Weight loss without cardio?

Krismiss · Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:41 pm

I was waiting to see if anyone else would mention this. Jim Karas has a new book out, and there's an exerpt on the GMA website.

It's an interesting thought-cardio improves heart and lung health, not weight loss. I'm not convinced that anyone has it exactly right. How much cardio, how much strength training, what kind is best....etc. I don't think there's a magic formula that works for everyone.

I tend to think the best thing you can do for yourself is do your best at whatever method you choose, keep trying til you get results and keep it up, change it around when it gets boring or you don't see improvement.

DarkChocolate · Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:54 pm

I have no idea what the details of this "theory" are, but I cringe whenever I hear about ANY program/theory/etc. that's MORE concerned about weight-loss than health. "Sure cardiovascular exercise makes you improves your health, but what good is that if it doesn't improve weight-loss!?" That's just ridiculous!

I do think you're right that no one has it all figured out, and that there probably isn't some "magic formula" that will work for everyone.

IMO, if you're exercising and your health is improving, weight loss should be more of a "bonus." :)

oldpjams · Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:57 pm

Of course there is a "formula." The challenge is that the "formula" is specific for you as an individual and it changes constantly. Whatever works for you today will not work for you eventually. Fitness is not static and can never be "maintained." You are losing or gaining fitness at all times...even if you do the exact same program consistently. Especially if you do the same program.

PapaBanucci · Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:59 pm

Krismiss wrote: I was waiting to see if anyone else would mention this. Jim Karas has a new book out, and there's an exerpt on the GMA website.

Saw a bit of it and did some reading on it just now...

Krismiss wrote: It's an interesting thought-cardio improves heart and lung health,

In fact, by self definition, it would! "Cardio" means heart and any activities that exercises the heart would thus be cardiovasular.

Krismiss wrote: not weight loss.

IMO, a half truth. It's a whole lot more complex than that. Saying that "cardio" "does" or "does not" "improve" weight loss is about as simplistic as saying "tomatoes" "do" or "do not" "improve" weight loss.

Yes there are exercise techniques that are arguably "more" effective than "cardio" at achieving weight loss but most all health, fitness, and nutrition gurus do indeed advocate a balanced exercise program that does include cardio/aerobic activity.

Of course one can leave cardio out and still achieve the results. Just like one could like tomatoes, or any specific food, out of the diet and still achieve the results.

There are a number of techniques.

Regardless if weight loss is the sole, exclusive goal (at the exclusion of heart health, quality of life, energy level, etc.) why not just get a tapeworm?

Krismiss wrote: I'm not convinced that anyone has it exactly right.

Indeed. And once one thinks one might, the body adapts and it is necessary to mix it up.

Krismiss wrote: How much cardio, how much strength training, what kind is best....etc.

Depends on the goal.

Krismiss wrote: I don't think there's a magic formula that works for everyone.

There's not a magic pill that works for everyone, but there are a number of principles that work for most everyone.

I personally really like Marion Nestle's 15 words...

"Eat less, move more, eat lots of fruits and vegetables, go easy on junk foods."

Krismiss wrote: I tend to think the best thing you can do for yourself is do your best at whatever method you choose, keep trying til you get results

Actually, I'm going to have to differ with you on that one.

I do not at all recommend trial-and-error as a primary strategy when it comes to an exercise program.

Over the last few years, I have studied a fair bit on exercise. And I know I have a long way to go. But... I do see many people using techniques that are high effort, high exhaustion, high risk of injury, yet with suboptimal benefit from the techniques used. There's a lot of good information on exercise available.

In life there are two primary ways to learn - experience and example. "Example" is just learning indirectly through the experiences of others. Getting a good exercise program for oneself involves a degree of both IMO. Both building on the shoulders of the folks who really know their stuff and who have done the research, as well as to adapting that to what fits one's own goals, lifestyle, and preferences.

Krismiss wrote: and keep it up,

And that would be the important one. Perhaps the most important one of all.

Krismiss wrote: change it around when it gets boring or you don't see improvement.

Yep. Possibly at month-at-a-time increments. I've seen some people say, "I lifted weights for 6 sessions in 2 weeks and I don't see any results." Of course not. It takes more than that.

Anyhow, while I do see many people doing "cardio" quite ineffectively and I certainly do know it is possible to achieve many health, fitness, and weight goals without single-activity cardio/aerobic exercise, I gotta say, Karas' eye-catching, self-marketing spin on this one runs more risk to confuse rather than to clarify.

oldpjams · Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:36 pm

An opinion from P. Chek

Most of you reading this article are indoctrinated in the philosophy that regular cardiovascular conditioning is important for your health and that such training reduces your risk of heart attack. If you do agree with this premise, you are also very likely to believe that to achieve cardiovascular conditioning, you must regularly perform cardiovascular exercises, such as running and biking or using a cardiovascular machine. But is this the case?

First, let’s look at the issue from a perspective of natural history. Our evolution into the human species from our ape ancestors is thought to have occurred some 2.8 million years ago. Spanning the duration of this vast period, it should strike you as interesting that the first reported heart attack in the U.S. occurred in 1920, only 12 years after the grain industry began hydrogenating plant and grain oils. Now, I personally find it interesting that there is such hype over cardiovascular exercise as necessary prevention for heart attack or even heart disease, when such diseases were relatively nonexistent less than 100 years ago. That’s but a flash in the pan of human evolution.

Our next logical question should be, did our ancestors regularly participate in cardiovascular exercise? Not likely. First of all, it would not be energy efficient to run around gathering berries, firewood and nuts in your target zone. Nor would it have been wise to run through the bush trying to get a workout while hunting, since any animal would hear you coming from hundreds of yards away and be long gone by the time you got there. If there was a cardiovascular stressor in our native environment, it was most likely when we had to send a messenger to a neighboring village or during times of battle, when you were either running or fighting for your life.
When you look at most sports played today, recreational activities, and work related tasks, the great majority of them place anaerobic demands on the body. Now, surely some of you grew up on a farm or have done hard labor before. When performing any intense work, you begin breathing faster and faster…in fact, you will go aerobic within a few minutes if the work efforts demand so much of your anaerobic energy systems that the demand for energy can’t be replaced by intermediate and anaerobic energy systems (fast glycolytic and aerobic).

I have many memories of bucking hay; the bails weigh 75-120 lb., yet you’ve got to keep up with the tractor as it moves through the field (no, my dad didn’t let me stop for a minute every 12 bails).

When you have thousands of bails to haul in, and will be in the field for hours at a time, you will soon find that your anaerobic stimulus (the bails) produces a demand that the purely anaerobic phosphagen system can’t maintain on it’s own (it only lasts about 8-12 seconds), resulting in ATP production by anaerobic glycolysis and aerobic metabolism respectively. By this very mechanism, our anaerobic capacity is recharged during sports such as tennis, soccer, hockey, basketball, etc., that require explosive movement for prolonged periods of time.

I use hay-bucking because it is a real-world example of how we have maintained aerobic fitness from the beginning of human evolution. If you can follow my logic here, you should be wondering why we are so encouraged to offer aerobic exercise to our patients and clients by most every medical, physical therapy, chiropractic and personal training education program that exists. It’s simple actually. It’s the very same reason we are being told that we must eat a high carbohydrate diet for energy…why doctors tell people they must take this or that drug…BIG INDUSTRY INFLUENCE.

Quite simply, there’s not much money in the manufacture and sales of dumbbells, weight plates and Olympic bars, but there are huge amounts of money to be made if you can convince the masses that aerobic exercise is necessary for disease prevention. After all, have you priced a treadmill, step mill, spin bike, rowing machine, elliptical machine or any such equipment lately? They cost anywhere from several hundred, to several thousand dollars per unit! They often have hundreds of moving parts, which wear out, break and need to be replaced. How many Olympic bars or dumbbells have you replaced lately? It is not at all unusual for a gym or rehab clinic to spend $75,000-$100,000 on cardio equipment alone, and, they will need to be replaced every few years; the same facilities often don’t spend more than $15,000-$20,000 on free weight training equipment and it can last the life of the gym. Yes, I know they spend large sums of money on fixed axis resistance training machines, but that is but another sign of industry influence and professional passivity!

When you get several large equipment manufacturers with multi-million dollar investments in the production of aerobic exercise equipment, you can rest assured there will be a comparatively large commitment to creating an aerobic exercise consciousness. The proof is all around you, in your exercise and bodybuilding magazines, trade journals, on TV infomercials, in your training manuals from most educational institutions. Who do you think sponsors the educational institutions and pays for the supportive research?

So Who Needs It?
The issue is not one of prevention of cardiovascular disease by aerobic exercise, it is an issue of getting the right kind of exercise to benefit both your physiology and meet the demands of your work and sports environment. For example, aerobic conditioning is not general. If it were, any world-class marathon runner could jump on a bike and win the Tour De France, or even the Hawaii Iron Man! Strength training is also not general; there is a very finite amount of carryover from one lift or movement pattern to the other. Otherwise, the best squatter would be the best dead lifter too.

Everyone needs to build fitness, yet for fitness (aerobic or anaerobic) to last, it must be built upon foundation health principles. Proof of this premise can be seen when world-class marathon runners (Jim Fix) and champion bodybuilders (Lou Barry, a former Mr. Australia) die of a heart attack at an early age. When we eat correctly for our metabolic type, eat high quality organic foods, eat regularly to maintain our blood sugar levels in an optimal range, get to bed at a reasonable hour and learn to manage our stressors, the addition of an exercise program of any type becomes truly therapeutic and offers disease prevention. Aerobic fitness atop the standard American diet (SAD!) of Carbohydrates, Refined sugar, Additives and Preservatives (CRAP!) will not offer resistance to disease. In fact, it may well bring it on! Why? That’s simple…because exercise is a stress and if you add more stress to an already stressed system, it will crash.

You may think this is simple, logical, straightforward stuff, but it isn’t, because again, there is BIG money involved here. I will site one of hundreds, even thousands of examples; Scripps Hospital here in San Diego recently partnered with McDonalds. So now McDonalds feeds all those sick and dying people in the hospital their SAD CRAP, while they pedal away on bikes, pump pedals on stair masters, and about every other expensive aerobic machine you can imagine!

Functional Aerobic Fitness
While exercising, all you need do is wear a heart rate monitor and determine your target heart rate zone. If you want a greater aerobic stimulus than your work or training environment is currently providing, simply shorten your rest periods. In short order, you will progressively get a greater aerobic response to the stress impinging upon the system via the activity you have chosen. If your heart rate begins to rise too high, simply take a little longer rest period or decrease the number of repetitions you are performing or the amount of time under load.

If you follow this simple guideline, you will learn to “eat, move and be healthy!” and, you will have the greatest form of prevention of heart disease you could ever have, HEALTH!

PapaBanucci · Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:36 am

oldpjams wrote: Quite simply, there’s not much money in the manufacture and sales of dumbbells, weight plates and Olympic bars, but there are huge amounts of money to be made if you can convince the masses that aerobic exercise is necessary for disease prevention. After all, have you priced a treadmill, step mill, spin bike, rowing machine, elliptical machine or any such equipment lately? They cost anywhere from several hundred, to several thousand dollars per unit! They often have hundreds of moving parts, which wear out, break and need to be replaced. How many Olympic bars or dumbbells have you replaced lately?

So sometime last year I was in the fitness store and was looking at some weights equipment. Specifically those nice, funky, "new" adjustible dumbbells that Luvs and others have.

Salesguy: "You like those?"

Me: "Yeah."

...

Me: "How much do they cost?"

Salesguy: Whatever it was.

Me: "That's a lot."

Salesguy: Some scripted something to address my price issue.

...

Salesguy: "Think you might be interested in getting them?"

Me: "Yeah, certainly."

Salesguy: :D

Me: "Just when my current weights 'wear out.'"

Salesguy: :? :evil:

Me: 8)

oldpjams · Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:02 am

That's a good story. I wish mine would wear out. I keep trying.

luvs_torun · Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:16 am

PapaBanucci wrote:
So sometime last year I was in the fitness store and was looking at some weights equipment. Specifically those nice, funky, "new" adjustible dumbbells that Luvs and others have.

I my SelectTech's! 8)

PapaBanucci · Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:00 am

Rub it in, rub it in.

At least I got a new Smith machine to replace a wobbly bench last year! And a new treadmill after Christmas.

Now, it's just black socks.

clipper24 · Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:51 pm

You can loss weight without doing any exercising. We should all see weigh loss if our calories in are less than our calories out.

However, weight is not the only determinate of health or fitness. Your blood pressure, cholesterol, body fat %, stamina, strength are just some of the other criteria.

I believe that frequent physical activity , of a high enough intensity, can help improve all the above criteria. How much; and of what type , are probably all determined by what your goal(s) are. If you want to be a body builder you would spend most of your time lifting weights; if you want to be a marathon runner you would concentrate on running.

For myself, I want to keep my blood pressure, cholesterol , and weight all within a certain range. I found that about 150 min/week of aerobic, 45 min/week of weights, and a diet of low sugar, low saturated fat, high fiber, and lean protein have helped me achieve those levels.

Marketeers know we all want easy, no effort , inexpensive solutions to our problems. Many will follow their advice; and will see short term results, but in the long run the real answers are found right here in the SBD website.

nursehoney · Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:53 am

I was going to open this topic if I couldn't find a thread on it already. I was quite intrigued with what Jim Karas had to say on GMA, and I went out and bought his book, stopping by Academy to pick up some resistance bands.

I couldn't agree more with oldpjams, (love that name!) and his comments about BIG BUCKS fueling the aerobic craze. I HATE aerobic exercise. While I agree that a brisk walk around the block a few times a week is good to help exercise your heart, it's relatively futile if your ultimate goal is weight loss. Part of the problem stems from the fact that our body is an awesome 'machine'.

If you're walking (or running, or cycling or stepping or whatever) for 30 mins a day, 3, 4, 5, however many times a week you can stand it, you'll probably lose *some* weight initially. But after a time, our body, being the awesome machine that it is, adjusts itself to that level of exercise. It's no longer a challenge to your system because your body adapts. So in order to continue losing weight, you must constantly be challenging your body. With most aerobic exercise, this means you must increase either the frequency, the length of time, the speed, or in some other way provide your body with a new challenge (increased incline, move from flat terrain to one with hills, etc.)

So you could theoretically wind up spending 90 minutes or more, up to 5 or 6 times a week, just to keep progressively challenging your body. After that, then what? 2 hours? Longer? 7 days a week? That's why I've opted for resistance training. To increase the challenge simply means adding more weight/resistance without carving out huge portions of my day. Add to that the fact that muscle burns more calories than any other tissue in the body, and continues to burn them long after the 'exercise' period is over, and for me, choosing strength training is a no-brainer. And your heart still gets a workout.

I will also say that as far as your heart goes, (as well as the rest of your body) no amount of exercise, aerobic or otherwise, will bring you fitness if you're not eating healthy, good-for-you foods. The damage done to the heart, arteries, cholesterol levels, kidneys, colon, blood pressure, blood sugar etc. by junky non-foods can't be counter-acted by exercise alone.

Sorry for such a lengthy diatribe...it's a subject I'm quite passionate about.

Warmest regards,
Honey

Love2paint4you · Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:52 am

Great discussion here! Lots to think about.

Love the dialog with the salesman :D

ftanya · Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 pm

When I went to the gym a couple of years ago, the trainer was very adament about the fact that I should only do 10 minutes on the elliptical before stretching and lifting. He said that it's important to warm up, but spending hours on a machine will not increase likelihood of losing weight as much as building muscle will...more muscle = less fat. He described it like a pacman game where once my body gets strong enough, the muscle will literally eat the fat away. He also stressed how I should not weight myself more than once a month, but that we'd do a BMI test weekly (the one where you hold a little machine and it reads your BMI).

The cardio I do now does get my heart rate up, but it's really only 15 minutes of aerobic exercise, and then moves on to includes kickboxing, power yoga and abs at the end, so it's a little of both.

Whether cardio is going to encourage weight loss or not, I enjoy a good 1/2 on the elliptical on the fat burning program. I think as long as you're doing something that you enjoy and can keep doing, you're making yourself a healthier person.[/list]

luvs_torun · Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:37 pm

I won't reiterate what jams, PB, and DarkChocolate have already said.....(as always excellent input!)

IMO...... you get out of your exercise program ..... what you put into it. :wink:

(be it good health and/or weight loss/maintenance).

There are no shortcuts......... different theories..........no shortcuts......

maltby_gardner · Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:41 pm

Same topic, different perspective.

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304--7753-0,00.html

		Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2