Cardio/Weights Win/Lose?

NYC XYZ said:

Hi, All:

I have this impression from all the chatter here that getting bigger
muscles is incompatible with cardiovascular workouts?? What's the
logic behind that? How's cardio, which burns fat, gonna take away
from getting bigger, stronger muscles by lifting weights?

And, BTW, I understand that folks are just born with a certain
perdetermined number of muscle cells, right? But when one gets
stronger, one's muscles get bigger, and that sounds like more muscle
cells being manufactured...or does each individual microscopic muscle
cell ballon exponentially??

TIA!

more weight = more food
less weight = less food

cardio = less food (does help endurnace)

bigger muscles = more food (extra protein, too) + lifting weights (to max
muscle gain / min fat gain)
less fat = less food + lifting weights (to min muscle loss / max fat loss)
= cardio + lifting weights (normal food)

more food + cardio = not much (if any) more food = not much (if any) more
muscle (could get stronger, depending on training).

stronger muscles != bigger muscles (to some degree).

GIYF.

Roger Zoul said:

NYC XYZ said:

Hi, All:

I have this impression from all the chatter here that getting bigger
muscles is incompatible with cardiovascular workouts?? What's the
logic behind that? How's cardio, which burns fat, gonna take away
from getting bigger, stronger muscles by lifting weights?

And, BTW, I understand that folks are just born with a certain
perdetermined number of muscle cells, right? But when one gets
stronger, one's muscles get bigger, and that sounds like more muscle
cells being manufactured...or does each individual microscopic muscle
cell ballon exponentially??

TIA!

more weight = more food
less weight = less food

cardio = less food (does help endurnace)

bigger muscles = more food (extra protein, too) + lifting weights (to
max muscle gain / min fat gain)
less fat = less food + lifting weights (to min muscle loss / max fat
loss) = cardio + lifting weights (normal food)

more food + cardio = not much (if any) more food = not much (if any)
more muscle (could get stronger, depending on training).

stronger muscles != bigger muscles (to some degree).

GIYF.

lol...nice.
--
-Larry

NYC XYZ said:

Hi, All:

I have this impression from all the chatter here that getting bigger
muscles is incompatible with cardiovascular workouts?? What's the
logic behind that? How's cardio, which burns fat, gonna take away
from getting bigger, stronger muscles by lifting weights?

And, BTW, I understand that folks are just born with a certain
perdetermined number of muscle cells, right? But when one gets
stronger, one's muscles get bigger, and that sounds like more muscle
cells being manufactured...or does each individual microscopic muscle
cell ballon exponentially??

TIA!

Cardio has health benefits. Let's set that issue aside for this discussion.

To "sum up" what Roger said...

From a weight gain/loss perspective, cardio is nothing but a calorie burning
tool. Let's say you run for 30 minutes and burn 500 calories. Also, let's
factor in the post WO calorie burn...which is only 10 - 15%. So add another
75 calories to that in that 24 hr period of time. If you simply cut 575
calories out of your diet, you've accomplished the same thing without the
cardio.

If you're trying to get big *and* want to do cardio, just be sure to eat
enough and you'll be fine. To grow, you need to consume above your caloric
requirements. This means you'll also put on some fat...but that's why they
call it a "bulking cycle". Then you'll do a cutting cycle to drop the fat.
You'll also lose some LBM in the cutting, but not as much as fat.

Regarding your other question, there is training for hypertrophy, and
there's training for strength. Two different goals.
--
-Larry

Larry Hodges said:

Cardio has health benefits. Let's set that issue aside for this

discussion.

Quoted message said:

To "sum up" what Roger said...

From a weight gain/loss perspective, cardio is nothing but a calorie

burning

Quoted message said:

tool. Let's say you run for 30 minutes and burn 500 calories. Also,

let's

Quoted message said:

factor in the post WO calorie burn...which is only 10 - 15%. So add

another

Quoted message said:

75 calories to that in that 24 hr period of time. If you simply cut

575

Quoted message said:

calories out of your diet, you've accomplished the same thing without

the

Quoted message said:

cardio.

If you're trying to get big *and* want to do cardio, just be sure to

eat

Quoted message said:

enough and you'll be fine. To grow, you need to consume above your

caloric

Quoted message said:

requirements.

Please forgive my near-total ignorance here, but I don't understand why
that is...I mean, "calorie" is just a measure of how much energy is in
a food, as defined by how much can be literally burned from it. What
has that to do with growth? (Which I thought had to do with
protein....)

Quoted message said:

This means you'll also put on some fat...but that's why they
call it a "bulking cycle". Then you'll do a cutting cycle to drop

the fat.

Quoted message said:

You'll also lose some LBM in the cutting, but not as much as fat.

Why do I have to put on fat?? Couldn't I, theoretically anyway (though
it's hard as hell, unless you cook for yourself or have $$$$$, to eat
right), give myself what proteins and vitamins and minerals are needed
while cutting down on fat intake -- AND pumping iron AND biycling and
jogging?

I guess my question is why, all other things being equal (ideal diet,
say; etc.), a cardio workout seems incompatible with weight-lifting,
that one either gets muscles or loses fat, but not both...or do I
misunderstand everything here? (Note that I have a nest of assumptions
here which probably need untangling....)

Quoted message said:

Regarding your other question, there is training for hypertrophy, and

Quoted message said:

there's training for strength. Two different goals.

Huh?!

You mean, then, that hypertrophy isn't strength?? But then what're the
big muscles good for??? I mean, if the muscles get bigger...doesn't
that mean they're able to lift more, too?

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Larry Hodges said:

Cardio has health benefits. Let's set that issue aside for this
discussion.

To "sum up" what Roger said...

From a weight gain/loss perspective, cardio is nothing but a calorie
burning tool. Let's say you run for 30 minutes and burn 500 calories.
Also, let's factor in the post WO calorie burn...which is only 10 -
15%. So add another 75 calories to that in that 24 hr period of time.
If you simply cut 575 calories out of your diet, you've accomplished
the same thing without the cardio.

If you're trying to get big *and* want to do cardio, just be sure to
eat enough and you'll be fine. To grow, you need to consume above
your caloric requirements.

Please forgive my near-total ignorance here, but I don't understand why
that is...I mean, "calorie" is just a measure of how much energy is in
a food, as defined by how much can be literally burned from it. What
has that to do with growth? (Which I thought had to do with
protein....)

The body's a system. If you aren't eating enough to fuel your activities,
your body starts breaking down its own tissue to make up the deficit. You
wish it would only break down fat, but that's not how it works. It breaks
down fat and muscle both, in a proportion that depends on genetics and
your activities, and your hormonal environment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This means you'll also put on some fat...but that's why they call it a
"bulking cycle". Then you'll do a cutting cycle to drop the fat.
You'll also lose some LBM in the cutting, but not as much as fat.

Why do I have to put on fat?? Couldn't I, theoretically anyway (though
it's hard as hell, unless you cook for yourself or have $$$$$, to eat
right), give myself what proteins and vitamins and minerals are needed
while cutting down on fat intake -- AND pumping iron AND biycling and
jogging?

No, cuz if you don't have an energy surplus your body is breaking down
tissues. If you do have a surplus your body will use it to build muscle
(if there's enough protien to build muscle from) but your fat cells will
also suck up some of the surplus for storage.

Quoted message said:

I guess my question is why, all other things being equal (ideal diet,
say; etc.), a cardio workout seems incompatible with weight-lifting,
that one either gets muscles or loses fat, but not both...or do I
misunderstand everything here? (Note that I have a nest of assumptions
here which probably need untangling....)

Different question. Past a certain point, cardio seems to get in the way
of putting on muscle. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but have
seen respectable people make the claim.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Regarding your other question, there is training for hypertrophy, and

Quoted message said:

there's training for strength. Two different goals.

Huh?!

You mean, then, that hypertrophy isn't strength?? But then what're the
big muscles good for??? I mean, if the muscles get bigger...doesn't
that mean they're able to lift more, too?

They're related but not the same. The parts of the muscle that make you
strong don't take up all the space of the muscle. A lot of the extra is
taken up by various kinds of energy systems which are exercised and do
grow with higher-rep training.

Hugh

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

NYC XYZ said:

Larry Hodges said:

Cardio has health benefits. Let's set that issue aside for this
discussion.

To "sum up" what Roger said...

From a weight gain/loss perspective, cardio is nothing but a
calorie burning tool. Let's say you run for 30 minutes and burn
500 calories. Also, let's factor in the post WO calorie
burn...which is only 10 - 15%. So add another 75 calories to that
in that 24 hr period of time. If you simply cut 575 calories out
of your diet, you've accomplished the same thing without the
cardio.

If you're trying to get big *and* want to do cardio, just be sure
to eat enough and you'll be fine. To grow, you need to consume
above your caloric requirements.

Please forgive my near-total ignorance here, but I don't understand
why that is...I mean, "calorie" is just a measure of how much energy
is in a food, as defined by how much can be literally burned from
it. What has that to do with growth? (Which I thought had to do
with protein....)

Here's the grossly simplified model.

To grow more muscular you need to do three simple things. First of
all, you need to eat enough protein so that you can add lean muscle
mass. Second of all, you have to eat enough other calories so that
your body doesn't burn the protein for energy. Finally, You also have
to lift weights with enough intensity to force your body to adapt.

You can eat tons and tons of protein, but if you don't get enough
calories overall to meet your body's needs then you will burn protein
and you won't grow. In fact, your body will almost certainly "borrow"
protein from your existing muscles. You ever notice how long distance
runners look like beef jerky, well, that's why. That's why quite a
few bodybuilders stay away from heavy cardio. They aren't interested
in eating enough extra calories to make up for the calories they would
burn doing cardio.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This means you'll also put on some fat...but that's why they call
it a "bulking cycle". Then you'll do a cutting cycle to drop the
fat. You'll also lose some LBM in the cutting, but not as much as
fat.

Why do I have to put on fat?? Couldn't I, theoretically anyway
(though it's hard as hell, unless you cook for yourself or have
$$$$$, to eat right), give myself what proteins and vitamins and
minerals are needed while cutting down on fat intake -- AND pumping
iron AND biycling and jogging?

The problem is that the human body has a very hard time gaining large
amounts of muscle without putting on some fat, unless you happen to
have just the right type of genetics. The human body stores fat as
part of its survival mechanism, and so, given the chance and enough
calories the body tends to put on fat first.

Don't get me wrong, you can get bigger while staying lean, but for
most people it is hard to grow muscle while staying super lean. Most
bodybuilders have "bulking cycles" where they concentrate on growing,
and "cutting cycles" where the concentrate on getting lean. When
bodybuilders go on a cutting cycle then tend to lose both their fat
and a good portion of their lean body mass. That's just the way the
body works. It wants to hang onto fat (for the hard times ahead) and
it is willing to give up muscle to do it. The folks that you see who
are super lean year round generally don't get as large as guys that
spend at least some of their time eating to grow. They still look
good though, and it's entirely possible that your fitness goals lie in
that direction.

Quoted message said:

I guess my question is why, all other things being equal (ideal
diet, say; etc.), a cardio workout seems incompatible with
weight-lifting, that one either gets muscles or loses fat, but not
both...or do I misunderstand everything here? (Note that I have a
nest of assumptions here which probably need untangling....)

Every calorie burned doing cardio is one more calorie that doesn't go
towards building muscles. Some powerlifters have absolutely
ridiculous diets (I heard a story of one guy that ate 15 pancakes
every morning as fast as he could so that satiety wouldn't kick in)
and don't care about anything but growing bigger. You got to eat big
to get big, and every calorie your burn doing cardio means bigger
meals.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Regarding your other question, there is training for hypertrophy,
and there's training for strength. Two different goals.

Huh?!

You mean, then, that hypertrophy isn't strength?? But then what're
the big muscles good for??? I mean, if the muscles get
bigger...doesn't that mean they're able to lift more, too?

Yeah, crazy huh. Training for hypertrophy isn't the same thing as
training for pure strength. Don't get me wrong. That's why you can
have bodybuilders that can't lift as much as powerlifters or olympic
lifters with much smaller looking muscles. Of course, bodybuilders
are still strong, but the body is a ridiculously complex machine. It
will gladly specialize for whatever sort of training you offer.

Jason

NYC XYZ said:

Larry Hodges said:

Cardio has health benefits. Let's set that issue aside for this
discussion.

To "sum up" what Roger said...

From a weight gain/loss perspective, cardio is nothing but a calorie
burning tool. Let's say you run for 30 minutes and burn 500
calories. Also, let's factor in the post WO calorie burn...which is
only 10 - 15%. So add another 75 calories to that in that 24 hr
period of time. If you simply cut 575 calories out of your diet,
you've accomplished the same thing without the cardio.

If you're trying to get big *and* want to do cardio, just be sure to
eat enough and you'll be fine. To grow, you need to consume above
your caloric requirements.

Please forgive my near-total ignorance here, but I don't understand
why that is...I mean, "calorie" is just a measure of how much energy
is in a food, as defined by how much can be literally burned from it.
What has that to do with growth? (Which I thought had to do with
protein....)

Quoted message said:

This means you'll also put on some fat...but that's why they
call it a "bulking cycle". Then you'll do a cutting cycle to drop
the fat. You'll also lose some LBM in the cutting, but not as much
as fat.

Why do I have to put on fat?? Couldn't I, theoretically anyway
(though it's hard as hell, unless you cook for yourself or have
$$$$$, to eat right), give myself what proteins and vitamins and
minerals are needed while cutting down on fat intake -- AND pumping
iron AND biycling and jogging?

I guess my question is why, all other things being equal (ideal diet,
say; etc.), a cardio workout seems incompatible with weight-lifting,
that one either gets muscles or loses fat, but not both...or do I
misunderstand everything here? (Note that I have a nest of
assumptions here which probably need untangling....)

Quoted message said:

Regarding your other question, there is training for hypertrophy, and

Quoted message said:

there's training for strength. Two different goals.

Huh?!

You mean, then, that hypertrophy isn't strength?? But then what're
the big muscles good for??? I mean, if the muscles get
bigger...doesn't that mean they're able to lift more, too?

Hugh and Jason answered everything just as I would have.
--
-Larry

Larry Hodges said:

Hugh and Jason answered everything just as I would have.
--
-Larry

So many, many thanks, guys...I'm just floored...one more proof there
isn't a God since the design isn't very intelligent...what a crazy
system; and then one day it just breaks down....

Like I was saying, this is much too much "rocket science" for me, for
what used to be a simple matter of waking up, eating everything in
sight, and having fun playing ball, working out, bicycling around the
City....

Damned aging process!!!!

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Larry Hodges said:

Hugh and Jason answered everything just as I would have.
--
-Larry

So many, many thanks, guys...I'm just floored...one more proof there
isn't a God since the design isn't very intelligent...what a crazy
system; and then one day it just breaks down....

Like I was saying, this is much too much "rocket science" for me, for
what used to be a simple matter of waking up, eating everything in
sight, and having fun playing ball, working out, bicycling around the
City....

Damned aging process!!!!

I don't know for sure (perhaps John Edwards does), but I am not rushing
toward the alternative, yet!

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"All men should strive to learn before they die,
what they are running from, and to, and why."
James Thurber

NYC XYZ said:

You mean, then, that hypertrophy isn't strength?? But then what're

the

Quoted message said:

big muscles good for??? I mean, if the muscles get bigger...doesn't
that mean they're able to lift more, too?

Not necessarily ...
As another post pointed to bodybuilders verses powerlifters, take a
look at this difference in the people around you. Bigger muscles does
not necessarily mean extra strong and actually being able to lift heavy
in the gym doesnt always translate into functional everday lifting
either. I remember two guys I worked with, one was small frame very
wirey muscular build while the other guy was much taller with about
20lbs extra lean weight - when it came to lifting things from the
warehouse the smaller guy could hoist a large heavy box onto his
shoulder no problem, while the more muscular guy had to get a dolly to
put the same box on to get it out to the parking lot. So the smaller
guy was much stronger, while the larger guy wasnt (yet people assumed
he was because of his size).

<<joni>

NYC XYZ said:

Larry Hodges said:

Hugh and Jason answered everything just as I would have.
--
-Larry

So many, many thanks, guys...I'm just floored...one more proof there
isn't a God since the design isn't very intelligent...what a crazy
system; and then one day it just breaks down....

I wouldn't go that far. The design of the human body is pretty darn
amazing, you just have to think of it as a machine designed for
versatility and adaptability. As a general purpose machine the human
body is unparalleled. Anything you throw at your body that doesn't
kill it will cause your body to adapt. The trick is to figure out the
*right* stimulus for triggering the adaptations that you are
interested in.

You are also assuming that The Designer's purpose for your existence
consists entirely of this particular adventure. That's somewhat like
a kindergartner assuming that kindergarten is the "end all, be all" of
education.

Quoted message said:

Like I was saying, this is much too much "rocket science" for me,
for what used to be a simple matter of waking up, eating everything
in sight, and having fun playing ball, working out, bicycling around
the City....

All this stuff can still be fun. In fact, I personally think that it
is easy to over-complicate fitness. The reason that we talk about
this stuff is that there is no question that some techniques work
better than others (which techniques those might be tend to vary for
individuals and for desired results). After all, if you are going to
play ball you might as well play to win, and if you are going to
bicycle around the city you might as well go fast...

That's one of the things that I like about Dan John's website. His
advice basically boils down to 1) eat breakfast, 2) lift heavy stuff
over your head, 3) keep a record of your workouts.

http://www.danjohn.org/coach

Jason

In article <[email hidden]>,
"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> writes:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

So many, many thanks, guys...I'm just floored...one more proof there
isn't a God since the design isn't very intelligent...what a crazy
system; and then one day it just breaks down....

[snip]

Au contraire, it's a very smart system. Fat = energy reserves. If
the body senses it might be deprived of "sufficient" nutritional
input, it diverts caloric intake to nutritional reserves in
anticipation of even further-reduced nutrition. After all: What good
all the strength in the world if you haven't enough energy to power
it?

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
[email hidden] | not go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison