PDA

View Full Version : question about slow cardio



fitnesschick
05-09-2006, 08:53 PM
this guy at the gym does this really slow cardio. i asked him why he does it so slow and he says it burns more fat (that is what his trainer tells him). i said i don't believe him but then really didn't have any reason to back up my disagreeing with him. i told this guy that HIIT would probably help him more with his fat loss than the slow cardio but he sticks with what his trainer tells him (i think his trainer could tell him anything and he'd believe it!).

also ... which would theoretically be a better fat burner ... fast ss cardio or slow ss cardio? i just cannot see walking at a snail's pace being a good fat burner.

quickie
05-09-2006, 08:55 PM
It doesn't matter if you burn fat or carbohydrates during cardio. The most important thing is the number of calories burned.

fitnesschick
05-09-2006, 09:01 PM
that is what i thought too but he said slow cardio taps into fat whereas running or doing something more intense uses up carbohydrate energy. i thought it would be good to have something scientific to reply with ;)

quickie
05-09-2006, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by fitnesschick@May 9 2006, 09:01 PM
that is what i thought too but he said slow cardio taps into fat whereas running or doing something more intense uses up carbohydrate energy. i thought it would be good to have something scientific to reply with ;)
You said it yourself. But, if one activity burns 500 caories and the other burns 350, why would it matter if it was coming from fat or carbohydrate? It doesn't.

musclema
05-09-2006, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by quickie@May 9 2006, 04:06 PM
You said it yourself. But, if one activity burns 500 caories and the other burns 350, why would it matter if it was coming from fat or carbohydrate? It doesn't.
That's good to know. You hear so much stuff it's like :confused: :confused:

fitnesschick
05-09-2006, 09:27 PM
so what is the point of doing slow cardio then? it kinda seems like a waste of time if it's solely for fat loss and not injury/sport related.

also, does exercise actually burn fat or carbohydrate calories? i don't get that either. isn't fat just stored energy anyway?

strongchick
05-09-2006, 09:34 PM
Certain exercises preferentially burn carbs vs fats for energy.

Low intensity cardio isn't that bad...it helps with recovery sometimes. And for me, who isn't looking to burn calories, it helps me feel like I'm being a bit more active.

Erik
05-09-2006, 09:39 PM
so what is the point of doing slow cardio then? it kinda seems like a waste of time if it's solely for fat loss and not injury/sport related.

"really" slow? No purpose at all

By his rationale, I'm using the most fat, relatively speaking, as I sit here typing away at my computer.

You use more fat from a relative percentage standpoint, but you burn less overall calories, so in essence you're burning less overall fat anyway.

For example ...

Let's say you burn 70% fat but only burn 300 calories. You burned 210 cals from fat. Contrast that to burning 50% from fat, but you burn 500 calories doing more intense activity - you burned 250 cals from fat.

So that arguement is a wash.

Then, as Quickie said, it doesn't matter where the energy comes from - fat or carbs. The point is the deficit you create. The key is expenditure, not where it comes from.

HIIT is 'generally' superior to SS cardio when all else is controlled for, and this activity, during anyway, relies on carbohydrates.

This is another fitness myth



also, does exercise actually burn fat or carbohydrate calories? i don't get that either. isn't fat just stored energy anyway

What fuel is used to drive the exercise is dependent on the intensity of the exercise. The more intense the activity the greater the shift from fat to carbohydrate.

mybell
05-10-2006, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Thunder@May 9 2006, 04:39 PM

.

For example ...

Let's say you burn 70% fat but only burn 300 calories. You burned 210 cals from fat. Contrast that to burning 50% from fat, but you burn 500 calories doing more intense activity - you burned 250 cals from fat.

So that arguement is a wash.


My gym has this example on the bulletin board. Used slightly different numbers, but basically, trying to get people to understand that slow isn't the great fat burner.

poke
05-10-2006, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by fitnesschick@May 10 2006, 06:27 AM
so what is the point of doing slow cardio then? it kinda seems like a waste of time if it's solely for fat loss and not injury/sport related.

also, does exercise actually burn fat or carbohydrate calories? i don't get that either. isn't fat just stored energy anyway?
Yes, long slow cardio involves lots of time, time, time. If you do it for less than an hour for fat burning purposes, don't bother.

Fat burns in a carboydrate flame. The energy your body uses comes from the stripping down of carbohydrate molecules or fat molecules, but metabolizing fat requires carbs to be metabolized to start the process. Your body relies on carbs only for about 15-20 minutes, and then switches to a combination: stored fat accessed by burning carbs (although fewer carbs than in the first part.) If you "bonk," you have used up the accessible carbs, and therefore can't burn fat, either. The idea behind doing slow cardio is that you can do it for longer. But then, you HAVE to do it for longer to burn the same number of calories. So, while doing long slow cardio you are technically actually using the fat itself, with HIIT you are using up your accessible carbs and your body will then reach into its stores (ie: fat) to replace it with an equivalent caloric amount after the workout is done. The other big drawback to long slow cardio is that you have to replace the carbs while you do it. I have found your body can go about 1 hour before you start to need sugar. But, most often you will drink a sports drink with the same, if not more, calories you have burned in the past hour. Your net gains will be zero.

**Disclaimer: I am not certified in anything. I raced bicycles in college and I was a biology major. Take my explanation with a grain of salt.**

Bravogrl27
05-10-2006, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by fitnesschick@May 9 2006, 03:53 PM
this guy at the gym does this really slow cardio. i asked him why he does it so slow and he says it burns more fat (that is what his trainer tells him). i said i don't believe him but then really didn't have any reason to back up my disagreeing with him. i told this guy that HIIT would probably help him more with his fat loss than the slow cardio but he sticks with what his trainer tells him (i think his trainer could tell him anything and he'd believe it!).

also ... which would theoretically be a better fat burner ... fast ss cardio or slow ss cardio? i just cannot see walking at a snail's pace being a good fat burner.

LOL, not to be a hypocrite or anything, but Thunder could probably post anything here (regarding diet/nutrition) and I'd believe him. . . .so as much as it is sad that it's hard to sway others from what their trainers say, at the same time . . . well, I'm the same way with info posted here. :shades:

PowerManDL
05-10-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by poke@May 9 2006, 11:38 PM
Fat burns in a carboydrate flame. The energy your body uses comes from the stripping down of carbohydrate molecules or fat molecules, but metabolizing fat requires carbs to be metabolized to start the process. Your body relies on carbs only for about 15-20 minutes, and then switches to a combination: stored fat accessed by burning carbs (although fewer carbs than in the first part.) If you "bonk," you have used up the accessible carbs, and therefore can't burn fat, either. The idea behind doing slow cardio is that you can do it for longer. But then, you HAVE to do it for longer to burn the same number of calories. So, while doing long slow cardio you are technically actually using the fat itself, with HIIT you are using up your accessible carbs and your body will then reach into its stores (ie: fat) to replace it with an equivalent caloric amount after the workout is done. The other big drawback to long slow cardio is that you have to replace the carbs while you do it. I have found your body can go about 1 hour before you start to need sugar. But, most often you will drink a sports drink with the same, if not more, calories you have burned in the past hour. Your net gains will be zero.

AMPK and its signaling cascade are truly wonderous.

poke
05-10-2006, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by PowerManDL@May 10 2006, 01:20 PM
AMPK and its signaling cascade are truly wonderous.
I loved micro. That was one subject I never, ever got tired of studying. And indeed, AMPK is pretty amazing.

3LP
05-10-2006, 04:01 PM
That is one of the most prevalent fitness myths around. Remember all those "fat burning" exercise videos that involved cha-cha-cha-ing and grapevining for an hour, and you weren't supposed to let your heart rate get too high or feel like you were working too hard as that supposedly kept you out of the "fat burning" zone?

I remember being under the influence of that theory, and telling my husband that I was getting better results from walking 4 miles than from his sprinting/jogging three miles (he gets bored with SS cardio easily so always did intervals, even before we knew they were a good thing). He helpfully pointed out that I was still chubby, though.

I am SO glad the slow-cardio myth is just a myth, 'cause I am loving getting all my cardio out of the way in 20 minutes of HIIT!