PDA

View Full Version : Cardio and EPOC



Heavy Duty dude
03-16-2005, 08:56 AM
The most comprehensive article I have read on the subject. I thought you might be interested..

http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/epocarticle.html

imported_dkm1987
03-16-2005, 10:01 AM
Nice HDD.

Cliner9er
03-17-2005, 08:51 AM
Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Mar. 16 2005,10:01)]Nice HDD.
A lot of the older work that is references used by Kravitz here use some poor methodology. TRUE EPOC is much, much less than stated. A lot of the increased metabolic numbers are due to starting EPOC measures immediately after exercise, well duh, of course the higher intensity activities will elicit better responses. For longer duration activites the changes in vagal tone and Starling Principle cause HR to stay elevated (i.e. second wind in some circles), with the immediate measure again you will see higher metabolism. TRUE EPOC is more in the 5-10 kcal range for lower activities and around 50 kcal's for higher intensity stuff.

imported_dkm1987
03-17-2005, 09:23 AM
I wasn't commmenting on the studies, I was commenting on the article. Looking at the reviews I have seen (and have made noted in other posts) the EPOC hysteria as looked at today is overated. You have a post consumption with just about any level of training and as you just mentioned it is actually quite small in most cases. There are also many variables as noted in the article and in the reviews I have read for truly measuring EPOC. Lastly when it comes to burning fat HIIT does not provide the same magnitude in the shift to fatty acid utilization as long duration steady state. For Glycogen depletion HIIT is probably better but for using fatty acids ??

Speakman JR, Selman C.
Physical activity and resting metabolic rate.

Borsheim E, Bahr R.
Effect of exercise intensity, duration and mode on post-exercise oxygen consumption.

xahrx
03-17-2005, 11:10 AM
As far as HIIT, doesn't your body start using anaerobic pathways for fuel once you get past a certain exercise intensity for a certain time?

imported_dkm1987
03-17-2005, 11:39 AM
In a nutshell, yes.

Not that I am saying HIIT isn't beneficial, it is. But it's in knowing how and when to use it. The current advocation of using it because of EPOC, is kind of misleading.

Read, Lipid metabolism during endurance exercise by Jeffrey F Horowitz and Samuel Klein if you are interested in do soing.

Heavy Duty dude
03-17-2005, 06:23 PM
So in which case do you think HIIT might be more appropriate than moderate cardio?

imported_donnie
03-17-2005, 06:48 PM
Don't know how reputable this Q&A article is, but thought it would be at least worth posting to this thread.

http://www.zizzoo.com/guides/loseweight/articles/a22/index.php

imported_donnie
03-17-2005, 07:08 PM
Here's a great journal article about exercise intensity and EPOC.

http://www.phlegmy.org/gallery/exercise_intensity_effects.pdf

imported_dkm1987
03-18-2005, 09:21 AM
Quote[/b] (donnie @ Mar. 17 2005,6:08)]Here's a great journal article about exercise intensity and EPOC.
http://www.phlegmy.org/gallery/exercise_intensity_effects.pdf
That's the one I referred to above.

The best thing about that paper is it puts it into context, that both higher intensity and duration has a more prolonged effect, but either way the true importance is that HIIT doesn't really change the overall that much and not to mention again the substrate use during differing modes.
Quote[/b] ]The sum of the increased rate of TG/FA cycling and the shift from carbohydrate to fat as substrate source has been suggested to account for more than half of the prolonged EPOC
component, but there is still a significant part that
remains to be explained. It is hypothesised that increased protein turnover and/or a change in energy
may explain some of this.


So in which case do you think HIIT might be more appropriate than moderate cardio? IMO Only, HIIT is good for carb depletion or supercompensation strategies, but that's about it.

vicious
03-18-2005, 01:45 PM
I prefer HIIT for most applications, but purely from the standpoint of fat-loss, steady state wins by default since it burns more overall calories per day than HIIT can. What's going to make the biggest difference is your choice of cardio. Bikes just suck. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

cheers,
Jules

Heavy Duty dude
03-18-2005, 06:51 PM
Would it make sense to say that high intensity cardio would be more helpful to get rid of the last lbs of fat, thanks to the increased blood flow it provides?

vicious
03-18-2005, 08:07 PM
I think so. HIIT is good because it's, relatively speaking, muscle-sparing. Or you could do a high-fatigue style protocol, a la Poliquin's GBC program, in order to burn those last few lbs. This is actually a decent alternative to those who don't want to do the CKD in order to get shredded.

But to be honest, probably the best way to get those last few lbs of fat is to go powerwalking after a big meal. A little postprandial metabolic boost, increased blood flow, etc.. Plus, since the intensity is so low, you're mostly using fat stores for energy.

For me, it matters less which strategy a person chooses, then that they choose something more effective than bikes. HIIT just doesn't work on a bike. As DKM says, you'd have to hump it to get a palpable effect. And steady state cardio on a bike really needs to go at least an hour in order to get a real effect with it.

cheers,
Jules

imported_dkm1987
03-19-2005, 08:37 AM
Quote[/b] (vicious @ Mar. 18 2005,7:07)]But to be honest, probably the best way to get those last few lbs of fat is to go powerwalking after a big meal. *A little postprandial metabolic boost, increased blood flow, etc.. *Plus, since the intensity is so low, you're mostly using fat stores for energy.
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/worship.gif

Heavy Duty dude
03-19-2005, 08:44 AM
HIIT is really amazing.. it seems to cause more subcutaneous fat loss, yet, the majority of the calories burnt while doing it comes from glycogen! And after the HIIT session the blood flow to subQ fat should return more or less to normal.

So.. MOST OF THE SUBQ FAT SEEMS TO BE LOST WHILE THERE IS LITTLE BLOOD FLOW. THIS SUGGEST THAT HIIT STIMULATES LIPOLYSIS TREMENDOUSLY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, EVEN MORE THAN WHILE DOING NORMAL CARDIO.

Incredible!

mikeynov
03-20-2005, 02:20 AM
Quote[/b] (vicious @ Mar. 18 2005,8:07)]I think so. HIIT is good because it's, relatively speaking, muscle-sparing. Or you could do a high-fatigue style protocol, a la Poliquin's GBC program, in order to burn those last few lbs. This is actually a decent alternative to those who don't want to do the CKD in order to get shredded.
But to be honest, probably the best way to get those last few lbs of fat is to go powerwalking after a big meal. A little postprandial metabolic boost, increased blood flow, etc.. Plus, since the intensity is so low, you're mostly using fat stores for energy.
For me, it matters less which strategy a person chooses, then that they choose something more effective than bikes. HIIT just doesn't work on a bike. As DKM says, you'd have to hump it to get a palpable effect. And steady state cardio on a bike really needs to go at least an hour in order to get a real effect with it.
cheers,
Jules
I've gotten lean as hell using exclusively HIIT on an exercise bike combined with my normal HST training.

Also, a reasonable article written by a guy I used to correspond with on the benefits of HIIT. (http://www.angelfire.com/pe/txpls/articles/HIIT.html)

Heavy Duty dude
03-20-2005, 07:55 AM
Did you lose muscle while doing your cut? Were you taking carb at that time?

mikeynov
03-20-2005, 12:43 PM
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Mar. 20 2005,7:55)]Did you lose muscle while doing your cut? Were you taking carb at that time?
Not really, no.

Last summer I did it perfectly. I included negatives in chins/dips for ~a month to 6 weeks or something while I was doing it, and used a CKD in which I carbed up on assloads of quality carbs every weekend, and kept my protein intake very high during the week with very low carbs.

Training wise, I wad a frequency of almost 4 times per week (every 36 hours) per muscle group with low volume per session (a single set or two), and did HIIT a couple times a week combined with one or two 10 mile biking trips in the mornings. In the past, I had used exclusively HIIT, but I figured there was no reason to exclusively rely on one means of cardio - and I found the combination quite good. To be noted, however, is that upon introducing HIIT, I began to notice very immediate changes to the visibility of my ab musculature. Granted it's anecdotal, but it seems to me that HIIT is more useful than regular cardio in terms of reducing subcutaneous bodyfat.

Anyways, after a month of the above, I went from not-so-visible-abs (maybe mid teens bodyfat) to this:

http://clear.yellowsubby.com/upload/public/blowdpanis/vacation-inside-db1.jpg

http://clear.yellowsubby.com/upload/public/blowdpanis/vacation-outside-front1.jpg

I plan to do something similar this year, as, imho, it worked so well last year (in terms of leaning out while preserving muscle).

Heavy Duty dude
03-20-2005, 02:11 PM
You look good. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

It is interesting that you've been able to do HIIT on a keto and that it doesn't seem to have caused muscle loss.

Thanks for your input! http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif

Heavy Duty dude
03-20-2005, 02:20 PM
Just out of curiosity.. were you natural during your cut?

I ask this because you say that you went from mid 10s to this which is probably under 10. This is about 10lbs in one month without muscle loss. That's very impressive for someone natural.

mikeynov
03-20-2005, 03:50 PM
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Mar. 20 2005,2:20)]Just out of curiosity.. were you natural during your cut?
I ask this because you say that you went from mid 10s to this which is probably under 10. This is about 10lbs in one month without muscle loss. That's very impressive for someone natural.
First off, definitely natural - I've never used anabolics in my life, and am not planning on doing it any time soon.

Also bear in mind that my own estimate of bodyfat is just that - my own estimate, not measured. Where exactly in the teens it was before is hard to know for sure, and I dont' have pictoral evidence offhand.

I began my 'summer' training around the beginning of June if memory serves, did a two week break in period of 'clean' but normal eating, and then a month straight of CKD. So, you could SORT of call it 6 weeks of dieting as I'm sure the initial two weeks probably had some effect.

Otherwise, I almost seemed to be MORE muscular afterwards, though I'm not sure how that's possible. But I was doing negatives up to 4 times in a single week for a single set of 5-8 slow reps, and started including some 'burny' training (e.g. slow pushups, squats etc) towards the end for some mapk erk1/2 magic.

All in all though, it worked out quite well. The final week of my diet I cut sodium, drank a lot of water, and upped cardio/that burny training a bit. Also fake tanned, and it made quite a visual difference, even just in one week.

Heavy Duty dude
03-20-2005, 05:06 PM
Ok, very good. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif

I think I'm gonna add HIIT during my next cut after all. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif