World reknown trainer and genius, Alwyn Cosgroves take on the long,slow steady pace of cardio.

Talking Of Ineffective Strategies...
Why is it that so many people in gyms invest so much of their precious time and valuable effort on grinding out minute after endless minute on the treadmill, crosstrainer, steppers bikes and the rest of the cardio equipment in the gym?


I mean, has it ever shown itself to work effectively in the past?

Other than when you're brand, spanking new to exercise, I'm willing to bet that most people would answer 'No' to that question... and yet cardio is still the workout of choice for weight loss!

It just doesn't make sense!

Why would you keep on doing something that's not working? (Think of the FLY story again) Must be that insanity that's doing the rounds : )

But would you drop the cardio if you knew that, not only was it not providing you with a decent return on your efforts but that

IT WAS ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING TO MAKING YOU FAT?

"What?!!... That can't be right... can it?"

Actually, yes, it's spot on!

You see, when ever you engage in longer duration aerobic activity, your body starts to put out greater quantities of the stress hormone cortisol so that it can assist with converting fat into fuel and keep you going.

Sounds good so far right?, I mean, burining fat is what you're there for!

Well, it's not good at all. You see, one of the side effects of cortisol is that it actually breaks down lean tissue (muscle) while it's doing its thing.

Less muscle equals slower metabolic rate, slower metabolic rate means less calories burned and less calories burned means a greater likelihood of laying down excess calories as fat.

You see, aerobic cardio training makes you more efficient at aerobic cardio training.

Obvious right?

But efficiency is the very last thing you want, after all, an efficient car does more miles to the gallon than an inefficient one doesn't it? It burns LESS fuel!

Do YOU want to burn LESS fuel in your workouts?

Thought not!

Then you need to change strategy.

You need to work faster. You need to work more intensely. You need to include more strength training. You need to do shorter workouts.

Sounds completely backwards doesn't it?

Yet look around the gym and see for yourself how many people who're grinding out marathon cardio workouts look in really great shape.

Won't be many!

Now think of a sprinter or track star...

They're lean right? Very lean! Yet they don't do aerobic training at all.

They train fast. They train intensely. They incorporate strength work.

Their sessions are short.

Sound familiar?


Amen Alwyn, Amen!

Sounds like an excuse for being too lazy to work out. Cardio effectively burns fat because growth hormone is being secreted. Growth hormone's effect on the body is similar to steroids: burns fat while making new muscle.

The problem is true cardio means getting the heart rate above 80% of maximum. A study at Laval University showed much greater fat loss from cyclists working above 90% of max for 10 minutes a day, compared with cyclists working at 60% of max for an hour a day.

Weight training stimulates growth hormone..

Isn't that what the original article said? Work harder for a shorter time?

I find it works well to switch back and fourth between the two types. You body does easily get used to steady state, but sometimes I'm too burnt out to do higher intensity cardio after a period of lifting heavy for a few weeks. I find that if I must add cardio at that point I can bare to do steady state during this time. You should periodize your cardio as you would your lifting.

So instead of doing 80 minutes of cardio I should do 30 minutes..I don't get it? I lost an incredible amount of weight and body fat by doing 90 min of cardio a day. Look at my pic in the gallery when I'm standing up with blonde hair and a green shirt. You can't tell me that i was fat there, right? I lost 50 pounds and still ate about 1800 calories a day...the only reason I gained weight is because I completely stopped going to the gym, started drinking, ate bad foods, and didn't sleep well. That is what you get for turning 21....

I'm 60yo and my typical exercise is a two hour bike ride. As I live in Colorado, there is climbing involved. The climbs are the time when I do the high-intensity part. I recover on the downhills. The rides end up being a mix of easy and hard.

Long days at work coupled with lousy weather has turned me into a treadmill junkie. For the past two weeks I've run one hour a day on my treadmill. I put it at 12% grade--as high as it goes--and alternate 1/8th mile at a walk with 1/8th mile at a 9 minute per mile pace. The fast part always leaves me on the verge of puking and the walking part lets me recover. I don't have a scale but noticed today that my belt had to be cinched in another notch. That translates roughly to an eight pound weight loss for me. No diet changes in that period.

Why does everyone promote just going out and walking then?? Heart Assoc. most Doctors (even thou I don't always believe them) I always understood that just going for walks treadmill or otherwise was very beneficial for weight loss/health?? Now I'm confused.

Walking is good. Much better than laying on the couch and watch TV. It's just that high-intensity intervals are better than walking. I also take walks. The dogs love it and it gets me moving.

High intensity intervals aren't always better than walking. High intensity training is highly catabolic to muscle if you don't have the proper nutrition. When I am leaning out with low cals for an extended period I stick with moderate intensity.

here's why I abandoned cardio:


not enough calories burned in a cardio session to make it really worthwhile. What most people dont consider is that you're gonna burn X calories per hour even if you dont do anything at all, and that you're gonna end up eating more because of the cardio you're doing (you will, you know it, admit it!), so it pretty much comes out a wash. Let's say you burn 500 calories an hour... you would have burned 100 or more anyway, and you'll end up eating at least 300 more...so, that hour on the elliptical machine, at best, gained you 100 calories... is it worth it? for 60 minutes of tedium?

cardio can be very hard on the body. bad for your joints, etc. there was an article in the NY Times recently about 80's aerobic instructors who can hardly walk now. And another one about the preponderance of marathon runners with bad hearts.

This one is the real kicker=> cardio takes up a hell of a lot of my time and is bloody boring as hell. getting to the gym, getting changed, doing it, getting showered, changed, etc. etc... there goes 2 hours or more of my day I could be doing something else all together more valuable.

strength training is actually better for you aerobically speaking than aerobics. I didnt believe it when I started but it does seem to be true. About six or seven months ago, I abandoned the six day a week aerobic workouts I had been doing faithfully for months, and found that 1) my weight didnt change, 2) I can still do the same workouts I was doing before, with ease (I test myself every once in awhile, just out of curiosity). And all I do is 2x25 minute weight training sessions per week. This, I gather, is because an aerobic exercise only works certain parts of the muscle, while strength training, particularly lifting heavy weights to failure, works the entire muscle, engaging all of your muscle fibers.

I like the hard muscles popping out all over my body. At 50 years old, I actually have (slightly) bulging pecs for the first time in my life, woo hooo!

and here's why I might start taking up some limited cardio again:

I think human beings are designed to move, and especially to run.

my life is too sendentary. I sit in an office all day, I walk a bit, I sit at home, etc. etc.

I sleep better when I do some aerobics.

It might be true that there are hormonal benefits to daily exercise. But then again, I might be getting enough with the brief but very intense weight training sessions I do, I dunno....

I dont think that short aerobic sessions will be too damaging to my body. It seems the problems appear when aerobics are taken to extreme, as in marathons, long triathlons, etc.

There is plenty of evidence that brief, intense, tabata style workouts can be an effective fat buring method.

I'm moving to a condo soon where a very nice gym will be just a few flights of stairs away..

I simply flat out like to run!

My treadmill says at a level grade I'm burning around 120 calories per mile. At 12% grade it says I'm burning over 600 calories per mile. It doesn't account for pace though. Am I burning 600 calories per mile at 12% grade if I'm walking or running? When I'm running at 12% grade I'm working at my limits and I assume I'm producing a lot of Growth Hormone. I never feel like I'm working hard when lifting weights.

Yes. Covering the same distance, our bodies will use about the same amount of energy whether we are walking or running. It's just that by running, you'll burn those calories much quicker.

.

Kaypeeoh, I am very interested in the HGH aspect of intense exercise. Do you have any idea how much HGH can be produced through the use of exercise? I am doing about 25 minutes of HIIT 5-6 times per week, along with lifting free weights twice per week. During HIIT, I get my heart rate up to about 97% of my MHR (I am 47, so using the age method, my MHR would be about 173). During the recovery intervals, my HR gets down to about 140, which would be about 80% MHR. I do 2 minutes hard (6mph ~ 10% incline) followed by 1 minute of recovery (3mph ~ 10% incline). I do 8 sets of this.

Much of what we call aging seems to be related to a decrease in HGH. From what I have read, our HGH produciton peaks at around age 20, then steadily decreases for the rest of our lives. By the time we are 70, we are only producing about 20% of the HGH that we did when we were younger. HGH increases muscle mass, decreases body fat, and is responsible for all sorts of wonderful things in our bodies.

From research that I have done, it is true that intense exercise does induce the production of HGH. I am just wondering if it is possible to produce enough to make a real difference.