Cardio VS Fatburner

DaveDaRave · 02-Oct-07, 01:01 AM

I run and use the bikes and on the machines there are the options for "Cardio" or high intensity and "Fatburner" or low intensity. I am trying to lose fat and I hear that I should do the Fatburner option because it makes me lose fat in my fat reserves and Cardio is to lose the fat I ate today. I always thought the higher the intensity the faster I will lose fat and become more cut. So then should I be doing low intensity and whats the point of high intensity?

**.V.** · 02-Oct-07, 06:23 AM

High intensity intervals are good for helping you burn fat all day by boosting your metabolism if you work hard enough.

Low intensity cardio works for direct fat burning IF you work while your glycogen stores are low i.e. if you do it first thing upon waking before you have breakfast.

So, it just depends on how hard you want to work or if you'd rather take it easy and work for a longer time.

**Doc2029** · 02-Oct-07, 07:47 AM

Also as I recall if you are not doing cardio in the morning if you lift first and really work hard then do cardio you'll burn more fat. I do HIIT and usually go for as long as I can. Usually about 40 min on the elipical trainer. I hard as I can for as long as I can then slow down let my heart rate come down some then hit it hard. The machine I usually use runs in 4 min. interverals. So when it ups the resistance for four min. I go hard as I can for four min. Then I rest for four min. It works...

**LiftGirl** · 02-Oct-07, 10:47 AM

How much fat you lose from your "reserves" in other words, bodyfat, is really a calories in vs calories out thing.

If you run 5 miles, or if you walk 5 miles you will burn the same amount of calories, but the running will be faster.

Hulkeye · 02-Oct-07, 01:48 PM

Hey Welch - what if your glycogen stores are not low? What if you do low intensity cardio - say - at the end of the day. what are the benefits at that point? or is it just the same as running? my thought was that you were targeting stored fat by keeping your heart rate at its target. for cardio, my heart rate is much higher, for fat burning, or slower more controlled heart rate cardio, i like to stay around 126. what are your thoughts on this?

thanks!

**.V.** · 02-Oct-07, 03:53 PM

It would be good for the heart. And since the heart is one of our most important muscles, I guess it would be a good thing.

As far as fat burning? Personally, I never lost any fat when I was feeding low intensity cardio. In my body, low intensity works best for fat burning when glycogen is low. Hight intensity works when it's been fed.

Right now, I feed my low intensity work just like when I lift because I don't want to burn fat.

Hulkeye · 02-Oct-07, 04:23 PM

thanks welch, that makes sense. im glad i asked to because i didnt think the time of day, or what you had already eaten, really mattered. i thought controlled heart rate low intensity cardio burned fat, and high intensity gave you the cardio advantage. i work out at night so for cardio i need to get the high intensity going if i want to see fat loss. thanks again

Khaine · 02-Oct-07, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiftGirl

How much fat you lose from your "reserves" in other words, bodyfat, is really a calories in vs calories out thing.

If you run 5 miles, or if you walk 5 miles you will burn the same amount of calories, but the running will be faster.

I can't imagine training theory or physiology to support this at ALL, and definitely not in my experience... It's an energy systems thing... Obviously the exertion made will affect your caloric output and thus, your weight loss...

Personally, I recommend intervals, complexes and tabatha sets before steady-state cardio... As a consequence, pre-breakfast cardio isn't part of my recommendations (no energy = no intensity = no payoff)...

There's also some disturbing reports on the effects on the heart of from excessive long distance running... I won't touch it personally...

**.V.** · 02-Oct-07, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khaine

I can't imagine training theory or physiology to support this at ALL, and definitely not in my experience... It's an energy systems thing... Obviously the exertion made will affect your caloric output and thus, your weight loss...

Personally, I recommend intervals, complexes and tabatha sets before steady-state cardio... As a consequence, pre-breakfast cardio isn't part of my recommendations (no energy = no intensity = no payoff)...

There's also some disturbing reports on the effects on the heart of from excessive long distance running... I won't touch it personally...

I can't explain the theory either. I just speak from personal experience and cannot say that what I've experienced from doing something one way will yield the same results for someone else. I too have read that one can burn the same calories from walking as from running. Back when I couldn't run...I did lose fat while walking, but I was very fat so losing was easier too.

I'd have never thought of doing pre-breakfast cardio myself either until two NPC competitors suggested it. First a woman who outweighs me and is WAAY leaner, I had doubts...then her husband who is at least 100lbs bigger than her and VERY lean suggested it too. I tried it and it truly was effective. Think about it - no glycogen - you've got to burn something for fuel. That's what stored body fat is for.

How do I explain the excessive running thing without violating patient privacy rights? I'll just say that yes, one friend of mine who is an avid runner 20+ miles/day...I did pick him up with a heart attack one day. Sorry, can't give more details.

**.V.** · 02-Oct-07, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hulkeye

i work out at night so for cardio i need to get the high intensity going if i want to see fat loss. thanks again

As was already said, if you've already worked the muscles hard then your glycogen stores will be low. Lower intensity cardio will burn fat then too.

Khaine · 02-Oct-07, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_welch503

I'd have never thought of doing pre-breakfast cardio myself either until two NPC competitors suggested it. First a woman who outweighs me and is WAAY leaner, I had doubts...then her husband who is at least 100lbs bigger than her and VERY lean suggested it too. I tried it and it truly was effective. Think about it - no glycogen - you've got to burn something for fuel. That's what stored body fat is for.

Oh, I know pros do it, and I understand the logic behind it... I'm just not a big fan of steady state cardio to begin with and thus, pre-breakfast work isn't something I prescribe... I prefer to feed the workouts so they can maintain a certain intensity, increasing the total caloric output and subsequent weightloss... In my experience, people get better results when weight loss occurs at a high caloric turnover, i.e. cutting at 3000 cals and lots of work instead of 1500 cals and little work... It's also healthier and more anabolic according to the literature...

I also tend to think that it may have some merit in overweight trainees, whereas in muscular/lean individuals, not so much...

As for the same caloric output from walking and running, I just don't buy it at any level... Literature and experience won't let me...

Sorry to hear about your friend...

**.V.** · 02-Oct-07, 11:28 PM

Khaine, I do see what you are saying and actually agree with you to an extent. But, having tried both ways, I know that the steady state cardio is well, to be honest, easier. Being easier, people are more likely to stick to it.

Yeah, pros do it and I know, they do lots of stuff that we won't do. But this is just one of the things that I've actually picked up from them and tried. I was pleased by the results.

About steady state cardio, I prefer it because I hate High intensity. And as a triathlete, I have to do a lot of running, a lot of cycling, and a lot of swimming...and I suck at them all. But I have to do it. And I really have to pack the food in and feed the workouts to keep from losing weight on it. Next may...the big fat guy won't go jiggling by my skinny ass like last time running past me, making me look like I'm running backwards. Last time I trained so totally wrong by mixing in a day of HIIT with sprints and fight training. I still do the fight training, but not as intensely as I did.

I'm neither a bodybuilder or a powerlifter, just a guy who wants to be a bit bigger and stronger. I'm not even a real triathlete but still like to play that game too.

In the end, both work. HIIT to boost the metabolism and burn fat all day and help the heart be healthier. Lower intensity for a longer time (but not excessively so) in order to build endurance and allow one to keep going and going and going... When done on a caloric deficit, both will burn fat. It's all about goals and how long you want to spend doing it.

**LiftGirl** · 03-Oct-07, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_welch503

In the end, both work. HIIT to boost the metabolism and burn fat all day and help the heart be healthier. Lower intensity for a longer time (but not excessively so) in order to build endurance and allow one to keep going and going and going...

This is why I believe a mix of both is really the optimal way to go.

DaveDaRave · 03-Oct-07, 10:35 PM

I read that yes you lose a higher percentage of body fat when doing low intensity but when you do high you lose more calories faster. So you lose more at cals overall when doing high intensity.

**LiftGirl** · 04-Oct-07, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveDaRave

I read that yes you lose a higher percentage of body fat when doing low intensity but when you do high you lose more calories faster. So you lose more at cals overall when doing high intensity.

Right, this is what I have read also. What's important here is not how much fat you burn during cardio, but how much fat you burn over the course of the day, even weeks or months. Higher intensity burns more calories leading to increased fat burning all day, not just the time you're on the treadmill.