Aerobics vs. Anaerobics for fat loss - Page 3 - JP Fitness Forums

ninja · 03-09-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter

Where did SuperGirl go?

I guess you mean Amy?.......

kuri · 03-09-2007, 09:54 PM

ninja · 03-10-2007, 12:32 AM

If he's referring to JPs, unless there's another place(s) that have gone apeshit over the study, then I do think he's overreacting a bit. This is healthy skepticism. No one is doubting the results. They just want to know more thoroughly the factors that go into it.

I have the utmost respect for Alwyn and the kick ass programs he makes. I just don't understand how it can be read into any of the questioning in this thread that people disagree with it.

(disregard this if there's been a symbolic-esque debate on other reputable forums)

gobbla · 03-10-2007, 12:37 AM

Similar to the "attacks on AC" line of thinking, no one on here said that Alwyn was wrong. No one asked him to "prove" anything. The study as presented and done doesn't prove anything (any more than the scientific discovery of the "fat burning zone") and THAT was what was being discussed. I'm more than willing to believe AC when he says that he's done it thousands of times under a variety of methods and and protocols and "this" is his results. 99% of the people on here would do the same. I don't see what's so hard to get.

Terra Nova · 03-10-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos

It's not an implication.....the aerobic group DID in fact gain fat.....if you want to see the details, look at the methods and results of the study.

Everyone is debating the fact of whether or not aerobic training actually resulted in fat GAIN...in this study, IT DID! deal with it. We can all say studies are skewed etc. but the reality is that this is what THIS study showed.

Getting back to what bipennate said....

" If I'm creating a caloric deficit, then I'm going to lose weight. If I'm creating a caloric surplus, I'm going to gain weight. .........So the question becomes why did the cardio group gain weight in this study? "

Is this calorie surplus / deficit maxim ( scientific fact ?? ) he touched on a valid generalization or not in your view ?

Beginning to wonder if it is still valid for anyone to say that any fat gain is likely the result of a NET calorie surplus - as per the comment above as I would have thought if the deficit rationale for fat loss is suspect, what of the surplus rationale for fat gain ?

I mean, if I had to explain to someone the realtionship between calories and fat gain to someone ( who knew nothing of fitness / nutrition ) would I possibly have to include some caveat beyond what bipennate said ? For, example, ' you will lose fat over time if you have a sustained calorie deficit...with possible the exception of the following " X " circumstances where the defcit stems from aerobic exercise. '

kuri · 03-10-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gobbla

I'm more than willing to believe AC when he says that he's done it thousands of times under a variety of methods and and protocols and "this" is his results. 99% of the people on here would do the same. I don't see what's so hard to get.

I agree Gobbla but there are alot of people out there will refuse to change their beliefs no matter what evidence is presented. When long held beliefs are challenged keyboard warriors begin clouding the issue with talk of "genetic freaks" etc...

Case in point: http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1478964

OldGuy · 03-10-2007, 11:35 AM

I would tend to believe that Alwyn didn't get to where he is today by not questioning studies and protocols, by not accepting every thing as gospel. So why are people here called to task for doing the same thing?

bipennate · 03-10-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy

I would tend to believe that Alwyn didn't get to where he is today by not questioning studies and protocols, bu not accepting every thing as gospel. So why are people here called to task for doing the same thing?

Excellent point...

gobbla · 03-10-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuri

I agree Gobbla but there are alot of people out there will refuse to change their beliefs no matter what evidence is presented. When long held beliefs are challenged keyboard warriors begin clouding the issue with talk of "genetic freaks" etc...

Case in point: http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1478964

Yeah but...they're retarded.

T-Nation discussion boards are the bottom fed dregs of the internet. Taking anything posted there seriously is like asking Kevin how to stick with a workout program...it makes no sense!

FishrCutB8 · 03-10-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean-Paul

I think it was Dos who quipped, "it's okay to break the rules, as long as you know you're breaking the rules." I couldn't have put it better.

For the record, I believe that was Mr. Hartman...

Keith Scott · 03-10-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy

I would tend to believe that Alwyn didn't get to where he is today by not questioning studies and protocols, by not accepting every thing as gospel. So why are people here called to task for doing the same thing?

Agree that people should question things. Its healthy and good. But, since you asked...the major difference, in my opinion, is that AC studies this stuff relentlesly and has been doing it for over 15 years. No offense, but most people here have not.

I think that may be where Dos is coming from, but I could be wrong.

Either way, question away....

Hunter · 03-10-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninja

I guess you mean Amy?.......

Yes...nice abs...I mean avatar!

Lost Dog · 03-10-2007, 02:07 PM

Don't forget that talking caloric surplus has been taken to mean "over a 24 hour period." Why, because that's the way we live and think. We're on a 24 hour schedule. But, we don't have IVs or feeding tubes keeping a constant flow of food into our bodies.

No, each of us (barring extreme examples) is in a surplus AND a deficit several times throughout the day. What state you've primed your body for dictates what happens during those periods. What happens during these periods dictates what happens to your body composition.

Rather than be ultra careful in my wording, just keep in mind that these statements, actions, reactions, etc. are what we might typically see happen. Nothing's perfect. I have no study or master's thesis to reference, either. This is my theory. Also, I'll leave out anything regarding EPOC or metabolic slowdowns. They will be irrelevant to my points.

Lift weights today? Overeating has a tendency to add muscle mass during the surplus. Undereating has a tendency to subtract fat mass during the deficit. We know all about this one, right?

Do intervals today? Overeating has a tendency to add muscle mass during the surplus. Undereating has a tendency to subtract fat mass during the deficit. Why, because the extreme effort of the intervals breaks down muscle tissue similarly to lifting weights.

Do steady state cardio today? Overeating has a tendency to add fat, I guess. Undereating has a tendency to subtract fat mass and/or muscle mass during the deficit. Why? There was very little micro trauma to the muscles. In fact, your body might even lean toward dropping muscle over fat. Fat is better equipped to supply energy for lower intensity, long duration work. Muscle is expensive to maintain. In fact, during the run, you might even lose a good amount of fat, but I think you put it right back on. Your body wants it. It saw your running schedule and is planning ahead.

In each of these situations, your body is doing what you tell it to do.

So we want to have less fat, we should stop telling our bodies to help us run longer.

RobLL · 03-10-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gobbla

Yeah but...they're retarded.

T-Nation discussion boards are the bottom fed dregs of the internet. Taking anything posted there seriously is like asking Kevin how to stick with a workout program...it makes no sense!

No - one of my low carb ones takes the cake on this. evil pun HeHe

Frank.S · 03-10-2007, 03:38 PM

I find it pretty interesting.. Id be interested in seeing a bit more in depth into that study, the actual raw data numbers just for fun.

I still doubt intervals are ever going to really catch on for most people, they are just so damn hard haha.

BamaDave · 03-10-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gobbla

That's is something that always concerns me about the "proof" shown in some of these studies. The steady state group is going @ 60% of their V02 max for 40min (not a big deal at all). The HIIT group is going balls out for 60 bouts 8sec on 12 off(OMG I'm going to die).

I really just don't see how the two can really be compared. We've shown that the group that works harder gets better results....duh. We've shown that putting out very little effort gets very little reward....duh. I'm not 100% convinced that it's proven any more than that.

Thank you! That was the first thing that jumped out at me. The steady-state group wasn't putting much effort into their workouts. Shuffle, shuffle, shuffle... duh! That Won't do much for you.

I can buy into the idea that HIIT is a better way to do cardio for the majority who aren't into endurance exercise for fun or competition, but at least make the study a fairer comparison. HARD HIIT should have been matched with harder steady state cardio.

bipennate · 03-10-2007, 08:37 PM

For me, it's really not about "Intervals vs. SS." I think that there's been enough good research, physiological theory, as well as real-world anecdotal information to show that intervals in most cases are superior to steady state. I'd still like to know why the steady state group actually gained fat.

To me, that's the most important question.