance = more calories go to muscle than fat
Improves Recovery = can train more often w/ higher intensity
Improves HR = less time between sets which is good for hypertrophy

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-08-2006, 12:38 AM
lifting burns mainly glycogen. traditional cardio (running) burns mainly fat.
of course, with the right type of lifting, one builds muscle which burns more calories, but that is a secondary effect.Building more muscle increases your metabolism which in turn burns more fat. Cardio starts burning fat after your glycogen stores are gone, which is why it's better to do cardio after lifting. However...cardio really shouldn't be something used mainly to burn fat because it's not as efficient as packing on lean mass. I just do cardio to increase the vascularity of my heart.



If all I want to do is gain weight, should I be doing any cardio (besides to warm up)? Some day don't do any, and others say do them on off days. If I don't get any cardio at all, won't that encourage fat gain instead of muscle gain? Thanks.
As long as you're taking into account the fact that you're burning more calories while doing cardio and eating more food to compensate, there shouldn't be a problem with doing cardio while bulking. You WILL have to eat excess calories than what you're burning off in order to see gains, though. Otherwise it will hurt your gains during a bulk phase.

WildCard
03-08-2006, 12:48 AM
Cardio starts burning fat after your glycogen stores are gone, which is why it's better to do cardio after lifting. .

I believe that mid-paced cardio for the duration we normally perform (30-45 minutes) burns very little glucose...mostly fat burn.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-08-2006, 01:02 AM
It's just a waste of energy expenditure if you're using it for fat loss. Hitting the weights should be the main focus, in my opinion. It's just not as efficient to try and lose weight via hardcore cardio. It's good for the heart though and that's the main reason I do it. Having a stronger heart also increases your endurance when doing weightlifting.

Only after 20 minutes or so does cardio start tapping into your fat stores. Before this, the main source of energy is glucose. Which is why I say it's better to do cardio after weights because your glycogen stores are depleted, leaving only your fat stores to burn. Waiting 20+ minutes to start hitting your fat stores seems a bit tiring and isn't as fun as lifting weights. At least I think it's more fun than just sitting or running in place for almost an hour.

ShockBoxer
03-08-2006, 07:13 AM
I'm just not a big fan of cardio. Back last year in my cardio bunny days I got to the point where I could do an eliptical on maximum level, maximum incline for twenty minutes. Sprinting up six flights of stairs at work would still destroy me.

Now to do cardio I sprint up those six flights of stairs, every morning. They no longer wind me. Maybe I'm not burning as many calories doing so but my FUNCTIONAL endurance is going up... and since that's what I wanted from cardio in the first place I find it really hard to step onto an eliptical machine and be bored for 20 minutes.

MJS
03-08-2006, 09:42 AM
I find doing HIIT 2-3 times a week during my bulking stages increases my appetite, gives me more energy, and as a mental thing - makes my veins pop out so when I look in the mirror .. I think, f*ck yeah I'm a beast. Seems like a win-win-win to me... even though I am nuts.

Meat_Head
03-08-2006, 10:51 AM
Regular cardio sucks... either do swimming or something involving multiple sprints

Jordanbcool
03-29-2006, 09:52 AM
I'd have to disagree with most people in this thread that say cardio is useless or that it sucks. Physical activity is always good for you no matter what your goals are. I've recently started doing HIIT and it works wonders for fat loss while increasing your speed considerably. Also AM cardio is not bad either. Early in the morning your glycocen stores are low if not completly gone, so your body burns alot of fat if you decide to do morning cardio. If you over-do AM cardio it can burn hard earned muscle so DO NOT become a long distance runner. 30 minutes at a slow jog is more then enough.

I personally dont do cardio at all on bulks, but i think its a godsend on cuts. I'm a fatty at heart so i love to eat. Rather then cut back on my calories i'd rather increase my activity to shed pounds. Of course i still eat under maintenace but.... you get the picture.

-jordan

P.S. Diet is first on cuts and bulks. Never ever forget that. Your body cant magically create energy (calories) for you to grow if you do not supply them!!

Jorge Sanchez
03-29-2006, 11:24 AM
I'd have to disagree with most people in this thread that say cardio is useless or that it sucks.

Nobody said that.

Jordanbcool
03-29-2006, 12:34 PM
Nobody said that.

Read the post above mine!

lol

-jordan

Jorge Sanchez
03-29-2006, 01:06 PM
Someone said it to you before, but I think it warrants repeating: "Reading is FUNdamental." I think you need to read his post again, he didn't say cardio sucks.

Also, one does not = most.

Jordanbcool
03-29-2006, 01:52 PM
Someone said it to you before, but I think it warrants repeating: "Reading is FUNdamental." I think you need to read his post again, he didn't say cardio sucks.

Also, one does not = most.

Indeed. You should read up yourself. Might learn a thing or two.

-jordan

MJS
03-29-2006, 03:55 PM
hahah, sorry this is cracking me up.

Sidior
03-29-2006, 04:05 PM
Indeed. You should read up yourself. Might learn a thing or two.

-jordan

Jorge Sanchez is right, read the entire thread....I can't believe this is actually even being discussed

Stumprrp
03-29-2006, 07:33 PM
running on tredmills is much easier then outside, running outside is a great source of cardio and i would think would be nice once or twice a week on a bulk.

Jordanbcool
03-29-2006, 08:24 PM
Jorge Sanchez is right, read the entire thread....I can't believe this is actually even being discussed

Whats being discussed?

And what is he exactly right about if you dont mind me asking.

-jordan

gator
03-29-2006, 09:52 PM
From what I've researched low intensity cardio is beneficial while bulking. Supposedly low intensity cardio taps into fat storage instead of glycogen first. Of course you burn more cals and fat with High intensity but a bigger % of that is from muscle. (I don't have studies to back that up, just from what I hear a lot of pro BB'ers say) However it only taps into fat storage for so long untill it goes into glycogen. I've heard doing low intensity for about 30-45 min can be beneficial in terms of recovery and overall health. However I'm still unsure if this should be done on off days or right after training.

Jordanbcool
03-30-2006, 05:48 AM
From what I've researched low intensity cardio is beneficial while bulking. Supposedly low intensity cardio taps into fat storage instead of glycogen first. Of course you burn more cals and fat with High intensity but a bigger % of that is from muscle. (I don't have studies to back that up, just from what I hear a lot of pro BB'ers say) However it only taps into fat storage for so long untill it goes into glycogen. I've heard doing low intensity for about 30-45 min can be beneficial in terms of recovery and overall health. However I'm still unsure if this should be done on off days or right after training.

I'm pretty sure glycogen stores are always burned up first....brickt knows more about all that though.

Also HIIT if thats what your suggesting helps preserve lean mass unless you do them in the AM without food. You use many more muscles sprinting then you do a slow walk. Atleast you use them harder, so your body will be more inclined to keep it.

-jordan

ectx
03-30-2006, 09:21 AM
I think it's situational. While most will benefit from moderate cardio on a bulk, for some it may not being an option...if your metabolic rate is already racing and you struggle to put weight on while you're shoving 6000+ calories down your throat each day, then cardio may not be for you. Unfortunately that's not the case for me. LOL...that being said, I do believe it's important to keep your cardiovascular system healthy. A good heart stroke volume will go a long way toward keeping your heart and bp steady once you've gotten bigger.

gator
03-30-2006, 11:16 AM
Also HIIT if thats what your suggesting helps preserve lean mass unless you do them in the AM without food. You use many more muscles sprinting then you do a slow walk. Atleast you use them harder, so your body will be more inclined to keep it.

-jordan


The only problem I have with HIT is that it's much more taxing on your body than low intensity cardio. There for if one of the reasons your doing cardio is for recovery (which is one of the main reasons why I started doing it) then HIT isn't for you. Most of our bodies can't handle 4 days a week of training then 3 days a week of HIT, you will need time off more frequently. Allthough it may feel like your recovered your body most likely wont be. But if your overweight and you want to lose fat a smuch as possible HIT is definatly the way to go. From what I've read, since HIT is more taxing on your body so it's more catabolic, your glycogen gets depleated faster and you lose a greater % of muscle then doing low intensity cardio.

The reason why I've heard that low intensity doesn't tap into glycogen as much as HIT is because the primary function of low intensity is to oxidize fat where HIT doesn't oxidize as much fat but it burns more fat. And since it's burning more fat more of that has to be muscle.

Meat_Head
03-30-2006, 02:06 PM
The only problem I have with HIT is that it's much more taxing on your body than low intensity cardio. There for if one of the reasons your doing cardio is for recovery (which is one of the main reasons why I started doing it) then HIT isn't for you. Most of our bodies can't handle 4 days a week of training then 3 days a week of HIT, you will need time off more frequently. Allthough it may feel like your recovered your body most likely wont be. But if your overweight and you want to lose fat a smuch as possible HIT is definatly the way to go. From what I've read, since HIT is more taxing on your body so it's more catabolic, your glycogen gets depleated faster and you lose a greater % of muscle then doing low intensity cardio.

The reason why I've heard that low intensity doesn't tap into glycogen as much as HIT is because the primary function of low intensity is to oxidize fat where HIT doesn't oxidize as much fat but it burns more fat. And since it's burning more fat more of that has to be muscle.

Once you get used to HIIT like activity its much easier to recover. However, I almost always take a break for a day after sprints or cut down on the leg volume while doing alot of HIIT to prevent CNS burnout.

Patz
03-30-2006, 02:48 PM
There was a really good debate on the benefits of cardio, over in general chat a couple months back. I'll see if I can find it, and link it..

Patz
03-30-2006, 03:32 PM
I searched and searched. I can't find it. Maybe someone more creative can pull it out of the doldrums, as it was very thought-provoking.

Jordanbcool
03-30-2006, 05:13 PM
The only problem I have with HIT is that it's much more taxing on your body than low intensity cardio. There for if one of the reasons your doing cardio is for recovery (which is one of the main reasons why I started doing it) then HIT isn't for you. Most of our bodies can't handle 4 days a week of training then 3 days a week of HIT, you will need time off more frequently. Allthough it may feel like your recovered your body most likely wont be. But if your overweight and you want to lose fat a smuch as possible HIT is definatly the way to go. From what I've read, since HIT is more taxing on your body so it's more catabolic, your glycogen gets depleated faster and you lose a greater % of muscle then doing low intensity cardio.

The reason why I've heard that low intensity doesn't tap into glycogen as much as HIT is because the primary function of low intensity is to oxidize fat where HIT doesn't oxidize as much fat but it burns more fat. And since it's burning more fat more of that has to be muscle.

O for sure, its a hell of alot more taxing on your body then SS cardio. I'm a huge fan of HIIT though because its overall benifits far outweigh anything negative it has. It boosts overall speed, and agility as well as burning fat much better then any SS cardio. As far as burning muscle mass, This can be a problem. But your only supposed to do HIIT for 20 minutes. In all reality unless your diet is really messed up HIIT should actually pack on some muscle. On a cut (or bulk) you simply have to treat HIIT like its a workout day. You burn calories and tear down muscle during workouts right? Same thing with HIIT. You have some food in you while you do it, and should eat afterwards.

I used to do AM cardio on a totally fasted stomach for 4 miles (40 minutes). Not only was it taxing but I lost alot of muscle in the process. The beauty of HIIT is that its closer to workouts then it is aerobic excersize. Your workouts are intense and so is HIIT. You shouldnt be sprinting for more then a few seconds. In the gym you only do a certain amount of weight for a few reps (6-12)..... High intensity interval training. Other cardio is usually longer but less intense. This way you dont use your muscles as hard as you would HIIT so your body says "Good! here is some un-used muscle lets burn it up" and chalks up what you've worked so hard for. Of course this isnt all the time and only happens as a last resort (for your body) but if you have to choose between an AM 4 mile jog or HIIT. HIIT comes out on top.


Otherwise though if your simply doing cardio for recovery your totally right in saying that HIIT isnt for you.

-jordan

gator
03-30-2006, 06:00 PM
I think HIT should only be used for athletes or people who want to lose at lot weight really badly. We both agree HIT is very taxing on your body, so you usually have to take more days of rest or lower your sets on your leg days. I would rather just have a leg day with some low intensity cardio than do HIT. I still believe that HIT burns a higher % of muscle that low intensity cardio.

Jordanbcool
03-30-2006, 08:27 PM
I think HIT should only be used for athletes or people who want to lose at lot weight really badly. We both agree HIT is very taxing on your body, so you usually have to take more days of rest or lower your sets on your leg days. I would rather just have a leg day with some low intensity cardio than do HIT. I still believe that HIT burns a higher % of muscle that low intensity cardio.

I'd agree thats it more taxing but i still wouldnt say that it contributes to muscle loss if done properly.

-jordan

gator
03-30-2006, 08:59 PM
I'd agree thats it more taxing but i still wouldnt say that it contributes to muscle loss if done properly.

-jordan

If you treat it like a normal workout where you have pre workout and post workout carbs and protein then it wouldn't contribute to muscle loss. But you would then get to fat loss benefit from it.

any time you do cardio and burn fat your are going to jepordize some muscle.

Jordanbcool
03-30-2006, 09:31 PM
If you treat it like a normal workout where you have pre workout and post workout carbs and protein then it wouldn't contribute to muscle loss. But you would then get to fat loss benefit from it.

any time you do cardio and burn fat your are going to jepordize some muscle.

As long as you burn more calories then you take in you will lose weight be it water fat or muscle. Of course you can lose good amounts of all three but its HOW you eat/sleep/train that really determines qwhat you lose. Also like a workout HIIT shines for its after effects because it keeps your metabolism high throughout the day. I kinda want to continue our discussion in another thread with more input being discussed on both sides. I'll give you the link so we can keep posting in that thread as if we were posting in this thread.

Good discussion with you though gator.

-jordan

Heres the link. http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=76179

gator
03-30-2006, 10:44 PM
It's been a pleasure to debate with you. I like having nice civil debates. I'll check out that link

Built
03-30-2006, 10:58 PM
It's not quite that simple: there's the issue of "fast twitch/slow twitch" to be considered. Long periods of LISS cardio tends to promote some of the fast-twitch fibers to take on slow-twitch qualities. As I understand it, you essentially "overtrain" your fast twitch muscles with so-called fat-burning-zone (steady state) cardio workouts. HIIT prevents this by stimulating fast-twitch growth.

gator
03-30-2006, 11:05 PM
It's not quite that simple: there's the issue of "fast twitch/slow twitch" to be considered. Long periods of LISS cardio tends to promote some of the fast-twitch fibers to take on slow-twitch qualities. As I understand it, you essentially "overtrain" your fast twitch muscles with so-called fat-burning-zone (steady state) cardio workouts. HIIT prevents this by stimulating fast-twitch growth.

but wouldn't doing leg weight training workouts provide that balance you need for fast twitch and slow twitch?

Built
03-30-2006, 11:25 PM
I wouldn't rely upon HIIT for leg development. But if we're talking about a way to use cardio optimally - IE to create a caloric deficit without compromising muscle growth, HIIT is your bitch.

It's not like you do an HOUR of it - on a good day, when I'm in peak condition, I can do maybe 8 minutes of HIIT, followed by a 12-minute fast incline walk to cool down and burn off FFAs mobilized by the sprint intervals.

My version of HIIT is 30-second intervals of flat-out sprints, alternating with 30-second fast incline walks. I am searching for the puke bucket toward the end. But it's over FAST. And I don't convince my fast twitch muscle fibres to masquerade as slow twitch by doing this.

gator
03-30-2006, 11:29 PM
I think I just need to do more research. I agree HIT for fatloss is the best in that you lose the most amount of fat with it, (however I dont agree it's as muscle sparing as low intensity cardio). I guess it just depends on your goal. I'm doing low intensity on my bulk just to slighty negate fat gains, but mainly for recovery,overall health and even the theory about how it helps with transporting nutrients to your body on off days. Plus it gives me a reason to hit the gym on off days, I hate not going to the gym.

Built
03-30-2006, 11:31 PM
It's HIIT, not HIT.

The best way to lose fat is to diet carefully and lift heavy. If you gain too fast, cardio isn't the answer - watch your diet.

gator
03-30-2006, 11:43 PM
If you gain too fast, cardio isn't the answer - watch your diet.

I dont think it's that simple, I think it has a lot to do with body type.

Built
03-30-2006, 11:46 PM
Gator, I was fat for twenty years. Trust me - I didn't get lean doing CARDIO.

gator
03-31-2006, 12:35 AM
Gator, I was fat for twenty years. Trust me - I didn't get lean doing CARDIO.

I never said cardio should be the main focus when getting lean.....

Built
03-31-2006, 01:34 AM
Well, you surmised it had to do with body type.

Cardio does NOT have magical properties. It creates a caloric deficit, it has some advantages, and it has some disadvantages. As in many things related to body recomposition, it can be thought of as a constrained optimization problem. In this case, do enough to get the advantages, not so much as to get the disadvantages. How much is that? Good question...

brickt.
03-31-2006, 02:56 AM
I like low intensity just because I'm too unfit to run. However, the folks at mind and muscle SWEAR by sprints as the one of the keystones to recomposition.

4 Weekly training + 2 SS cardio + 10 mins of HIIT would prolly be quite useful, giving correct diet etc.


Claming she was a fatty

That's it! I demand pics of your former behemothic state!

russianwol
03-31-2006, 07:26 AM
Built - I understand that as a powerlifter one would want to have the max number of fast-twich muscle for maximum power. Would you agree, however, that athelets such that practice explosive sports would benefit from developing both types of fibers?

Jordanbcool
03-31-2006, 09:00 AM
Built - I understand that as a powerlifter one would want to have the max number of fast-twich muscle for maximum power. Would you agree, however, that athelets such that practice explosive sports would benefit from developing both types of fibers?

Of course every athlete would benifit from developing both fast and slow twitch fibers.

As to gator. I always think of cardio as my supplement pills. I.E. My EC stack. It helps along my diet (and we all know how gay cuts can be) without putting any negative adverse effects on my muscles. As long as your getting constant food in your system you shouldnt lose muscle when doing HIIT. That being said, its a very powerful "supplement" but its your diet that really breaks away that belly. It wasent till i started dieting that i actually saw my "six pack" (right now its a four pack lol).

One of my first real "heros" for fitness had this to say about diet.

"Abs are made in the kitchen not the gym!".

I never believed it at first, but once i did. I had great progress.

-jordan

Built
03-31-2006, 04:39 PM
Built - I understand that as a powerlifter one would want to have the max number of fast-twich muscle for maximum power. Would you agree, however, that athelets such that practice explosive sports would benefit from developing both types of fibers?


See, my point wasn't that one should avoid developing slow-twitch muscles - my point was that fast-twitch take on slow-twitch properties with extended LISS, and this is a problem.

gator
03-31-2006, 05:18 PM
See, my point wasn't that one should avoid developing slow-twitch muscles - my point was that fast-twitch take on slow-twitch properties with extended LISS, and this is a problem.

Do you have any studies on this, sounds kinda interesting, I would think one would have to be a marathon runner for this kinda thing to take place.

Built
03-31-2006, 05:31 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11296997&dopt=Abstract

gator
03-31-2006, 09:57 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11296997&dopt=Abstract

"The results revealed that endurance training MAYpromote a transition from type II to type I muscle fibre types and occurs at the expense of the type II fibre population."

there has to be better studies, than something only using 13 subjects.

Built
03-31-2006, 10:51 PM
Berardi writes (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/berardi29.htm):


While training the anaerobic energy systems is clearly be of benefit for enhancing athletic performance, there are many other non-athletic benefits as well:

This type of training is very calorie expensive. Short, 30-minute workouts can burn in excess of 400kcal during the exercise. While carbohydrates provide much of the fuel used during the high intensity interval, fat is also burned preferentially during the low intensity aerobic recovery period between the high intensity intervals.

The post exercise calorie expenditure is huge with this type of exercise. In some studies the resting metabolic rate remains elevated (by 15% or more) up to 24 hours after the workout. Interestingly, after exercise the body preferentially burns fat so this elevated metabolism is burning predominantly fat.

This exercise leads to an up regulation of aerobic, anaerobic, and ATP-PC enzyme activity. This means that all the energy systems of the body will operate at higher levels and become efficient at burning calories and generating energy.

The muscles used during this type of exercise will change their composition, shifting toward an increased percentage of fast twitch fibers. This increase in power-producing fast fibers comes at the expense of the weaker slow twitch ones. The shift is desired as the fast fibers grow more easily than the slow fibers.

There is an increase in specific muscle cell organelles (i.e. the sarcoplasmic reticulum). This leads to a better calcium balance and contractile ability.

There are short-lived increases in blood testosterone (38%) and growth hormone concentrations immediately after exercise. While this is debatable, these changes may contribute to an anabolic state in the body.

and from Vince McConnell (http://dolfzine.com/page483.htm)

"The total energy cost of the (Moderate Intensity Cardio) MIC program was substantially greater than the (High Intensity Interval Training) HIIT program. The scientists found that the MIC group burned more than twice as many calories while exercising than the HIIT program. HOWEVER, skinfold measurements showed that the HIIT group lost more subcutaneous fat. According to the scientists, " . . .when the difference in the total energy cost of the program was taken into account, the subcutaneous fat loss was nine fold greater in the HIIT program than in the MIC program." Bottom line: the HIIT group experienced 9 times more fat-loss benefit for every calorie burned during exercise. Tremblay, et al; (Metabolism (1994) Volume 43, pp.814-818)"

Good enough for me!