MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Set Point, BMR, & Aerobics vs. Weights
Author
Rating
Options

H.I.T. Believer

I have always been an advocate of weighttraining being the most important exercise to perform for weight loss. Basically, the metabolic changes from weighttraining supersede the calories burnt from steady state exercise.

however, i have begun to wonder if some aerobic exercise -at least at some point in a training cycle- may be benificial for weight loss.I am talking about supplementing weight training with some aerobics not vice versa.

The issue is not the calories burnt during steady state exercise but rather it is the resetting of a persons set point. We were taught that people had a set point and this was like a thermostat which regulated the bodyweight that an individual's body fought to maintain.

if aerobics can lower a person's setpoint. then wouldn't adding some type of aerobic activity to a HIT program not be of benifit to someone trying to lose weight.

would like to see some discussion on the matter..
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

How do you come to the conclusion that the "setpoint" is regulated by aerobics?

Ellington recommends 30 minutes walks everyday to supplement HIT during fatloss.


Open User Options Menu

WesH

IIRC, Taubes (GCBC) reports the "set point" idea was a hypothesis with zero science behind it and has fallen by the wayside.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Not sure what you mean by "setpoint" but aerobic activity b/w days resistance training can burn substantially more calories. Anytime use muscle your burning fuel. i typically do 30-60 mins aerobic activity at high MET. Don't get me wrong it's hard after first 15-20 mins ..but i say to myself "keep going you depleted your glycogen now your into the fat in muscle, liver, under skin, in artery".

that realization keeps me going, and lean.
Open User Options Menu

Yes

WesH wrote:
IIRC, Taubes (GCBC) reports the "set point" idea was a hypothesis with zero science behind it and has fallen by the wayside.

The whole "set-point" thing is a hypothesis inferred from a few scientific findings. It's better looked at as model to describe more complex processes, and not as a scientific fact.

For example, after dieting your body is more prone to rebuild what it's lost. If you lose muscle, your body will build more muscle on a calorie surplus. And if you lose fat, you're more prone to add more fat.

Your hormonal profile also changes making matters worse.

Another thing I bet everyone has noticed is that below a certain body fat level it gets increasingly difficult to maintain lean mass.

As for the OP's question, cardio won't do anything except make it more difficult to maintain lean mass.
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

Yes wrote:
WesH wrote:
IIRC, Taubes (GCBC) reports the "set point" idea was a hypothesis with zero science behind it and has fallen by the wayside.
The whole "set-point" thing is a hypothesis inferred from a few scientific findings. It's better looked at as model to describe more complex processes, and not as a scientific fact.

For example, after dieting your body is more prone to rebuild what it's lost. If you lose muscle, your body will build more muscle on a calorie surplus. And if you lose fat, you're more prone to add more fat.

Your hormonal profile also changes making matters worse.

Another thing I bet everyone has noticed is that below a certain body fat level it gets increasingly difficult to maintain lean mass.

As for the OP's question, cardio won't do anything except make it more difficult to maintain lean mass.


This is interesting. I usually consume approx 3000/day. This helps me to stay somewhat lean, while gaining strength. The past 6 weeks, I have increased it to 4000 cals/day and have only gained 1/2lb.
My circumstances are somewhat irregular, but it is sort of perplexing. To make it even more confusing, before going up to 4000 cals/day, I had dropped to 2500 cals/day for about 2 weeks to see if I could tighten up a little. I lost about 1lb.
To make sense of this, if anything, I look somewhat fuller and a bit leaner. This leads me to believe it about disrupting homeostasis and as you mentioned, manipulating hormones.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

southbeach wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "setpoint" but aerobic activity b/w days resistance training can burn substantially more calories. Anytime use muscle your burning fuel. i typically do 30-60 mins aerobic activity at high MET. Don't get me wrong it's hard after first 15-20 mins ..but i say to myself "keep going you depleted your glycogen now your into the fat in muscle, liver, under skin, in artery".

that realization keeps me going, and lean.


LOL, what do you say when you act like a coward and refuse to put up pictures?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

smanjh wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "setpoint" but aerobic activity b/w days resistance training can burn substantially more calories. Anytime use muscle your burning fuel. i typically do 30-60 mins aerobic activity at high MET. Don't get me wrong it's hard after first 15-20 mins ..but i say to myself "keep going you depleted your glycogen now your into the fat in muscle, liver, under skin, in artery".

that realization keeps me going, and lean.

LOL, what do you say when you act like a coward and refuse to put up pictures?


i don't think it cowardly to not place pics on the net. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one ;)
Open User Options Menu

Yes

fbcoach wrote:
Yes wrote:
WesH wrote:
IIRC, Taubes (GCBC) reports the "set point" idea was a hypothesis with zero science behind it and has fallen by the wayside.
The whole "set-point" thing is a hypothesis inferred from a few scientific findings. It's better looked at as model to describe more complex processes, and not as a scientific fact.

For example, after dieting your body is more prone to rebuild what it's lost. If you lose muscle, your body will build more muscle on a calorie surplus. And if you lose fat, you're more prone to add more fat.

Your hormonal profile also changes making matters worse.

Another thing I bet everyone has noticed is that below a certain body fat level it gets increasingly difficult to maintain lean mass.

As for the OP's question, cardio won't do anything except make it more difficult to maintain lean mass.

This is interesting. I usually consume approx 3000/day. This helps me to stay somewhat lean, while gaining strength. The past 6 weeks, I have increased it to 4000 cals/day and have only gained 1/2lb.
My circumstances are somewhat irregular, but it is sort of perplexing. To make it even more confusing, before going up to 4000 cals/day, I had dropped to 2500 cals/day for about 2 weeks to see if I could tighten up a little. I lost about 1lb.
To make sense of this, if anything, I look somewhat fuller and a bit leaner. This leads me to believe it about disrupting homeostasis and as you mentioned, manipulating hormones.

If you're curious about the hormonal aspect I can recommend checking Lyle McDonalds site where he has a series of articles on leptin and other hormones. It's well written and very interesting.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Clarence says we need BOTH strength and aerobic training and he says he has proof.

http://www.cbass.com/...rance_Heart.htm
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

H.I.T. Believer wrote:
I have always been an advocate of weighttraining being the most important exercise to perform for weight loss. Basically, the metabolic changes from weighttraining supersede the calories burnt from steady state exercise.

however, i have begun to wonder if some aerobic exercise -at least at some point in a training cycle- may be benificial for weight loss.I am talking about supplementing weight training with some aerobics not vice versa.

The issue is not the calories burnt during steady state exercise but rather it is the resetting of a persons set point. We were taught that people had a set point and this was like a thermostat which regulated the bodyweight that an individual's body fought to maintain.

if aerobics can lower a person's setpoint. then wouldn't adding some type of aerobic activity to a HIT program not be of benifit to someone trying to lose weight.

would like to see some discussion on the matter..


Walks are good I think.

Killing yourself with long runs is counterproductive to your weight-training unless you are a sprinter.

Forty years ago, many track coaches had sprinters running long-distances for "endurance" when they should have been running 100 yards (old measure), 220s and 440s.

And of course, the idea of weight training was unthinkable.

Recently, I have seen some American marathon runners with some muscle on them. But nothing like anyone on this forum would probably admire.

Certainly someone will argue with me just like Joshua argued endlessly that no 100-meter sprinter ever held his breath at the start of a race to stay steady in the block.

The fact was they did, and some still do -- Maurice Greene was one example. Bill Bowerman, one of the great track coaches of all, advocated holding your breath for the entire 100 yards or 100 meters. I don't buy that.

I know. I was there. I am old :)

I mention it only because I read and hear weight-training advocates talking about categories of exercise in which they have little knowledge.

And posters who "knock" ideas simply because Jones, Darden, Mentzer, McDuff. etc. say it's so ... or isn't.

For example, if you sit there and believe SuperSlow is superior to any other training routine just because someone tells you it's so makes you a puppet.

All these "50-cent" words like protocol and modality are silly and self important. Use plain English, for crying out loud those of you in the fitness industry.

For others, listen, read, reason and think for yourself.

Regards,
Tony

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

southbeach wrote:
Clarence says we need BOTH strength and aerobic training and he says he has proof.

http://www.cbass.com/...art.htm


The truth is most of exercise, aerobics, weight-training, bodybuilding, etc., is as much art as it is science.

Guesses ... educated guesses perhaps, but guesses none the less.

The more I read the more I conclude that fitness professionals are engaged in an art as much as science ... just like medical doctors often are.

Nothing wrong with that. But much of exercise science is far from definitive.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy