How bad is cardio for gains? I've known some people that

Start doing sprints and HIIT instead.
Conditioning like farmer walks, sled pushes/pulls, etc.
That being said doing cardio ~2x a week wont kill your gains as long as it isn't long distance.

>>39633535
If you eat enough you can do a ton of it

>>39633558

I'm doing interval training. I would like to do this during my resting days between gym days. Is running as fast as you can until you're tired for some reps three or so times a week very bad?

It's just that this is one of the things that has increased my mental state more than anything but I would like to balance it with gaining strength.

>>39633535
>How much strength am I losing by running a couple of times a week?
None, as long as you keep up your intake to compensate.

>>39633596
You're fine.
You can still gain strength.

>>39633596
intense cardiovascular activity longer than sprints (say 3-8 minutes) is the most catabolic activity, it is also the best at developing fitness in terms of stroke volume

Sprints and HIIT is largely a meme, but they are good for increasing ATP, just it's not really cardio as you think of it and is worse at doing something like developing an efficient fat burning metabolism or for mental health reasons over the long term

best to mix in low intensity stuff with the high intensity stuff

there is no shortcuts and time saving stuff like HIIT is wildly overrated

>>39633675

Sounds very interesting. Do you have any writing on this sort of thing and perhaps some suggestion what sort of balance would be useful?

You're saying it's not really good in the long run for mental health, among other thing, but why is that? I do understand that doing high intensive too often would wear you down but it would be really interesting to hear what the drawbacks are other than that.

>>39633713
no its probably fine for mental health, but it is very catabolic so its bad to do that all the time if you are trying to make gainz, especially if your nutrition isn't on lock, which is actually extremely difficult to really find out, its taken a lot of time to figure out nutritional needs for me in terms of what I should be eating and I am a highly autistic competitive cyclist, online meme calculators are really quite worthless
its complex and this is one reason why doing bulking then cutting is a more successful and reliable route to aesthetics

constant high intensity cardio activity is completely doable and people who do competitive endurance sports develop extreme levels of fitness doing this, but you will suffer in terms of building lean muscle, you start having a lot of cortisol on board, it has a negative effect on testosterone

fitness is not aesthetics, people lifting weights for gainz are not fit

what are your goals? If you are looking for mental maintenance and building lean muscle, doing half your runs a week at a very easy pace would be beneficial. Very easy means very easy, most people have a hard time going easy because you feel like you are wasting time. Light jogging really, just above brisk walk.

>>39633675
Well, you're partially right.

See, HIIT actually does increase your aerobic capacity and really quickly.
The problem is that both the aerobic and anerobic benefits from HIIT will both plateau and plateau hard.

So you will have to do dedicated aerobic and anaerobic work to strengthen and enhance those specific systems.

Hiit works as a way to quickly condition or maintain condition the body. But it's effectiveness as a training method plateaus quickly, and if done too frequently and for too long, it will completely burn out anyone who's not enhanced in less then a month.

>>39633801

I suppose that part of the reason I would like to feel good. I'm also going to start doing some MMA so I would love useful strength rather than just being bulky I suppose.

But I do really enjoy working out until I almost black out somewhat routinely. Not every time since that makes me sick but just pushing beyond that point where I feel I can't go on and then grit my teeth and keep going until I simply can't do any more.
I know it might not be optimal for gains but I do enjoy the psychological aspect of working through the pain as often as I can.

>>39633802

So I could do it for a year or so with good results and then add endurance training for a couple of times a week?

Not sure what sort of balance would be good but perhaps when I've reached a plateau I should add some endurance training?

>>39633535
Well..

This isnt a field completely udnerstood yet, like most. But rest assured that the most recent studies and newest revelations are beginning to challenge the "Cardio kills gains" theory because the research just doesnt support it.

In fact, more and more research is coming out that might suggest that it improves overall strength gains.

some quick takeaways:

>Never do cardio immediately prior to resistance training as it hinders performance

>Anaerobic work doesnt hinder satellite cell signalling like aerobic work does, however the idea that aerobic work stops gains is just untrue. the reality is that it just allows LESS satellite cells rather than stopping them so losing gains is already completely untrue

>attempt to separate cardio and resistance training by at least 6 hours, 24 hours is best and might be the ideal timing for what newer research is finding to amplify resistance training effects

>if you must do them concurrently in a session, if you have goals in resistance training do it first, then cardio. If you have goals in cardio do cardio first then RE.

>>39634002

Would you mind sharing where you got that information? Seems like opinions are so conflicting and I don't really know where you could get reliable information.

>>39634066
yeah give me like 30 minutes, I have something to do then I will search through my papers to find the sources for each one.

one of the more prominent sources just got published 2 months ago. a friend of mine worked on it so I have the knowledge first hand . I know its being held by the journal though so i can give u the source and when it is officially released you can look through it

>>39634129

Not just individual papers (though I would be very grateful for that too) but do you have some good sources to recommend? Worthwhile books, sites, papers, researchers, authors or the like. Would love to read up on the topic as I'm starting to work out but there just seems to be so much conflicting information based on "I think". That's great starting out I think but it would be great to get a better grip of the field and perhaps what seems to be based on something and how strong evidence can be and how much it's down to individuals.

>>39633535
Not bad at all if you keep up your caloric intake

>>39634187
>>39634187
I hope youre still here. I just tried organizing my folders since I kind of had all my papers in the same folder and had to sift through them and make sure they had real titles. I'm going to try and compose a response so it might take me some time. If not, i'll save my response and if u see me again after feel free to tell me and i'll re-post it

>>39634490

That sounds great. Really appreciate you taking the time to do this!

By the way, I do hope you're not putting too much effort into this since I've only recently gotten into fitness and my level of knowledge and requirements thereof are probably still fairly limited. But if it's not too much trouble and you could get me started on some useful information; that would be great!

>>39634530
No problem. I have been setting up to organize my research and create takeaway notes for each category for a while now so really you just happened to ask at a convenient time.

I have a problem with not being able to say things in layman's terms so bare with me, and feel free to ask if anythings unclear after.

File: 123.jpg (30KB, 275x274px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 275x274px

I run 5km twice a week... thoughts? I dont't wanna loose gainz.

I havent had problem yet.
Im doing hiit m/w/f and strength t/th/s.

But first time trying this while cutting so we'll see

>>39633675

>cardio is catabolic

http://scoobysworkshop.com/does-cardio-burn-muscle/

>>39633802
yes, it will only increase cardiovascular fitness for people who are very unfit

increasing VO2max takes efforts longer than 3 minutes at max HR intensity for anyone who is not a fat tub of shit

when you are running hard or biking hard up a hill for 5 minutes, this is a mix of anaerobic and aerobic, it's mostly anaerobic. It's highly catabolic and is focusing on increasing the stroke volume of the left ventricle (the thing responsible for how much power is developed in a movement/bout of exercise). Top end of aerobic metabolism is shockingly low. Most people don't know this. Basically the point at which you start noticing a slight uptick in breath from the effort is the max limit of aerobic metabolism, above that its anaerobic and when you start using almost entirely glycogen instead of fat. HIIT works for fat loss in people doing caloric deficit, it just enhances that and is quick, it does almost nothing in developing cardiovascular fitness or increasing aerobic enzymes or mitochondria production which is what you want if you want a body that is good at utilizing fat all the time. Aerobic work is far less catabolic and is useful for targeting lipid metabolism. The 'fat burning zone' is a real thing and its reputation has been destroyed by people selling shit that sounds good on the internet. Professional athletes who have to use cardiovascular fitness still use it as the majority of their training.

>>39634530
>>39634530

Alright so lets get started. So the idea is that Cardio kills gains. For the most part I believe this comes from one research that talked about satellite cells.
This is the study:
>babcock et al. 2012
In this study they tested muscle fiber growth in the vastus lateralis after resistance training only and then in individuals who completed an aerobic exercise program before going into their resistance training program (Leg ext and presses)

they found diminished satellite cell signalling here and diminished satellite cell density in those that did aerobic work. This is what they used to come to their conclusion. But studies should not be taken as true alone, they need to be studies with other studies that take other factors into consideration that these might not. For example:

>Tan et al. 2014
What they did here was test the effects aerobic work had on muscle performance by having 4 groups. one that only did lower extremity resistance training, one that only did upper ext RT, and then 2 groups that did those same workouts but did aerobic work on an elliptical machine before.

What they found was that the aerobic exercise DID affect muscle performance, however only on the lower extremities. The upper extremities performed the same in both groups that performed them. Muscle activation was similar as well. This is why you dont do cardio before LEG DAY.

however there are studies that show reductions in power. such as
>Ratamess et al 2016
They did somethign similar but withmore groups and different intensities in aerobic exercise.

what they found.
>no difference in performance of the highpull
>no difference in performance in Deadlift
>difference in performance for Squat (biggest difference)
>difference in performance in bench and push press

However keep in mind, this is still cardio performed 10 minutes before the exercise session. And the study also found higher intensity work diminished the effects which will lead to another idea later.

1/2

>>39635141

Now we get into the good stuff with MPS

>Pugh et al. 2015
did a very good study where they challenged the idea that there was an acute interference effect on protein signalling and mRNA expression with concurrent training.

Groups were those who performed Resistance exercise and those who performed RE followed by HIIT. What they found was thay phosphorylation of the mTor pathway (most important that we know of for stimulating MPS) was highest in those who did RE followed by HIIT.

When it came to mRNA variants, RE+HIIT had better increases post exercise as well. This proved no interference, which is what the whole issue is about to begin with.

Then we have
>Lundberg et al. 2012
What the did here was unilateral work, one leg did aerobic work on a cycle ergometer and then 6 hours was part of a resistance training program. The other leg did not perform the aerobic work but did do the resistance portion.

What they found was that increases in peak power and isometric strength were comparable in both, HOWEVER the aerobic work+RE showed significantly greater increase in the quadricep femoris size (17% growth with AE vs only 9% growth with only RE!!).

Even moreso, Signal intensity increased 12% with aerobic exercise, but not any with only Resistance training alone.

What needs to be noted though is that this doesnt test muscle function. however performance wise and in terms of what the average person calls gains, aerobic work might be the best thing to do.

The thing we are finding when it comes to muscle protein synthesis is that the changes we find seem to come with what we are demanding of different fiber TYPES. When training volume we tend to hypertrophy type I fibers, when training at higher intensities we tend to train type IIa-x fibers. For optimal growth you want to train them both. This was shown in
>Donges et al. 2012

i'll cut this short so i dont have to write another post. ask if u have questions i have more studies but im tired.

>>39635087
>http://scoobysworkshop.com/does-cardio-burn-muscle/

"20-40min cardio every day is not only good for your health but it can help you add muscle as well."

>20 minutes

"The interesting part was that the runners didn’t lose ANY muscle mass in their upper bodies, ALL the mass was lost in their legs – why? Overtraining!!!. "

"certainly YOU can jog for 30 minutes without losing muscle mass!"

this is exactly what I'm saying you twat

running hard for 30 minutes with intervals is entirely different than jogging for 30 minutes. Different metabolism, different effects.

>>39635158
If I'm doing a warm-up, does it count as cardio if it's over a specific time? Like 10 minutes?

>>39633535
It's not, unless you are running marathons once a week you will be fine and will probably look better for doing cardio

>>39635286
For the most part these studies have their aerobic work at greater than 20 minutes and at above 60% vO2max. I dont think a warm up sessions slightly over 10 minutes would affect you. However I dont think you need to warm up more than 10 minutes (with cardio ie treadmill) to begin with

>>39635456
Thanks for the answer, I really appreciate that!

>>39635158

This is interesting and this sounds like it might be interesting to look into. Don't think I have anything to ask before having read through this stuff.

I'm tired too so I'll have to get into this stuff tomorrow.

Again, thanks a lot for providing this!