What kind of cardio is more effective in losing weight?

For a long time cardio continues to be a hot topic in all discussions on methods of burning fat. After all, as we all know, not just cardio can dramatically change the composition of the body. Many studies have shown that actually weight training is more effective in the fight against fat. Despite this, people prefer to sit for hours on a stationary bike with a magazine reading gossip news. You are free to do what you think is necessary, but isn’t it better to try to get the most from workout? In this article, we will compare two most popular types of cardio – HIIT and LISS. By reading this article to the end, you’ll get an idea of ​​what kind of cardio is more suitable to you.

So what does mean cryptic abbreviations HIIT and LISS? HIIT – High-intensity interval training  is an enhanced form of interval training, an exercise strategy alternating periods of short intense anaerobic exercise with less-intense recovery periods. For example: 30 seconds sprinting, followed by a 4-minute walk to restore a normal heartbeat, and then repeat it as many times as needed. LISS – Low Intensity Steady State Cardio. This can be walking on a treadmill or pedaling a stationary bike. Now when you have an idea about these varieties of cardio, let’s get into the details.

Why do we need to test our lactate threshold (LT) and anaerobic capacity (AC)? LT and AC – this is an excellent cardio performance indicator. Our muscles burn glucose (blood sugar) in two ways: aerobic (with oxygen) and anaerobic (without oxygen). For example, LISS is considered aerobic workout but resistance training or HIIT is considered anaerobic workout. LT and AC – this is a great test for the cardio, as they help to determine under what load is produced ATP (adenosine triphosphate). ATP provides a quick burst of energy for working muscle group (for example, every time you bend your arms with barbell, ATP is produced). HIIT, unlike LISS, increases the body’s ability to endure physical stress. High-intensity training makes you workout outside of the LT and AC, which leads to faster metabolism, which eventually leads to more intense fat burning. But during LISS you do not reach your LT and AC.

How to speed metabolism

# 1. It is necessary to increase muscle mass and muscle oxidative capacity. In our muscle tissues there are structures that produce energy; they are called mitochondria, which produce ATP and burn fat. The more mitochondria we have and the more active they are, the greater oxidizing power will get our muscles and the faster we’ll lose fat. HIIT improves the performance of mitochondria and increases their number.

Studies show that due to high-intensity training, we lose more fat as increase oxidative capacity of muscle fibers. During LISS we burn calories only while exercising. Low intensity cardio does not speed up metabolism. Moreover, our body gets used to such load and we have to increase the duration of cardio workout to continue to burn fat. Most people do not realize that for best results, it is necessary to go beyond the comfort and try to spend as much energy as it possible. And if you feel pain during HIIT, then your body is working in uncomfortable mode and you’re doing all right!

# 2. Our body quickly gets used to everything. We’ve all seen people who spend hours doing LISS. Actually they should lose those extra pounds, but this does not happen, because their metabolism has adapted to the low-intensity training. Their body uses calories only during exercise, and speeding up the metabolism does not occurs. Regularly training LISS, you get results that could be achieved through diet alone. For example, you burn 200 calories in 30 minutes of LISS. But you could forego these 200 calories, reducing the amount of carbohydrates or fats in the diet. Plus, can use HIIT to accelerate the metabolism.

# 3. A study conducted by Dr. Wilson from the University of Tampa, Florida, shows that starting LIIS, from the beginning we lose weight, but this effect is quite short. In the first week of the experiment examinees people had lost about one kilogram, but thereafter everything stop. This happened because their metabolism has completely adapted to the new regime of physical activity. Furthermore, LISS combined with low-calorie diet can lead to loss of muscle mass. During a low-calorie diet, LISS is more catabolic (breaking muscle) activity, unlike HIIT which take care more carefully of muscle tissue. The reason is that our metabolism adapts to LISS and we have to increase the duration of cardio workout. A reduction of caloric intake often occurs by reducing carbohydrate intake. Glycogen stores in the muscles are depleted and our body needs energy. And what do you think, how did the body will draw energy? From protein! And our muscles just consist of proteins!

# 4. The same study showed that LISS cause greater loss of muscle mass then HIT. The fact is that during these workouts our muscles work differently. It’s like training with weights! HIIT – is another way to stimulate muscles. As an example, compare sprinters’ and a marathons’ runner body. With this research it is difficult to argue.

# 5. In another study, conducted by Dr. Naito, from Juntendo University of Japan, it was found that production of satellites cells in experimental rats body does not depend on duration of endurance training but because of its intensity. Most of you will say, “Well, it’s a rat.” However, rats’ body like human one synthesizes protein and has similar reaction on amino acids and their metabolism. For those who have never heard about satellite cells: These cells create new muscle fibers in the body, and this in turn leads to muscle growth. Thus, studies have shown that when rats were subjected to HIIT, were ensued stimulation of muscle fibers growth. During LISS similar reaction was not observed. This proves that in cardio the most important is the intensity rather than duration.

Now many of you are probably convinced that for muscle gain and burn fat is more suitable HIIT. However, it should be noted that LISS is not absolutely useless. These kinds of cardio make sense to be combined and here are the reasons:

You cannot do HIIT 5-6 days a week, because in the end it will reflect badly on weight training and muscle growth.
Many people have contraindications (orthopedic, cardiac and even psychological) to HIIT and they can do only LISS.
If used incorrectly, HIIT can lead to injury.

Therefore to insist that HIIT is more effective in changing the composition of the body is as wrong as saying that 6 reps per set is better than 20. HIIT and LISS have their own unique advantages. Both types of cardio are worthy to be including in your training program. Choose that kind of cardio that you like better. HIIT workout is shorter, more effective for fat loss, accelerates metabolism and helps maintain muscle mass. But not all people can engage in HIIT. LISS is safer, but to lose a similar amount of calories you will need double to spend your time. Furthermore, LISS does not affect metabolism.

We does not have the purpose to convince you to give preference to any of this cardio, even if you thought so. Just the time has changed and science has discovered a lot about HIIT. And in the end, it is for you to decide what type of cardio is more suited to you. We hope that after reading this article, it will be easier for you to make a choice. If you are still in doubt … Just start practicing!

Slow reps: strength training with light weights does give results

Strength athletes, who because of injury or sickness can only train with light weights, can still get a decent training stimulus out of their workouts if they make their movements with light weights slower than they would normally. A human study that researchers at the University of Tokyo suggests this.

The Japanese are looking for a training method that can help elderly people to fight sarcopaenia – loss of muscle mass and strength due to aging. Strength training with heavy weights is still the best method to build up muscle mass, but for one group of elderly people this kind of training is too risky. The Japanese want to know whether you can still build up muscle mass by using light weights.

The researchers got 40 subjects aged between 59 and 76 to train their leg muscles by using leg-extension and leg-curl machines for 12 weeks. All the subjects trained twice a week.

They used weights that were about fifty percent of the weight at which they could just manage 1 rep [1RM]. Each workout they did three sets of 8 reps, with one minute of rest between sets.

Half of the subjects trained at normal speed, which meant that both concentric and eccentric movements took one second to perform. A complete rep, including the isometric phase [where the muscles are held statically in a tensed position] after the concentric phase, lasted three seconds [LN; Normal speed training].

The other half of the subjects performed the movements at an exaggeratedly slow pace. Both concentric and eccentric movements took three seconds to perform. A complete repetition, including the isometric phase, lasted seven seconds [LST; Slow speed training].

At the end of the 12 weeks, the subjects that had trained slowly had built up more muscle mass and muscle strength than the subjects that had trained in the normal way.

How it is that slowly performed reps with light weights can have so much more effect than reps carried out at normal speed the researchers don’t understand.

They discovered that slow reps result in slightly more growth hormone being produced, and slightly less cortisol. The muscles also used slightly more oxygen when they performed slow reps.

But the effects were so small that they can’t account for the added value of doing exaggeratedly slow reps.

“Low-intensity slow-movement resistance training is effective in increasing muscle size and strength, even for older individuals”, the researchers conclude. “Since low-intensity slow-movement resistance training bears lower risk for orthopedic injury and cardiac events, this should be useful as a countermeasure against sarcopenia.”

Testosterone propionate can have permanent effect on muscles

Good news for chemical bodybuilders who’d like to change to a steroid-free lifestyle, but are afraid that they’ll lose all the muscle that they’ve so carefully built up. Researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway did tests with mice and discovered that a considerable amount of the effect of testosterone administration on muscle tissue is permanent.

Athletes who’ve managed to – say – do six reps with 120 kg, and then don’t touch a barbell for ten years, will probably lose nearly all the muscle mass they’ve built up. But if they resume training, then they’ll get that lost muscle mass and strength back in no time at all. The phenomenon is called ‘muscle memory’.

In 2010 the Norwegians started a study in PNAS in which they described how muscle memory works. If you train muscles the fibres absorb more stem cells. These stem cells then grow into adult muscle cells in the muscles. The increase in the number of muscle cells in your muscle fibres makes your muscles stronger and bigger. If you stop training, then your muscle cells will become smaller, but the extra cells remain in your muscles.

In 2010 the Norwegians concluded that strength athletes can continue to derive benefit from their muscle strength into old age. Moreover, the researchers suspect that steroids users continue to derive benefit from the courses they’ve taken for years after stopping. “Anabolic steroids have been shown to increase the number of nuclei”, the researchers write. “Thus, the benefits of using steroids might be permanent and should have consequences for the exclusion time after a doping offense.”

Good news for chemical bodybuilders who’d like to change to a steroid-free lifestyle, but are afraid that they’ll lose all the muscle that they’ve so carefully built up. Researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway did tests with mice and discovered that a considerable amount of the effect of testosterone administration on muscle mass is permanent.

In the new study the researchers implanted pellets containing Testosterone Propionate  in mice. These meant that there was much more testosterone circulating in the animals’ bodies for a period of two weeks than in the bodies of the mice in the control group – the latter had been given an implant that did not contain an active substance.

As a result of the raised testosterone level, the number of muscle cells in the muscle fibres of the mice in the testosterone group increased by 66 percent. Their muscle fibres became 77 percent thicker.

After fourteen days the researchers stopped administering Testosterone Propionate. The number of muscle cells in the mice’s muscle fibres remained the same, but the dimensions of the muscle fibres decreased.

After a period of three months the researchers forced the mice to exercise their muscles more than normal for a period of six days. The muscles of the mice that had received testosterone grew faster than those of the mice in the other group.

“Our data demonstrate that in least in mice, an episode of testosterone use may recruit a long lasting pool of excess myonuclei, and a persistent increased ability to regain muscle mass by resistance exercise in the absence of further steroid exposure”, the Norwegians write. “Thus, the benefits of even episodic drug abuse might be long lasting if not permanent in athletes.

Carbs Make a Comeback

There was a time when bodybuilders ate food. It is difficult to visualize today, given the prominence of protein powders, energy drinks, and meal replacements in all their manifestions (bars, powders, and drinks). It may be difficult to realize as well that bodybuilding and powerlifting have their roots in the blue-collar community. Some modern bodybuilding pros live the life of celebrities, receiving impressive endorsement contracts to supplement prize earnings and other payments. This allows them to access a wide variety of foods, supplements, and dietary guidance to provide for an optimal diet.

Though many protein powders represent a good value for meeting the higher protein demands of iron athletes, it is difficult to obtain a quality intake of carbohydrates or fats through supplements. In fact, most products are void of fat and rely upon sugars to an extent that makes soda look healthy.

Bodybuilders have always sought out high-protein foods, relying upon lean meats and skim milk products. Those who experienced bodybuilding in the '70s and '80s likely remember their diet, finding little similarity with the recent meal plans spoken of by modern bodybuilders. In fact, it is pretty simple to write down the circa 1980 bodybuilding diet: breakfast— oatmeal, eggs, and skim milk; lunch— two turkey and swiss cheese sandwiches on whole-wheat bread with mustard; pre-workout— applesauce and two chicken breasts; dinner— steamed rice, two cans of tuna packed in water, and a can of vegetables mixed in a bowl; pre-bedtime— one chicken breast and celery with peanut butter.

This diet seems odd, but most amateur bodybuilders had very little discretionary income (spending money) and workplaces often did not have refrigerators. Those who continued to compete for decades likely went through a range of diets, from low-fat to balanced to ketogenic. Bear in mind that a huge bodybuilder weighed 230 pounds then (contest weight), well below the near 300-pound mark broached by today's Olympians.

The diets all work, as evidenced by the continuing development of bodybuilders over the years. Yet, there are subjective and objective differences. Back in the '80s, physiques looked fuller, though not nearly as lean. Binging was rarely heard of except for the post-competition parade of gluttony through pizza buffets and home-baked pastries. Balanced diets did not rise to prominence until after protein bars and powders appeared on the market; there really was not impact from these diets.

Once low-carbohydrate dieting appeared, physiques became shredded to an unprecedented degree; this was particularly true among drug-free athletes. Unfortunately, low-carbohydrate dieting often resulted in periodic binging— bodies often did not look as full, and workouts were less satisfying, due to failing strength and an inability to achieve a pump.

Low-carbohydrate diets were seized with glee and zeal initially, particularly among the drug-free crowd as body fat and subcutaneous water are shed with unparalleled results. However, over the years, the low-carbohydrate diets appeared to take their toll on bodybuilders and the sport. From contest to contest, bodybuilders who followed a low-carbohydrate diet progressively lost size, fullness, and presentation; injuries, onstage cramping, and other maladies became prevalent. A greater dependence upon exogenous insulin to promote muscle growth was related by professional competitors.

Just recently, the resurgence of an idea that was nearly dead from neglect has erupted back into professional bodybuilding, with the drama of an ex-girlfriend catering your wedding reception. Those not able to watch the 2009 Olympia missed a showdown between two giants who showed size and fullness, along with a taut leanness due to skin pulled tight by inflated mass, rather than the shrink-wrapped appearance that followed whole-body depletion. Jay Cutler and Branch Warren, as well as many of the other competitors, displayed pumped muscles and lean physiques that challenged the imagination of Marvel comics artists. In addition to being full and lean, there was also a pleasant near-absence of GH-belly.

Year-to-year comparisons will show physique improvement among many of these competitors, in the eyes of many. The first assumption made may be a new drug regimen, as people often wish to ascribe enhancements and competitive success to either genetic or pharmaceutical advantage. However, there is a more basic explanation; something missing was restored.

Bodybuilding, even more so than mainstream dieting, is filled with "gurus." Unfortunately, there is no qualification to self-proclaiming oneself as an expert in bodybuilding, sports consultant, or dieting expert. This had led to a confusing library of contradiction. However, amongst the amalgam of advisors, a few rise to the top through the success of their clients. In the case of the 2009 Olympia, this includes George Farah, who guided Branch Warren to his second place finish, as well as Jay Cutler's advisor, Hany Rambod. Take the example of George Farah, a well-spoken gentleman with a passion for the sport, as evidenced by his own status as an IFBB pro, despite surviving multiple gunshot wounds over 12 years ago. What differentiated the contest preparation of these two, and others in the Olympia, from the practices of prior years, was a greater tolerance of carbohydrates in the diet.

As mentioned earlier, there was a pendulum swing from low-fat to low-carbohydrate plans in the diets of Olympians and everyday people. Yet, many competitors were placing lower, despite losing significant amounts of bodyweight and body fat. Why? It's simple: bodybuilding is a competition based upon presentation. Judges defined the ideal presentation by penalizing those who lost muscle fullness, had difficulty holding poses, and looked weak, rather than strong. George Farah reiterated a comment I have heard many a time in the sport, "It is a sport of building bodies, building muscle." Farah, whose diet advice was certainly a component of Branch Warren's success, was perplexed upon seeing the trend toward low-carbohydrate dieting. Staying with a program defined over time, based upon his personal experience and observations of numerous elite clients, Farah has transformed the physiques of many. Warren is just the latest of a string of successes directed by Farah.

In a telephone interview, Farah responded to a number of questions about what, why and how he instructs his clients nutritionally. He began with the astute observation that muscles don't grow when carbohydrates are restricted. Not only is there a deficit that impairs anabolism, but overall metabolism is disrupted by low-carbohydrate dieting by athletes.

One general measure that demonstrates the effect of long-term carbohydrate depletion is low body temperature. Farah sees clients come in with body temperatures of 96ºF, which quickly rose to normal after reintroducing carbohydrates into the diet. Interestingly, he also pares back cardio to a single 30-minute session daily.

Given that these athletes are reducing body fat despite eating very significant quantities of carbohydrates (Branch Warren consumed as much as 1,000 grams of carbohydrates a day— 4,000 calories worth!), and cutting back on cardio, suggests that the 'in vogue' programs are overly stressful to the body, and catabolic as well. Apparently, the increase in metabolism more than compensates for the increase in calories or any fat-storing effect of diet-induced insulin surges.

Not only have his clients demonstrated improvements in their appearance, Warren and others also were hitting personal records in their training.1 Those who have followed low-carbohydrate diets are hard-pressed to maintain strength and mass, let alone enjoy workouts or feel a pump. In comparing Warren to his peers onstage, Farah noted that not only was Branch hitting his poses to the delight of fans and judges alike, he continued to hit leg shots as the judges called "relax." Other competitors weren't conditioned to the same extent.

Of course, Warren was defeated in the final posedown by Jay Cutler, who appeared in peak condition. Did Cutler win because he avoided carbohydrates? No. To the contrary, he also followed a carbohydrate-full diet plan, directed by Hany Rambod. Though Rambod was not available for comment due to publishing deadlines, Cutler's diet was well-known, via Jay's blog and industry talk. Slightly less than Warren's 1,000 grams-per-day carbohydrate intake, Cutler consumed approximately 700 grams per day, accounting for nearly half his macronutrient intake. Rambod and Farah follow similar philosophy in advising their clients, so it is likely no consequence that their disciples gained 1st and 2nd place, respectively.

Of course, Warren and Cutler are not your everyday lifters. They can hardly be compared to recreational bodybuilders, representing the pinnacle of modern-day bodybuilding. Yet, there is a great deal to support the inclusion of carbohydrates back into the diet, welcoming them like the proverbial prodigal son. This assumption may be more specific to athletes, as it should be realized that sugars are the preferential energy source for short-term and explosive action.

A sedentary person may not be utilizing intramuscular and hepatic (liver) glycogen sufficiently, forcing the carbohydrate-sourced calories to be stored as fat. Glucose uptake occurs throughout the body, but skeletal muscle will preferentially take up glucose immediately after exercise, promoted by the migration of glucose transporters to the membrane and the increased blood flow to the working muscle. Not only is glucose driven into muscle cells under the influence of insulin, but so is potassium. This may help protect bodybuilders from cramping onstage.

Of course, it is important to bear in mind some of the wisdom imparted by George Farah. Eating what seems like a huge quantity of carbohydrates is not carte blanche to devouring unlimited carbohydrates. Also, by increasing carbohydrates, there is a concomitant decrease in dietary fat.

Farah is quick to cut saturated fats, and like Rambod, promotes fats known to be easily used for energy or health, such as olive oil and fish oils. However, rather than pushing gelcaps, the gurus emphasize fat intake in food. This reduces the inconvenience level of the diet, and lowers the glycemic index/load of each meal. Farah rarely considers the glycemic index of any individual food, as the presence of fiber, fat, and other factors modifies the glycemic and insulinemic response of the body. Certain meals may include a fattier meat, such as steak, to lower the glycemic response.

Is it possible that carbohydrates may be the forlorn answer to improving the physique for an active person? What about for the everyday man or woman?

A number of head-to-head studies have shown that for weight loss, all diets are equal over time (months to years), so long as calories are equal. Yet, what about the effect of carbohydrates in the diet for people not purposefully altering their diet or trying to lose weight? A recent study that looked at the association of carbohydrate intake as a percentage of calories, finding that those who ate the least amount of carbohydrates had the highest risk of obesity and overweight.20 In fact, the intake that was the healthiest included 47-64% carbohydrates. Not surprisingly, this includes the range that Farah and Rambod prescribe.

There is theory, and there is practice. The best results come from following those skilled in both. Bodybuilding is ever a contest between men who build the best bodies, not tear them down. While there is a time for ketogenic dieting, it appears to be a tool of limited use. Rather, it allows one to turn right when entering the grocery mart, filling the cart with yams, sweet potatoes, and other forbidden fruit.

Strength training increases success of attempts to quit smoking

People who stop smoking are more often successful if they start strength training at the same time. Researchers at Brown University in the US think that strength training also prevents the increase in body fat that ex-smokers often face.

There are a few studies that suggest that physical exercise makes giving up smoking easier. The withdrawal symptoms, the craving, low moods and weight gain are all less if ex-smokers exercise.

So you’d expect that the form of exercise that demands the most of the body – strength training – is even more useful for ex-smokers than other forms of exercise. But until recently no scientific research on the matter had been done.

Joseph Ciccolo of Alpert Medical School at Brown University did a study, a small one. It’s a pilot study. Ciccolo got 25 smokers aged between 18 and 65 to stop, gave them counselling and nicotine patches – and got half of them to do strength training twice a week.

Each session consisted of a full body workout of 10 exercises. Initially the subjects did just one set of 10 reps of each exercise, but increased this to two sets after three weeks. The subjects increased the amount of weight they lifted when they noticed that they could perform more than 10 reps per set.

At the end of the three months the strength training stopped, but Ciccolo followed the subjects for another three months. He discovered that the strength training doubled the chance of staying off smoking.

After six months 16 percent of the subjects who had done strength training had still not touched a cigarette. In the control group the figure was half that.

The strength training also prevented the subjects from putting on weight. At the end of the three months the ex-smokers had actually lost half a kg of fat mass.

“Cigarette smoking kills more than a thousand Americans every day, and while the large majority of smokers want to quit, less than five percent are able to do it without help”, says Ciccolo. “We need any new tools that can help smokers successfully quit and it appears resistance training could potentially be an effective strategy.”

“Adequately powered trials of resistance training for smoking cessation, including comparisons to other types of physical activity (e.g. aerobic exercise) and cost-effectiveness analyses are now required”, says Ciccolo.

The study was funded by the American National Cancer Institute.