Aerobic (cardio) training is useless for fat loss

[Martika39]

This excerpt is from an interview with Alwyn Cosgrove. One of the foremost experts on fitness training.

TT: In a previous interview you commented that aerobics were useless for fat loss. This caused a lot of controversy (see what all the fuss was about here: What did you mean?
AC: I’m sure you’ll agree Craig that it only seemed to cause controversy with people who don’t do this for a living. Most of the good practitioners in this area didn’t even blink. It’s not controversial at all in terms of fat loss and I’m getting bored going over it.
I don’t think anyone who has trained themselves or anyone else has ever seen low intensity cardio to be a very effective fat loss tool. The loss in lean mass that is typical in most weight loss programs needs to be offset – and steady state aerobic training (despite it’s plentiful health benefits) only adds to that problem.
So let me expand on what I meant:
When I said “Aerobics are useless for fat loss” what I meant was “aerobics are useless for fat loss”. Is that clearer?
Ok – to be less antagonistic, let’s just say that aerobic training for fat loss is the most overrated and overemphasized method in use today. It’s completely outdated as a fat loss modality.
Here’s a quote from Paul Chek:
“First of all, lifting weights in the intensity zone of 8-12 reps coupled with short rest periods has been shown beneficial for releasing the androgenic hormone testosterone and growth hormone. These important hormones encourage development of lean muscle mass, which is a metabolically active tissue consuming calories 24 hours a day. Fat, on the other hand is just along for the ride! Aerobic exercise has been linked with the release of the catabolic hormone cortisol, which is antagonistic to the development of lean muscle mass. Cortisol also promotes conservation of glucose and encourages the use of fat. This might sound good on the surface, but you also become as efficient as a Honda Civic running for 80 kilometers on one gallon of gas. Then you are just like those people going for hours at a time on machines, only to utilize miniscule amounts of fat!”
The efficiency argument is interesting. Does weight training build muscle? No. It breaks down muscle and the body ADAPTS by building more muscle. So in aerobic training – when we “Encourage the use of fat” – do we force that same body to adapt by storing more fat? Interesting…guys like Poliquin, Chek, Jim Liston, Eric Serrano, etc., etc., all seem to think so. And most of the spinning and aerobic instructors at the local gyms in my area who’ve hired me to get them lean can anecdotally tell you that the more aerobic training they do – the harder it is for them to lean out.
Seriously – there are thousands of overweight individuals each year who complete marathons. Now completing a marathon is damn impressive to me. However it shows that the aerobic fitness needed to complete a marathon doesn’t have anything necessarily to do with creating a fat loss effect. So if you are capable of two to three hours of steady state running and still not be burning enough fat – we can either go to a higher intensity or you can try four hours of running. Any takers for the latter?
In terms of fat loss – calories burned are the most important factor. And aerobic training burns less calories than anaerobic training and weight training overall (besides doing very little to increase your metabolism -your body’s calorie burning engine).
So if we accept that lean mass is a major factor in your fat burning engine – and aerobic training makes that engine smaller (i.e. less muscle) and more efficient at burning fat (remember more efficient means it burns LESS) – how can having a smaller more efficient fat burning machine burn more fat? It doesn’t.

http://alwyncosgrove.com/2000/01/secrets-of-fat-loss-training/

 

[Sunitha T]

So then, if we put aside how much it perks up my ass, what's the point in running?

I know, a perky ass is its own reward, but apparently that's not enough motivation for me. Perhaps if it were in front where I could see it...oh wait, that would be a whole other set of problems, no one really likes FrontBum. :???:

:tongue:

 

[spazmo]

he does make a lot of sense.....specially the part about larger muscles burning fat 24 hrs a day......it also supports the theory that more smaller meals are better than fewer larger ones. It tricks your body into thinking that since there is so little fuel coming in at that moment, it better use it or lose it. Whereby if you have a large meal, it can't use it all immediately so it puts it into storage.

It also makes sense because your heart, lungs and other organs also become more efficient so it only stands to reason your muscles will too......

Interesting.

 

[I am not Burnette]

I see a lot of fat (or large body mass indistinguisable from fat) elite weight lifters or NFL linemen but I don't see a lot of fat elite runners or NFL wide receivers.

The key is burning calories. While running may not be as efficient there is no doubt you can do it for a lot longer than weight training. I defy anyone to say you don't build lean muscles in your legs running for miles on a regular basis. Not many personal trainers make any money telling you to run 5 miles.

While there is a bunch of ways to get there I think saying cardio is useless is overstating the case. But a little controversy never hurt in the publicity department.

 

[nudangler]

I think what he is saying running IS super efficient, in so far that after you tone your muscles they don't burn as much fat as when you're just starting out.

Efficiency by definition is doing more with less so if running is "efficient", you don't burn many calories. This could be why many runners use ankle and wrist weights.....

This actually supports what I've been harping on blackram about these chubby/bulky ssgs and how there's now way they could be soccer players. By running, you "tone" the muscles as opposed to building them up, making them more efficient.

This also is supported by the fighters in the UFC. Larger fighters tend to gas out in the third round because it takes so much oxygen and fuel to move those big muscles/mass around at a fast pace. While the featherweights bounce around like mexican jumping beans for the full 3 rounds.

Equate this to vehicles: a big rig isn't very fast, but it can pull a house, whereby a small rice rocket can't pull or carry shit but is nimble and efficient. Our bodies aren't that much different than other types of engines. I saw an experiment that showed what happens in our bodies at a cellular level and it effectively was a miniature explosion created by burning sugars, creating heat, which is energy.

 

[Henry T]

I studied the subject long ago. Weight loss goes with heavy weight exercises, where large groups of muscles are pushed to their limits. For lean muscle, the key is low reps, heavy weights. I would do 2 series of 5-6 reps of dead lifts and similar exercises. High reps with light weights do nothing. You just get tired. One should be very, very cautious with heavy weight exercises, especially lifts if (s)he has certain cardiovascular conditions - such as aneurysm. It takes only a few seconds to transfer your soul to the eternal hunting grounds.

Cardiovascular exercises are crucial for heart.

Things are not simple at all. Many factors, including proper diet are involved. However, complex metabolism still follows mass and energy conservation law:
Calorie intake > calories burnt = weight gain
Calorie intake < calories burnt = weight loss

 

[carrieo2guns]

Also why you never see "big" marathoners, or cyclists and other endurance based sports people.

Speaking for cycling, the worlds top cyclists are all VERY lean guys!

Alberto Contador- 5' 9" 140 lbs
Andy Schleck 6' 1" 150 lbs
Denis Menchoz- 5' 11" 140 lbs
Samuel Sanchez- 5' 9" 140 lbs
Jurgen Van Den Broeck- 6' 1" 150 lbs
Robert Gesink- 6' 1" 150 lbs
Ryder Hesjedal- 6' 2" 160lbs
Joaquim Rodrيguez Oliver- 5' 6" 130 lbs
Roman Kreuziger- 6' 150 lbs
Christopher Horner- 5' 11" 140 lbs

:shock:

 

[johnny fettcakes]

From my reading...

The difference is, just by having more muscle mass, calories are burned during the day (even at rest) to support the muscles. Aerobic exercise burns calories mostly while doing it. By having a larger muscle mass, over the course of the day more calories will be burnt. This makes perfect sense.

However...

Not everyone wants to bulk up, especially many women.

No one could make a million dollars by writing the truth about dieting and weight loss.

EXPEND MORE CALORIES THAN YOU ARE TAKING IN AND YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT.

Now where the hell is my million dollars?!

 

[Tab]

The average maintenance level is about 2500 to less than 2800 calories per day for men. This is just to maintain your current weight. It is what you intake daily that determines if you gain or lose weight. Doing weights helps to tone your muscles, same with running and cardio workouts.

a 1 player is totally correct. Stay away from the big Macs.

 

[DieselPowered]

Thanks again Dr. Maurice :great:

 

[Universal]

Yes you passed the course.

Oops your taking a step backwards. If I had a dime for every woman trainee that has said she doesn't want get more bulky I would be very rich. My answer is always the same. I know tons of guys who are busting their ass trying to get bigger lifting weights and are struggling to do so. What makes you think you can do it with the minuscule amount of Testosterone that the female body produces?





Nope. What you are talking about is the calories in equals calorie out theory. Recent theory has proven this not to be true. The insulin/glucagon relationship is more important than the actual calorie component of what you eat. But I'll save this for next week.

 

[Heidelzbth]

Weight resistance training will help you gain muscle mass especially when provided with the proper macro nutrient profile to be in a anabolic state.

Being ''toned'' is a misnomer. Technically as along as your not sedentary and in bed all day long your muscles are most likely toned.

Running or cardio workouts on their own are catabolic, that is they break down muscle tissue.

 

[Louise]

Since this the most drug laden sport on the planet. Nothing really can be learned or extrapolated from examining it and applying it to this thread.

 

[Kumi]

I see you are exercising your hyperbole license here. :???:

Whereas, I will admit it is likely very high on the list, it has yet to be proven that it is "the most"... I would think that professional body building would hold THAT distinction.

 

[Fontofall]

Don't forget wrestlers.

 

[da princess]

And mixed martial arts fighters... :shock:

 

[Eve]

LOL Bodybuilding is pure theatre. I would never insult real athletes by calling it a sport.

 

[Drog]

: Good point.

 

[Pompal 09.]

MMA fighters are tested independently by the different state governing bodies. The UFC for example has not any say in the testing of any of its athletes in North America.

The California state athletic commission stated this week that they now have the funding to do out of competition testing year round. Good for them that is the way to do it.

As for your assertion that MMA fighters are widely involved in PED use. My opinion is that although most are on some level oddly enough some of the best the sport has to offer most likely are not.

Fedor Emielenko, Anderson Silva and BJ Penn have made it clear that they would be willing to take a blood test not urine test (which isn't as thorough) at anytime. During the last few years these three at one time or another ranked #1 or close to it on many pound for pound lists in the sport.

This is an example of how MMA differs from professional cycling where I don't recall one of the top riders that hasn't been suspected of doping and certainly they would never subject themselves to year around testing. God forbid.

 

[Thom]

Once again I can't categorize professional wrestling as a sport. They are more stunt men than anything else. But I will give them their due, it sure is taxing on the body.

Bobby Lashley tried to make the transition from the WWE to MMA and when he ran into his first real opponent it didn't work out to well for him.

Lesnar had some success at first but the bell tolled for him as well. This time not because of a lack of athleticism however. More a lack of heart I would say.