You say not to run while cutting.. why exactly.. I thought getting heart rate up was good.

I'm cutting.. should I continue to use glutamine and creatine?

Thanks!

I would imagine its a combination of the fact running is quite stressful on the joints etc, as apposed to say cycling / cross trainer.

Also you may go above your fat burning heart rate zone through running, normally an upright cycle is sufficient to get ~70% if you have it set right.

Also cardiovascular excercise is catabolic. I know that some bodybuilders in the past have shunned it at all times because they saw it as destroying muscle mass. I don't think such a view is common now, as although it is catabolic, the benefits of the fat loss more than make up for any minimal loss of muscle.

In terms of why running would be bad and another cardio exercise wouldn't be I don't know - Swole can perhaps answer!

Also cardiovascular excercise is catabolic. I know that some bodybuilders in the past have shunned it at all times because they saw it as destroying muscle mass. I don't think such a view is common now, as although it is catabolic, the benefits of the fat loss more than make up for any minimal loss of muscle.

In terms of why running would be bad and another cardio exercise wouldn't be I don't know - Swole can perhaps answer!
Remember catabolic means it destroys body mass...this includes fat and/or muscle. People seem to think catabolic is all bad, but in reality if you are cutting (even if it is pure fat you are losing) you are in a catabolic state.

Remember catabolic means it destroys body mass...this includes fat and/or muscle. People seem to think catabolic is all bad, but in reality if you are cutting (even if it is pure fat you are losing) you are in a catabolic state.


I run 4 x a week 20-30 mins max, first thing in the morning, interval training so basically 15 mins of that is HIIT.

I am cutting and fat just dropped off. I never exceed that and make sure I weight train split over three days to maintain muscle mass.

I have no probs using running as cardio just dont over do it!

My thoughts anyway

For me, i get joint pains and leg pain when i do HIIT (im only 16, so it does worry me). I run for about 30 min, and i check my heart rate manually every 10 min. and its always between 60 or 70%-ish

and even if your heart rate is not in the fat burning zone, you should still be getting a metabolic boost after the workout (IMO isnt a metabolic boost the most important result from running? isnt it??)

just some thoughts..

If you want to keep LBM, running is not the answer. You should be doing lower impact cardio workouts to lipoysis. Only running burns almost as much muscle as it does fat. For someone trying to 'lose weight' running is fine, for someone trying to cut, and maintain as much LBM as possible, DONT just run.

If you loose fat and muscle when running, and you loose just fat when doing the 70% cardio and its proven, then I would choose the 70% cardio. Why would anyone want to loose their hard earned muscle that your always stiving to build? Unless you are huge and have some to spare, which in most cases we dont.

The only reason I could think of that someone would want to loose muscle and fat by sprinting is maybe someone who needs to make weight on a wrestling team or if someone is a sprinter or something sports related. For bodybuilding this is not ideal.

(like my run-on sentences Swole? lol)

so how long exactly should I do the 70% heart rate cardio?

I'm on one of swole's diet programs.... LarryNC, 45-60 minutes each day.

Has anybody got a link to a reason why/how something high intensity like running can burn away muscle and a similar amount of cardio at a lower intensity cannot? I do running because in 25 min I can be done for the day and forget about it :tu:

Yep, it's a real pain going 45 minutes it goes on and on and on but it's what works so I do it.

i guess i'm confused about this:

so, in many places on this forum, people have said that, when one performs cardio (HIIT or otherwise), you can do it on any machine or in any form (ie, bicycle, treadmill, swimming, etc) and it doesn't matter... they all do the same thing as long as you keep your heart rate at the proper level.

why then, is running so "bad?" i am a huge running buff, i've been doing it for the better part of a decade, and yes, i know there are risks with joint pain and such, but i don't see why running burns more muscle than anything else? if i'm running for 30 minutes at 70% mhr, how am i burning more muscle than if i were to bike for 30 minutes at 70% mhr???

it just seems like this idea that "running kills all your muscle gains more than other forms of cardio" is a myth. it may not be, but i haven't heard any scientific justification for this to prove this opinion right or wrong. if someone can give me an answer to this question, i would love to hear it! especially since i'm using running as my cardio and on a weight training program at the moment (and by the way, i'm noticing muscle gains while still running, so this puzzles me even more...).

this poor runner is getting discouraged! :p

I think the confusion is partly in the definition of run. When people think run, they think going fast. A slow jog will actually get your heart rate up into the correct 65-75% zone. Any type of strenuous running or even fast jogging will take you above this point, in which case you'll be burning muscle.

I just stopped doing jogging as it kills my knees. If I can do a fast walk and get the correct heart rate, my jog would have to be mighty slow to stay in the correct range, that's why people say running is so bad...

theres always more than one way to skin a cat, ive had this discussion with various people, basically some believe that it matters which energy substrate (fat ) is used when exercising (these people are the low intensity walking advocates) whearas others believe its the total calories burned which is more important, and HIIT has a greater exercise post oxygen consumption than low intensity so it would have a much more profound metabollic kick...i personally do HIIT but i am careful about it, i apportion my carbs surrouding it, or if im carb depleting than im using BCAAs to protect muscle....I think using both methods is a great way to keep the body guessing and keep it burning fat....so for precontest i have done 16 mins HIIT in the AM and then in the PM i do 20 mins of moderate intensity (goal to burn 400 cals in 20 mins so its still pretty intense)

i guess i'm confused about this:

so, in many places on this forum, people have said that, when one performs cardio (HIIT or otherwise), you can do it on any machine or in any form (ie, bicycle, treadmill, swimming, etc) and it doesn't matter... they all do the same thing as long as you keep your heart rate at the proper level.

why then, is running so "bad?" i am a huge running buff, i've been doing it for the better part of a decade, and yes, i know there are risks with joint pain and such, but i don't see why running burns more muscle than anything else? if i'm running for 30 minutes at 70% mhr, how am i burning more muscle than if i were to bike for 30 minutes at 70% mhr???

it just seems like this idea that "running kills all your muscle gains more than other forms of cardio" is a myth. it may not be, but i haven't heard any scientific justification for this to prove this opinion right or wrong. if someone can give me an answer to this question, i would love to hear it! especially since i'm using running as my cardio and on a weight training program at the moment (and by the way, i'm noticing muscle gains while still running, so this puzzles me even more...).

this poor runner is getting discouraged! :p

Please dont be discouraged, I'm a runner and losing muscle has never been a prob for me.

Although we never came to a proper conclusion, we covered it in this thread so you can make up your own mind.

http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=5006&highlight=running

To put it simply, its true that any form of Cardio causes muscle catabolism. However what no one can prove is how much or to what extent this muscle catabolsim occurs. I believe that it is minimal and the health benefits of cardio far outwegh the tiny bit of muscle loss you may experience.

Running may be worse than some lighter forms of cardio but still not to the extent that it would signifigantly affect your muscle mass. I love running and wouldnt give it up for the world!

I say if you want to perform cardio then do so, keep track of your LBM and if you begin losing what you think is too much muscle then stop, if not keep doing it and enjoy. :tu:

Marcus :cool:

I think swole advocates 45-60 minutes on an incline of 7, 3.3-3.5 mph. Do that everyday. That is what I am doing anyway, I plane to get swole's program when I find a job and can afford it! Sucks being unemployed :(

I think swole advocates 45-60 minutes on an incline of 7, 3.3-3.5 mph. Do that everyday. That is what I am doing anyway, I plane to get swole's program when I find a job and can afford it! Sucks being unemployed :(

Yeah.. my parents won't loan me the cash for a program. I want one so bad too :) so I might get a job real soon.

45-60 mins on an incline at around 3.5 mph every day? or every cardio day? I lift on mon, wed and fri, should I walk on offdays.. or every single day? what about a rest day.. walk on the rest day too? *shrug*

I think the confusion is partly in the definition of run. When people think run, they think going fast. A slow jog will actually get your heart rate up into the correct 65-75% zone. Any type of strenuous running or even fast jogging will take you above this point, in which case you'll be burning muscle.


Thank you. This is probably the most clear explaination I've seen on the board since I've been here. :claplow:

Just saw this now......

The other thread referenced will clearly explain why running/jogging is a poor choice if your goal is maximal lean mass preservation and total lipolysis.

~SC~

thanks for all the great responses. i'm not really "discouraged" i suppose, i just want to succeed in my goals the best way possible.

i shall continue running! to me, it works and i love it, i just can't give it up. but i will keep some things in check, like the amount of time i spend doing it and the intensity at which i do it at.

thanks again guys.

For me, it's about heart rate. I can get in the heart rate-fat burning zone and stay there while running on a track. I can't think of why this would be different from getting there by bicycling or anything else. Some people may not be able to get up to a fair clip without burning muscle, but I seem to have the blood/oxygen efficiency at this point to do so.

That's not to say I have a lot of muscle right now. I admit I'm not setting an example on that front at all.

There's a pretty good article in Men's Health 2 or 3 issues ago (look at the library) called "Running - The Shrinking Man's Exercise" which basically detailed what Swolecat has been saying, that running is terrible for lean mass preservation. One of the reasons they offered is that running induces a hormonal change that goes back to our caveman days (when we had to outrun sabertooth tigers and stuff, I guess) that totally detroys muscle growth, but makes our bodies lean and fast instead of bulky. Anyway, they have lots of references to studies and whatnot, i'll post some more details if i can dig out the issue when i get home.

im not buying that, i think interval sprints are very similar to something like doing a few 20 rep squat sets....both the HIIT and squats are anaerobic and im gonna guess their both aerboic to an extent...i dont like that argument (hormonal change etc)...i do accept the argument that you are burning glucose and not fat , in which you run the risk of burning muscle...but i know that you can overcome these problems through careful nutrition and supplementation, thats why i say that most people can do either form and have success

im not buying that, i think interval sprints are very similar to something like doing a few 20 rep squat sets....both the HIIT and squats are anaerobic and im gonna guess their both aerboic to an extent...i dont like that argument (hormonal change etc)...i do accept the argument that you are burning glucose and not fat , in which you run the risk of burning muscle...but i know that you can overcome these problems through careful nutrition and supplementation, thats why i say that most people can do either form and have success

Just because you don't but it, doesn't mean it's not true. Science has no price........

You can't overcome burning muscle for fuel. It takes FAR longer to BUILD 1 pound of lean mass than it does to lose it.

Opinions are fine, but it's better to have some kind of proof to back up your statment, that way we all know the context in which to accept what you said. "Overcoming these problems through careful nutrition and supplementation" is a slippery slope statement at best.

~SC~

Hey, everybody, just wanted to ask (or re-ask) a question that was asked by someone in this thread a few posts ago but hasn't been answered yet. I've heard different things about this, but if you're cutting, should the 45 mins fat-burning cardio be every day or just non-lifting days? Thanks.

overcoming using muscle as a fuel source would be to take in carbohydrates before/after the interval session or you could also take in BCAA to protect muscle as well.....its like your saying you shouldnt do squats or anything strenuous cause your gona lose muscle...if glycogen is available it will be used, the whole point of interval cardio is to burn more calories in less time and still get the metabolic kick from the post exercise oxygen consumption...the body is burning fat/glucose throughout the day, the theory is , at the end of the day even if you burned glucose while doing cardio, you are burning more fat at rest, your muscles are not at risk at that point....

Very True, thats why my pre workout meal is an apple and a protien shake with Bcaa's included. Post workout meal is a protien shake, a bannana (high GI) and around 30 grams of dextrose. Most of my carb intake is around my workout time for obvious reasons.

Yep, it's a real pain going 45 minutes it goes on and on and on but it's what works so I do it.
I hear ya. Today was my first day and I could only make it to 35 minutes on speed 6 on the treadmill. I guess I'll work myself up to the full 45 minutes.

I think the confusion is partly in the definition of run. When people think run, they think going fast. A slow jog will actually get your heart rate up into the correct 65-75% zone. Any type of strenuous running or even fast jogging will take you above this point, in which case you'll be burning muscle.



You're exactly right. It's not that "running" is bad, but it assumes that running will put your HR above what's optimum for fat burning.

Folks shouldn't worry about the type of activity....let your HR be your guide.

Hey, everybody, just wanted to ask (or re-ask) a question that was asked by someone in this thread a few posts ago but hasn't been answered yet. I've heard different things about this, but if you're cutting, should the 45 mins fat-burning cardio be every day or just non-lifting days? Thanks.

You want to shoot for 5 to 6 days a week if you are cutting. I do cardio on an empty stomach and my weight training later in the day. That will give your body some time to refresh from the cardio workout.

I hear ya. Today was my first day and I could only make it to 35 minutes on speed 6 on the treadmill. I guess I'll work myself up to the full 45 minutes.


Cardio endurance builds pretty quickly so try to do more each time. Once you get to 45 minutes you may want to monitor your pace to ensure your heart rate is in the fat burning zone.

Great thing about the fat burning method is that you are at a pace where you can acutally read (cant read doing HIIT's).

Cardio endurance builds pretty quickly so try to do more each time. Once you get to 45 minutes you may want to monitor your pace to ensure your heart rate is in the fat burning zone.

Great thing about the fat burning method is that you are at a pace where you can acutally read (cant read doing HIIT's).
Turns out I was overexerting myself on the treadmill. I was way over my ideal heart reate for fat loos. I was maintaining 195bpm wen I should have been in the 128-144 bpm. So tomorrow shouldn't be as strenuous and I will be able to complete the full 45minutes.

I think the confusion is partly in the definition of run. When people think run, they think going fast. A slow jog will actually get your heart rate up into the correct 65-75% zone. Any type of strenuous running or even fast jogging will take you above this point, in which case you'll be burning muscle..

I'd just like to add that for experienced runners who use the LSD approach (long, slow distance), doing 45 minutes of what you're doing is often not much different from fat-burning cardio.

For instance, I've been running off and on for about ten years, but not that much, and I can jog 5 miles at an 8:30 pace and still keep my heart rate under 75% of maximum.

The difference, I think, other than general cardio-vascular endurance, is form. If you run with very good form, your heart rate will be much lower than if you're flailing all over the place and bouncing up and down with every step. Keep your back straight, your motion fluid, and lift your knees, and even if it's harder on your muscles, it'll, in the end, be easiler on your heart.

Of course, cardio-vascular endurance and, specifically, running, is a fitness goal of mine, so I do splurge and run faster or longer from time to time, but I don't do that in a fasted state. Plus, even if you lose muscle, it is good for your heart in the long run (no pun intended) to do things at a slightly higher intensity every few days, and nobody wants to have a heart attack.

And PWO nutrition can go a little bit of the way to minimize the bad effects. But we all knew that already.

SC -

If I'm not mistaken Christian Thibaudeau lost 31 lbs of fat while gaining 5 lbs of muscle in 14 weeks doing a form of HIIT "with an occasional slow-pace cardio." Of course (I believe) he had your expert guidance to bring him in that last little notch, but he seems to have done pretty well with HIIT.

Yeah, long and SLOW jogging did it for me, as well as made me feel great. There is something about a nice long jog, it just does wonders for me :cool: As a matter of fact when i was my leanest I was only doing 2 days of cardio. And one of the days was (is) jogging for 30 min at a nice slow pace. Like 9min mile slow. :tu:
Timber

SC -

If I'm not mistaken Christian Thibaudeau lost 31 lbs of fat while gaining 5 lbs of muscle in 14 weeks doing a form of HIIT "with an occasional slow-pace cardio." Of course (I believe) he had your expert guidance to bring him in that last little notch, but he seems to have done pretty well with HIIT.

He didn't begin to lose pure fat and no muscle (strength) until he began working w/me in my suggestions for his cardio for his "final" look. He was fat to start with, so ANY cardio would have been good in the initial stages.

The kicker is that if he would have come to me SOONER, and employed the cardio that I'd have had him doing, he'd have come out w/even MORE lean muscle mass than he had at the end. He looked great anyhow, but we could have made him a bit better! :tucool:


~SC~

Thanks for the tips!

From what I have read, for a 170 lb man, running will burn up less than 100 cal/mile. That could be a bit low, so lets call it 100 cal/mile. If you only started burning fat after 20 mins, that means you probably only run/jog 1.5 miles in the rest of your workout. If you burn only fat for the last 20 mins and none for the first 20, I calculate it will take 26 workouts to loose 1 lb of fat. OK so this is simplistic, but any way you cut it, you are not going to burn much fat by running (unless my calorie assumption is completely wrong). Which is perhaps not surprising because I'll bet caveman did not easily have 3000 caloiries/day at his/her disposal.

I'm not a doctor and I don't know how excersise helps reduce fat, but the numbers just don't seem to add up!