Question:
Is it a myth that your body gets used to your form of cardio?
I don't really see how it could be true.
If you run 5 miles, you run 5 miles. Why would it make a difference how many times you do it? I could see how you could get BETTER at it, but could it really become less effective?
I really hope it's a myth because my gym only has two machines I like to use. The rest are either broken, too easy (bike. No, I don't want to do HIIT on it), or too hard (Stairclimber. I really burns my thighs, and I need to keep my muscle glycogen).
I don't really see how it could be true.
If you run 5 miles, you run 5 miles. Why would it make a difference how many times you do it? I could see how you could get BETTER at it, but could it really become less effective?
I really hope it's a myth because my gym only has two machines I like to use. The rest are either broken, too easy (bike. No, I don't want to do HIIT on it), or too hard (Stairclimber. I really burns my thighs, and I need to keep my muscle glycogen). hey dude, ive been training intensely this past year and i've found out that the body improves quickest when its got to adapt to something new. so say you didnt do weights for a good 3 weeks and then you got back into it, you'd see fast improvement the first 1 or 2 sessions.
i have to say also, that if you consistently do the same routine your muscles do adapt to that 'motion' of exercise and is ready for it the next time coming. thats why there are alot more than 1 exercise for a certain muscle. for example, i was once doing standing pulldown on a lateral pulldown machine that targets my lower back. but then a few weeks later i jumped in with some friends and did, i think its a deadlift with a machine (not barbell) and i have to say it felt strange getting into the new 'motion', yet it felt good after the session because my muscles have hardly bin used in that way before. so im guessing they got stronger.
hope it helps.
Think about this brah, was it easier for you to run 5 miles when you started, or now? It is all about the work you put into it. If you walk for a mile and do HIIT for a mile, you are going to be burning different amount of calories.
no it isnt a myth ,if it is a myth ,then u'll gain muscle mass while lifting same weights...
The body is an intelligent adapting machine..
Depends on why you are doing the cardio. If you are doing it to tighten things up, then yes you will see less results after a while.
If your goal is fat loss then a colorie burnt is a calorie burnt. For example in running it takes a certain amount of calories to move your body from one spot to another. How fit you are cannot change that it's physics. As long as your heart rate is in the right level then you should not be seeing any drop offs. If anything as you go along you should be able to burn more calories in a given amount of time since you will be in better shape and can run faster, peddle harder, etc.
Prime example of adapting to exercise is what i witnessed today.
Me and my friend did a stationary cycling session at the gym (spinning).
He is 9.7% body fat and is fit as f**k, he was one of the best at the high school fitness test. Im not as fit, and around 19% body fat.
Only difference is, i have been cycling at least 5 miles a day for about 3 weeks now, and have got really good at it.
Meanwhile he has been running a lot, he basically uses the treadmill all the time.
During the session i found it quite a bit easier than him, and afterwards he asked "do your legs hurt now?" And tbh they didnt in the least.
Now if i had to jog for 45 minutes i wouldnt be able to stand up afterwards...
I can personally attest to the fact that your body gets used to doing the same cardio. Just finished training for a marathon, which involved hours of cardio, but not only did the runs get easier and easier (therefore not as challenging) but I was getting no results until I began lifting weights a month or so ago. The body is amazing how it manages to adapt to all sorts of things - you have to keep switching it up.
The reason why you GET BETTER at it is because your body is ADAPTING to the exercise. Practice makes perfect, right? The more you do it, the less effort your body will have to put into it.
Depends on why you are doing the cardio. If you are doing it to tighten things up, then yes you will see less results after a while.
If your goal is fat loss then a colorie burnt is a calorie burnt. For example in running it takes a certain amount of calories to move your body from one spot to another. How fit you are cannot change that it's physics. As long as your heart rate is in the right level then you should not be seeing any drop offs. If anything as you go along you should be able to burn more calories in a given amount of time since you will be in better shape and can run faster, peddle harder, etc. This is not true...how fit you are does change the physics of it. I marathon runner spends less energy running 20 miles than I would running the same 20 miles and I would burn more calories doing so.
Don't forget it takes a lot more energy to move a buncha extra fat around too... not only do you become more aerobically and cardiovascularly fit, but as you lose weight it also requires much less energy to be in motion. Can't wait 'til I'm light enough to comfortably run again!
Like anything else, your body needs to progress. If you run at 5mph forever, you'll be good at running 5mph but you won't be good at anything higher or sprints right? Your heart can't tell if you're doing bicycling or treadmill. How could it? All it knows is to pump blood. Keep progressing. Would you ever bench the same weight forever? No you wouldn't because you would want to increase your bench.
This is not true...how fit you are does change the physics of it. I marathon runner spends less energy running 20 miles than I would running the same 20 miles and I would burn more calories doing so. This is not really correct.
If you and the marathon runner were the same weight, and running at the same speed, then you would both burn almost equal amounts of energy.
BUT, a marathon runner will run that marathon at a much quicker speed than you and will burn vastly more energy than you.
If you are much heavier than the marathon runner and ran at about the same speed, you would spend more energy.
but as you lose weight it also requires much less energy to be in motion. No it doesn't take less energy. If you are the same weight, it takes the same amount of energy, its just that your body is capable (after training) to burn energy at a much faster rate, so what was hard before is now easy.
Just looking at the physics behind the activity, the energy requirements are the same. However, exercise is more complicated than the basic physics. We must convert stored energy into usable forms, deal with excess heat, balance anaerobic vs. aerobic respiration and the repair demands after the exercise. So, a person who is more fit will generally burn less calories doing the same type, length and intensity of exercise as someone less fit.
Just looking at the physics behind the activity, the energy requirements are the same. However, exercise is more complicated than the basic physics. We must convert stored energy into usable forms, deal with excess heat, balance anaerobic vs. aerobic respiration and the repair demands after the exercise. So, a person who is more fit will generally burn less calories doing the same type, length and intensity of exercise as someone less fit. Exactly. from an pure energy balance it only takes something like 4 candy bars to climb Mt Everest.
Sure you are always going to burn some calories if you run 5 miles. But when you started it might have been say 120kcal/mile and now it could be as low as 80kcal/mile. Even if your weight doesn't change. You become more efficient. Most of the energy you use is not used to simply mechanically move your mass from point A to point B
One thing you can do is constantly change up the pace of your cardio. Mix slower, lower intensity, medium and higher intensity work and rotate though those variations of speed, incline, put a weight on your back etc...
I don't really see how it could be true.
If you run 5 miles, you run 5 miles. Why would it make a difference how many times you do it? I could see how you could get BETTER at it, but could it really become less effective?
I really hope it's a myth because my gym only has two machines I like to use. The rest are either broken, too easy (bike. No, I don't want to do HIIT on it), or too hard (Stairclimber. I really burns my thighs, and I need to keep my muscle glycogen). It's definitely not a myth. If your body never adapted to training, no one would ever hit plateaus.
Sadly that is true.. just increase your session duration or increase intensity a bit once things start to get easy for you, or if you've been doing the same intensity/duration for too long (6 weeks for example).
Sure you are always going to burn some calories if you run 5 miles. But when you started it might have been say 120kcal/mile and now it could be as low as 80kcal/mile. Even if your weight doesn't change. You become more efficient. Most of the energy you use is not used to simply mechanically move your mass from point A to point B I'm sorry but this is just entirely wrong. Your body does not get more 'efficient' at performing a certain exercise. This is a basic principle of exercise physiology and you can learn about it in any exercise physiology textbook.
If your weight does not change, you will burn roughly the same amount of energy doing 5 miles at the same speed as when you started training.
Lets have a quick lesson in how the muscle works and adapts to training.
The ultimate goal of burning fuel is to create ATP for muscle contraction. How quickly you can burn that fuel is the limiting factor in how quickly you can resynthesize ATP for your muscle to use. The organelles that do that are called mitochondria and reside within the muscle. They are responsible for burning fuels like carbs and fats in the presence of oxygen.
The main adaptation to cardio training, is an increase in size, number and density of the mitochondria. This increases the number of oxidative enzymes available and thereby increasing the maximum rate at which you can burn fuels. This in turn increases the maximum rate you can create ATP for muscle contraction. If you can synthesis ATP quicker, you can contract your muscles faster and harder and therefore run faster. The 'efficiency' of these reactions do not change. The thing that changes is the maximum rate at which you can burn fuels.
The human bodies metabolic efficiency is pretty much set in stone. This is because the reaction of hydrolysing ATP is set. The vast majority of humans have a metabolic efficiency of 22%. That means, 22% of the energy created by breaking the ATP molecule goes to the work you want to do, and 78% of it gets wasted as heat. This cannot, and does not, change with training.
So why does exercise seem easier after training?
Your perceived effort during exercise is related to the percentage of your maximum ability you are exercising at. After training, your maximum fuel burning ability has increased, so if you keep your intensity the same, you are running at a much lower percentage of your new maximum.
BUT you are still running at the same intensity, still burning the same amount of fuels, and thus burning the same amount of energy. You just find it easier, because it is nowhere near your max.
I don't really see how it could be true.
If you run 5 miles, you run 5 miles. Why would it make a difference how many times you do it? I could see how you could get BETTER at it, but could it really become less effective?
I really hope it's a myth because my gym only has two machines I like to use. The rest are either broken, too easy (bike. No, I don't want to do HIIT on it), or too hard (Stairclimber. I really burns my thighs, and I need to keep my muscle glycogen).
The body will adapt quickly to any form of exercise. You have to change either time or intensity, but if you do the same workout time and time over, your body will adapt, and as it becomes more efficient, the impact of the workout will be less and less.
If you run 5 miles at 10 minute per mile pace two or three times a week....for say 2 months, that workout will not have the same impact as it once had, as your body is used to the stimulus and will not respond as well as it did originally.
I'm sorry but this is just entirely wrong. Your body does not get more 'efficient' at performing a certain exercise. This is a basic principle of exercise physiology and you can learn about it in any exercise physiology textbook.
If your weight does not change, you will burn roughly the same amount of energy doing 5 miles at the same speed as when you started training.
You can pretty much ignore the rest of what he wrote after that bolded line. The fact is, most people's weight will adjust to an exercise stimulus and after a period of time, with a decrease of weight, the same repeated stimulus will only lead to plateau's in weight loss. Rarely have I heard of anyone who does a certain exercise for months on end without some modification of weight, either gain in muscle, or loss of fat, which then changes up the equation for the entire impact of that exercise at that tempo/intensity.
Also, if you are doing the same exercise over and over, and you are attempting to lose weight, and you simply aren't, then your diet needs some serious modifications.
You can pretty much ignore the rest of what he wrote after that bolded line. The fact is, most people's weight will adjust to an exercise stimulus and after a period of time, with a decrease of weight, the same repeated stimulus will only lead to plateau's in weight loss. Rarely have I heard of anyone who does a certain exercise for months on end without some modification of weight, either gain in muscle, or loss of fat, which then changes up the equation for the entire impact of that exercise at that tempo/intensity Oh geez. I was using that as a comparative tool to show that you do not get more efficient at exercise.
Of course if you lose weight, you will burn less energy, that much is obvious from what i was saying. But that doesn't mean you are getting more 'efficient' at exercise, it means you are moving less mass through space, which takes less energy.
So ElMariachi, if i'm wrong, what is your theory on how the body becomes more 'efficient'? Do you even bother to research a topic before you have your input?
Rarely have I heard of anyone who does a certain exercise for months on end without some modification of weight, either gain in muscle, or loss of fat Clearly you have never heard of athletes then. They train for fitness, yet most of them are trying to maintain a relatively stable weight.
Oh geez. I was using that as a comparative tool to show that you do not get more efficient at exercise.
Of course if you lose weight, you will burn less energy, that much is obvious from what i was saying. But that doesn't mean you are getting more 'efficient' at exercise, it means you are moving less mass through space, which takes less energy.
So ElMariachi, if i'm wrong, what is your theory on how the body becomes more efficient?
See, you are an example of someone who reads a bunch of information from a textbook, can recite it by verbatim, but yes does not completely comprehend that information themselves.
You are basically making a futile argument. I mean, I understand your point, but I prefer to talk in realistic terms, rather than theoretical terms. The average person will not maintain their weight at a constant level, it will move up and down, which of course will change the impact of any exercise.
However, even if your weight does not adjust, the body itself becomes more efficient, it responds to exercise by using less calories for the same stimulus. The body is remarkably talented at adapting, and it is very stingy when it comes to resources, attempting to use the least amount of energy possible for a given task. If you repeat that task over and over again, the body becomes more adept at using less energy to perform that task.
So essentially.....repeating the same type of exercise, at the same intensity, and the same amount of time, amounts to an exercise of futility. The body has adapted to that task, so you are delving far less into your energy stores to complete that task now, then you were say.........4 weeks before that point. The body has many outlets for improving its response to a certain task. You can use for instance that I can testify to personally, and that is the improved buffering of lactic acid in well-trained athletes.
Long distance runners have dramatically increased capacity for lactic acid buffering, which makes it a lot easier for them to deal with the rigors of exercise, which is why they constantly need to push through a new threshold to make progress, because their bodies are optimized to handle heavy exercise and unless frequently pushed, will plateau very quickly. This is just one example how the body can progress to becoming more efficient at handling tasks, independent of base metabolic rate.
See, you are an example of someone who reads a bunch of information from a textbook, can recite it by verbatim, but yes does not completely comprehend that information themselves. I must be a crap exercise physiologist then and all those years of training must have been a waste, since clearly i didn't understand basic physiology.
it responds to exercise by using less calories for the same stimulus. No it doesn't. You are wrong. But I'm sick of arguing with you.
I must be a crap exercise physiologist then and all those years of training must have been a waste, since clearly i didn't understand basic physiology.
LOL, so far I've seen a guy who has copied and pasted from a website. Credentials mean jack s%6t on this website, as I can say that I have PhD in EVERYTHING......who the hell are you to prove me wrong?
Here, have a gander at this page, you just might learn something
http://www.physicaleducation.co.uk/g...%20Fitness.htm
No it doesn't. You are wrong. But I'm sick of arguing with you. Translation-"I got nothing, I tried to fake the funk, but now I'm confused. Help my head hurts, hand me an aspirin, I need to lay down."
As a guy who has been a "physiologist for years and years"(at the age of 25 too...wow...impressive).........you clearly are not well-read on some of the main principles of sports exercise, namely progression and overload.
Here is something interesting for folks to read, from a lady with real credentials and the common sense to take full advantage of her knowledge.
Yes, I've done it before. I've performed massive amounts of long cardio sessions in an attempt to lose fat. I've chosen aerobic exercise ('cardio') instead of strength training in order to get that slim, lean look. Did it work? It worked in the beginning. There were some initial results. But actual, measurable results over time were minimal.
Sure, I'm a former high-level athlete. So I just kept blaming my lack of results on my high fitness level. I thought that maybe my body needed more challenge than I had been giving it. And it did! But that wasn't only because of my athletic ability. The body always needs a new stimulus in order to keep progressing, no matter what your fitness level. Plain and simple.
See, the human body adapts to exercise over time. Once the body adapts, it becomes more efficient. That means it burns less calories for the same activity. In order to burn more calories, one has to add more time or more intensity. With aerobic work, exercisers tend to simply add more time. That leads to three possible problems.
One, most people continue to do the same exact cardio routine week in and week out. They don't add more time or intensity. They also continue to believe that this approach is still helping them. Are any of these people seeing results? Should I inform them that they're wasting a bunch of precious time?
Two, most exercisers run out of time and simply stop progressing at a certain point. They are still dedicating large amounts of time to aerobic activity. They are still putting a lot of effort into a strategy that they believe is beneficial for fat loss (this was my approach!). But, obviously, their efforts are insufficient. An example of these people? Overweight individuals who perform marathons?
Three, some exercisers perform aerobic activity whenever they have a spare moment. Aerobic exercise is all they ever have time to do because they've progressed so far!
These are the troubles in which so many exercisers face. With a goal to shed excess fat, many men and women implement an exercising strategy that includes walking, running, aerobics, and long sessions on the cardio machines at the gym. They might include some strength training, but aerobic exercise seems to take priority. Yet, it seems that these hard-working exercisers find it more and more difficult to stay lean, get lean, or just lose fat in general. How can this be?
Why long 'cardio' may lead to fat gain?
Let's think of how the body works. When an exerciser performs a fairly intense strength training session, the body immediately responds by breaking down its muscle. Over the 24 - 48 hours after that exercise session, the body adapts to this muscle breakdown by building more muscle (and stronger muscle). This is why strength training results in increased strength and increased muscle mass over time. Not just because of the strength training itself, but because of how the body adapts after the strength training.
By this same principle, many top-notch fitness experts believe that the body adapts to aerobic exercise by storing more fat. If a cardio session primarily breaks down fat, then shouldn't the body adapt to that fat loss by storing more of it? That extra fat will ensure that the body has enough fuel for the next mega cardio session. Is this why the 'cardio junkies' make little to no progress in the fat loss department even after hours of exercise every week?!
It's time for us to really re-evaluate this 'cardio' obsession. It's time to put aside outdated methods and attempt new strategies for fat loss. Simply put, most trainers and exercisers have been going about this fat loss thing ALL WRONG. Like I mentioned earlier, I've even tried this faulty approach before. Let's determine how we can all reach our goals the right way!
Why long 'cardio' became such a popular choice for fat loss?
The cardio obsession is not unfounded. In addition to the many health benefits of aerobic, cardiovascular exercise (decreased blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels, improved blood flow and heart function, increased control of blood sugar, etc), long cardio does burn calories and it does burn fat. In fact, over the same time span, steady-state cardio burns a larger percentage of calories from fat than strength training. This is why the 'fat burning zone' was created. Target ranges of 50-70% max heart rate or even 60-80% max heart rate have been suggested because these 'zones' of low to moderate intensity were shown to burn the most fat calories.
This research data caused most exercisers and trainers to implement lots of long, steady-state aerobic exercise. Many add this type of cardio to their strength training programs as a source of extra calories burned (especially fat calories!). However, many, many people have interpreted this information by deciding that aerobic training is superior for fat loss. They believe that strength training solely grows muscle and cardio solely burns fat. This is simply not true.
Why strength training should be emphasized for fat loss instead?
Yes, the purpose of strength training is to build muscle. I won't deny that. However, muscle is the body's fat-burning equipment. It doesn't just sit around in your body all day like an annoying houseguest. Muscle burns calories 24 hours a day. Therefore, the more lean muscle you have, the higher your metabolism, and the more fat you are able to burn. (And, no, it is NOT easy to put on muscle? ladies, you won't magically turn into a bulky bodybuilder over night!)
If we focus on the exercise session itself, strength training doesn't seem to compare to cardiovascular exercise on a fat burning basis. Strength training is usually performed at a higher intensity, so it burns more carbohydrates and less fat. To most, this does not appear to be optimal for fat loss.
However, there is also a phenomenon that is coupled with strength training. Following high-intensity, anaerobic exercise, metabolism increases for an extended amount of time. This increase in metabolism causes extra calories to be burned for up to 48 hours after strength training! The higher the intensity of the strength training session, the longer the metabolism remains elevated, and the more calories burned during exercise recovery.
If we zoom out from our close perspective on what happens only during exercise, and we look at the bigger picture (what our bodies are doing over a 24-hour period), then we can clearly see that strength training causes you to burn a large amount of calories and body fat over the course of the day.
Why are so many exercisers eliminating strength training from their arsenal? Seems silly, doesn't it?
Is 'cardio' bad?...
NO! Walking, running, swimming? none of this is bad for your body. Eating a Big Mac every day for lunch is bad for your body. Aerobic exercise is 100% healthy. And long cardiovascular exercise has its place. Endurance athletes, marathoners, and those who run in 5K and 10K charity events need to train aerobically for long periods of time.
Steady-state cardio can also be used in an initial program for beginners or as a way to increase one's overall activity. Otherwise, continuous aerobic exercise as a beneficial fat-loss weapon has been greatly over-emphasized for way too long.
Let's look at the reasons why steady-state cardio can be ineffective toward our fat loss goals:
* Excess cardio can stop muscle growth or lead to a loss of muscle
* Excess cardio can speed up the muscle loss that happens w/ dieting (leading to a slower metabolism)
* Excess cardio puts extra stress on the adrenal glands, which can lead to fatigue, anxiety, depression, insomnia, frequent illness, decreased memory/concentration, & the inability to lose weight
* Excess cardio can decrease fat-burning hormones and enzymes (harder for the body to burn fat)
* Excess cardio increases the hormone cortisol? Cortisol is a major culprit of belly fat
* Performing excess cardio w/ improper walking/running/movement patterns can create injury
Kim Ball is the owner and sole trainer of Deliberate Movement in Long Beach, California. She specializes in fat loss and spends much of her focus on correcting poor nutritional habits. She holds a masters degree in both exercise physiology and nutritional sciences.
More info on fat burning/cardio adaptation.
Ultimate fat-loss formula: master the science of developing a lean, muscular body
Bill Hartman
True or false: Losing fat is 90% diet and 10% training.
False. That's actually the formula for losing weight-a very different goal.
I'll explain. Most trainers will tell you that your diet is the most important factor in your pursuit of a fat-free body. After all, you can eat 1,000 calories (think two Snickers and a Big Gulp) a lot faster than you can burn them. But that's still only half the equation. Simply cutting calories without exercising--or worse, doing the wrong type of exercise--doesn't just burn fat. It burns fat and muscle. So you'll weigh less, but your body will be weak and soft in stead of lean and hard.
The fact is, the way you train is every bit as important for fat loss as the way you eat. Unfortunately, when most guys think of exercising to lose weight, they think of aerobic activities such as jogging or cycling. And while both burn lots of calories (which is important if you have trouble sticking to a diet), when it comes to burning pure fat, aerobic exercise is about as overrated as Lindsay Lohan's acting. Here's why:
* Your body adapts to cardio. Meaning, the more you do it, the more efficient your body becomes at burning fat for fuel, causing you to burn fewer calories from your fat stores each time you exercise.
It takes longer. Because your body adapts to aerobic activity, your workouts have to last increasingly longer in order to provide the same calorie burn. This not only increases the amount of time you have to spend in the gym but also increases the odds that your body may start breaking down muscle instead of fat for fuel.
The benefits are temporary. Aerobic activity doesn't increase the amount of fat you burn after your workout. Your metabolism returns to normal shortly after stepping off the treadmill.
THE WORLD'S MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO LOSE YOUR LARD
At this point, it should come as no surprise that hitting the weights is the best way to get rid of unwanted fat. The trick, though, is knowing exactly how to train to accelerate the rate at which your body burns fat, without sacrificing any of your hard-earned muscle. The first step: Forget about training individual body parts. Instead of doing arm and shoulder days, think of your body as a single unit and try to work as many muscles as possible each session.
Studies show that the more muscle you stimulate in a workout, the greater the boost to your metabolism for the next 24-48 hours (a process known as "afterburn"). That means your body burns fat at an increased rate long after your workout is over-while you're driving to work, watching TV, or even sleeping.
OK, so you ready to start lifting? Aim for three flail-body workouts per week, resting a day between each. (Because you're working your entire body each session, you'll want to avoid lifting on back-to-back days, in order to give your muscles time to recover for your next workout.) Here are the four essential rules you must follow to ensure you get the most out of your muscles--and your fat-loss workout--every time you set foot in the gym:
1 Use free weights. Machines are designed to target individual muscle groups. This actually reduces the total amount of muscle involved in moving the weight. For instance, a leg-extension machine works one major muscle group: the quadriceps (and maybe your jaw if you grind your teeth hard enough). A free-weight squat, however, hits more than 250 muscles.
2 Stay on your feet (whenever possible). Nothing shuts off muscle like sitting or lying down. For example, a standing curl is generally better than a seated curl because your back, hip, leg, and even big-toe muscles have to work just to keep you standing.
3 Do compound exercises. Always opt for exercises that force you to move at more than one joint--the squat (hip and knee joints), bench press (shoulder and elbow joints), and rows (shoulder and elbow joints) are all excellent examples. These "big" lifts require a tremendous amount of energy, stimulating the release of muscle-building and fat-burning hormones and accelerating your results.
4 Go heavy. Conventional wisdom used to suggest that high-rep, light-weight workouts were the best way to lose fat and increase muscle definition. But in reality, low-rep, heavy-weight workouts burn more calories. More important, they also work more muscles, increasing your "afterburn" once you leave the gym. (Low-rep, heavy-weight workouts also have a much greater protective effect on your muscle, preventing it from being used for energy and ensuring that your weight loss comes purely from fat.)
The bottom line when lifting to lose fat: Stick to 5-12 reps, using the heaviest weight that allows you to complete each rep with good form. Perform 3-5 sets of 4-6 exercises per workout. (If you do four exercises, do more sets per exercise; if you do six exercises, perform fewer sets.)
Alright, i'll take one more bite.
I can bring up random websites to back my story too:
http://www.medicdirectsport.com/athl...?step=4&pid=63
And even research!
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1.2002.03623.x
This is what universities in Australia and the USA are teaching future physiologists... oh oh's! You better tell them it's all wrong.
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article...endurance.html
http://physiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/r...9/runcycle.cfm
http://www.lcsc.edu/mcollins/Exercis...daptations.htm
Erm, ofcourse you get more efficient at an exercise!
My main sport is cycling and the difference is in technique: lots of cycling learned me to :
keep a steady and swift cadance
and the number one reason: a smooth all round pedal cycle
With the clipless pedals you can pull your pedals as they go up as well as the normal "down" stroke of the pedal. By repositioning your knees you can keep the pedal cycle smooth at high rotation levels and keep exerting as much force as possible. After a while of actively watching that form you start doing it on autopilot.
Same goes for running.
This is the reason that 7 times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong did relatively poor on the NY marathon, lack of effecient energy conserving technique when running.
Some specialisation does play a role in it. Appart from some minor adjustments in your musculature to compensate for the load you put on them for that particular sport there is as far as I'm concerned no physiological difference or adaptation. Whether it's rowing or cycling or running, the cardiovascular system responds in equal terms.
Just my opinion though.
I don't really see how it could be true.
If you run 5 miles, you run 5 miles. Why would it make a difference how many times you do it? I could see how you could get BETTER at it, but could it really become less effective?
I really hope it's a myth because my gym only has two machines I like to use. The rest are either broken, too easy (bike. No, I don't want to do HIIT on it), or too hard (Stairclimber. I really burns my thighs, and I need to keep my muscle glycogen).
Answer:
I don't really see how it could be true.
If you run 5 miles, you run 5 miles. Why would it make a difference how many times you do it? I could see how you could get BETTER at it, but could it really become less effective?
I really hope it's a myth because my gym only has two machines I like to use. The rest are either broken, too easy (bike. No, I don't want to do HIIT on it), or too hard (Stairclimber. I really burns my thighs, and I need to keep my muscle glycogen). hey dude, ive been training intensely this past year and i've found out that the body improves quickest when its got to adapt to something new. so say you didnt do weights for a good 3 weeks and then you got back into it, you'd see fast improvement the first 1 or 2 sessions.
i have to say also, that if you consistently do the same routine your muscles do adapt to that 'motion' of exercise and is ready for it the next time coming. thats why there are alot more than 1 exercise for a certain muscle. for example, i was once doing standing pulldown on a lateral pulldown machine that targets my lower back. but then a few weeks later i jumped in with some friends and did, i think its a deadlift with a machine (not barbell) and i have to say it felt strange getting into the new 'motion', yet it felt good after the session because my muscles have hardly bin used in that way before. so im guessing they got stronger.
hope it helps.
Answer:
Think about this brah, was it easier for you to run 5 miles when you started, or now? It is all about the work you put into it. If you walk for a mile and do HIIT for a mile, you are going to be burning different amount of calories.
Answer:
no it isnt a myth ,if it is a myth ,then u'll gain muscle mass while lifting same weights...
The body is an intelligent adapting machine..
Answer:
Depends on why you are doing the cardio. If you are doing it to tighten things up, then yes you will see less results after a while.
If your goal is fat loss then a colorie burnt is a calorie burnt. For example in running it takes a certain amount of calories to move your body from one spot to another. How fit you are cannot change that it's physics. As long as your heart rate is in the right level then you should not be seeing any drop offs. If anything as you go along you should be able to burn more calories in a given amount of time since you will be in better shape and can run faster, peddle harder, etc.
Answer:
Prime example of adapting to exercise is what i witnessed today.
Me and my friend did a stationary cycling session at the gym (spinning).
He is 9.7% body fat and is fit as f**k, he was one of the best at the high school fitness test. Im not as fit, and around 19% body fat.
Only difference is, i have been cycling at least 5 miles a day for about 3 weeks now, and have got really good at it.
Meanwhile he has been running a lot, he basically uses the treadmill all the time.
During the session i found it quite a bit easier than him, and afterwards he asked "do your legs hurt now?" And tbh they didnt in the least.
Now if i had to jog for 45 minutes i wouldnt be able to stand up afterwards...
Answer:
I can personally attest to the fact that your body gets used to doing the same cardio. Just finished training for a marathon, which involved hours of cardio, but not only did the runs get easier and easier (therefore not as challenging) but I was getting no results until I began lifting weights a month or so ago. The body is amazing how it manages to adapt to all sorts of things - you have to keep switching it up.
Answer:
The reason why you GET BETTER at it is because your body is ADAPTING to the exercise. Practice makes perfect, right? The more you do it, the less effort your body will have to put into it.
Answer:
Depends on why you are doing the cardio. If you are doing it to tighten things up, then yes you will see less results after a while.
If your goal is fat loss then a colorie burnt is a calorie burnt. For example in running it takes a certain amount of calories to move your body from one spot to another. How fit you are cannot change that it's physics. As long as your heart rate is in the right level then you should not be seeing any drop offs. If anything as you go along you should be able to burn more calories in a given amount of time since you will be in better shape and can run faster, peddle harder, etc. This is not true...how fit you are does change the physics of it. I marathon runner spends less energy running 20 miles than I would running the same 20 miles and I would burn more calories doing so.
Answer:
Don't forget it takes a lot more energy to move a buncha extra fat around too... not only do you become more aerobically and cardiovascularly fit, but as you lose weight it also requires much less energy to be in motion. Can't wait 'til I'm light enough to comfortably run again!
Answer:
Like anything else, your body needs to progress. If you run at 5mph forever, you'll be good at running 5mph but you won't be good at anything higher or sprints right? Your heart can't tell if you're doing bicycling or treadmill. How could it? All it knows is to pump blood. Keep progressing. Would you ever bench the same weight forever? No you wouldn't because you would want to increase your bench.
Answer:
This is not true...how fit you are does change the physics of it. I marathon runner spends less energy running 20 miles than I would running the same 20 miles and I would burn more calories doing so. This is not really correct.
If you and the marathon runner were the same weight, and running at the same speed, then you would both burn almost equal amounts of energy.
BUT, a marathon runner will run that marathon at a much quicker speed than you and will burn vastly more energy than you.
If you are much heavier than the marathon runner and ran at about the same speed, you would spend more energy.
but as you lose weight it also requires much less energy to be in motion. No it doesn't take less energy. If you are the same weight, it takes the same amount of energy, its just that your body is capable (after training) to burn energy at a much faster rate, so what was hard before is now easy.
Answer:
Just looking at the physics behind the activity, the energy requirements are the same. However, exercise is more complicated than the basic physics. We must convert stored energy into usable forms, deal with excess heat, balance anaerobic vs. aerobic respiration and the repair demands after the exercise. So, a person who is more fit will generally burn less calories doing the same type, length and intensity of exercise as someone less fit.
Answer:
Just looking at the physics behind the activity, the energy requirements are the same. However, exercise is more complicated than the basic physics. We must convert stored energy into usable forms, deal with excess heat, balance anaerobic vs. aerobic respiration and the repair demands after the exercise. So, a person who is more fit will generally burn less calories doing the same type, length and intensity of exercise as someone less fit. Exactly. from an pure energy balance it only takes something like 4 candy bars to climb Mt Everest.
Sure you are always going to burn some calories if you run 5 miles. But when you started it might have been say 120kcal/mile and now it could be as low as 80kcal/mile. Even if your weight doesn't change. You become more efficient. Most of the energy you use is not used to simply mechanically move your mass from point A to point B
One thing you can do is constantly change up the pace of your cardio. Mix slower, lower intensity, medium and higher intensity work and rotate though those variations of speed, incline, put a weight on your back etc...
Answer:
I don't really see how it could be true.
If you run 5 miles, you run 5 miles. Why would it make a difference how many times you do it? I could see how you could get BETTER at it, but could it really become less effective?
I really hope it's a myth because my gym only has two machines I like to use. The rest are either broken, too easy (bike. No, I don't want to do HIIT on it), or too hard (Stairclimber. I really burns my thighs, and I need to keep my muscle glycogen). It's definitely not a myth. If your body never adapted to training, no one would ever hit plateaus.
Answer:
Sadly that is true.. just increase your session duration or increase intensity a bit once things start to get easy for you, or if you've been doing the same intensity/duration for too long (6 weeks for example).
Answer:
Sure you are always going to burn some calories if you run 5 miles. But when you started it might have been say 120kcal/mile and now it could be as low as 80kcal/mile. Even if your weight doesn't change. You become more efficient. Most of the energy you use is not used to simply mechanically move your mass from point A to point B I'm sorry but this is just entirely wrong. Your body does not get more 'efficient' at performing a certain exercise. This is a basic principle of exercise physiology and you can learn about it in any exercise physiology textbook.
If your weight does not change, you will burn roughly the same amount of energy doing 5 miles at the same speed as when you started training.
Lets have a quick lesson in how the muscle works and adapts to training.
The ultimate goal of burning fuel is to create ATP for muscle contraction. How quickly you can burn that fuel is the limiting factor in how quickly you can resynthesize ATP for your muscle to use. The organelles that do that are called mitochondria and reside within the muscle. They are responsible for burning fuels like carbs and fats in the presence of oxygen.
The main adaptation to cardio training, is an increase in size, number and density of the mitochondria. This increases the number of oxidative enzymes available and thereby increasing the maximum rate at which you can burn fuels. This in turn increases the maximum rate you can create ATP for muscle contraction. If you can synthesis ATP quicker, you can contract your muscles faster and harder and therefore run faster. The 'efficiency' of these reactions do not change. The thing that changes is the maximum rate at which you can burn fuels.
The human bodies metabolic efficiency is pretty much set in stone. This is because the reaction of hydrolysing ATP is set. The vast majority of humans have a metabolic efficiency of 22%. That means, 22% of the energy created by breaking the ATP molecule goes to the work you want to do, and 78% of it gets wasted as heat. This cannot, and does not, change with training.
So why does exercise seem easier after training?
Your perceived effort during exercise is related to the percentage of your maximum ability you are exercising at. After training, your maximum fuel burning ability has increased, so if you keep your intensity the same, you are running at a much lower percentage of your new maximum.
BUT you are still running at the same intensity, still burning the same amount of fuels, and thus burning the same amount of energy. You just find it easier, because it is nowhere near your max.
Answer:
I don't really see how it could be true.
If you run 5 miles, you run 5 miles. Why would it make a difference how many times you do it? I could see how you could get BETTER at it, but could it really become less effective?
I really hope it's a myth because my gym only has two machines I like to use. The rest are either broken, too easy (bike. No, I don't want to do HIIT on it), or too hard (Stairclimber. I really burns my thighs, and I need to keep my muscle glycogen).
The body will adapt quickly to any form of exercise. You have to change either time or intensity, but if you do the same workout time and time over, your body will adapt, and as it becomes more efficient, the impact of the workout will be less and less.
If you run 5 miles at 10 minute per mile pace two or three times a week....for say 2 months, that workout will not have the same impact as it once had, as your body is used to the stimulus and will not respond as well as it did originally.
Answer:
I'm sorry but this is just entirely wrong. Your body does not get more 'efficient' at performing a certain exercise. This is a basic principle of exercise physiology and you can learn about it in any exercise physiology textbook.
If your weight does not change, you will burn roughly the same amount of energy doing 5 miles at the same speed as when you started training.
You can pretty much ignore the rest of what he wrote after that bolded line. The fact is, most people's weight will adjust to an exercise stimulus and after a period of time, with a decrease of weight, the same repeated stimulus will only lead to plateau's in weight loss. Rarely have I heard of anyone who does a certain exercise for months on end without some modification of weight, either gain in muscle, or loss of fat, which then changes up the equation for the entire impact of that exercise at that tempo/intensity.
Also, if you are doing the same exercise over and over, and you are attempting to lose weight, and you simply aren't, then your diet needs some serious modifications.
Answer:
You can pretty much ignore the rest of what he wrote after that bolded line. The fact is, most people's weight will adjust to an exercise stimulus and after a period of time, with a decrease of weight, the same repeated stimulus will only lead to plateau's in weight loss. Rarely have I heard of anyone who does a certain exercise for months on end without some modification of weight, either gain in muscle, or loss of fat, which then changes up the equation for the entire impact of that exercise at that tempo/intensity Oh geez. I was using that as a comparative tool to show that you do not get more efficient at exercise.
Of course if you lose weight, you will burn less energy, that much is obvious from what i was saying. But that doesn't mean you are getting more 'efficient' at exercise, it means you are moving less mass through space, which takes less energy.
So ElMariachi, if i'm wrong, what is your theory on how the body becomes more 'efficient'? Do you even bother to research a topic before you have your input?
Rarely have I heard of anyone who does a certain exercise for months on end without some modification of weight, either gain in muscle, or loss of fat Clearly you have never heard of athletes then. They train for fitness, yet most of them are trying to maintain a relatively stable weight.
Answer:
Oh geez. I was using that as a comparative tool to show that you do not get more efficient at exercise.
Of course if you lose weight, you will burn less energy, that much is obvious from what i was saying. But that doesn't mean you are getting more 'efficient' at exercise, it means you are moving less mass through space, which takes less energy.
So ElMariachi, if i'm wrong, what is your theory on how the body becomes more efficient?
See, you are an example of someone who reads a bunch of information from a textbook, can recite it by verbatim, but yes does not completely comprehend that information themselves.
You are basically making a futile argument. I mean, I understand your point, but I prefer to talk in realistic terms, rather than theoretical terms. The average person will not maintain their weight at a constant level, it will move up and down, which of course will change the impact of any exercise.
However, even if your weight does not adjust, the body itself becomes more efficient, it responds to exercise by using less calories for the same stimulus. The body is remarkably talented at adapting, and it is very stingy when it comes to resources, attempting to use the least amount of energy possible for a given task. If you repeat that task over and over again, the body becomes more adept at using less energy to perform that task.
So essentially.....repeating the same type of exercise, at the same intensity, and the same amount of time, amounts to an exercise of futility. The body has adapted to that task, so you are delving far less into your energy stores to complete that task now, then you were say.........4 weeks before that point. The body has many outlets for improving its response to a certain task. You can use for instance that I can testify to personally, and that is the improved buffering of lactic acid in well-trained athletes.
Long distance runners have dramatically increased capacity for lactic acid buffering, which makes it a lot easier for them to deal with the rigors of exercise, which is why they constantly need to push through a new threshold to make progress, because their bodies are optimized to handle heavy exercise and unless frequently pushed, will plateau very quickly. This is just one example how the body can progress to becoming more efficient at handling tasks, independent of base metabolic rate.
Answer:
See, you are an example of someone who reads a bunch of information from a textbook, can recite it by verbatim, but yes does not completely comprehend that information themselves. I must be a crap exercise physiologist then and all those years of training must have been a waste, since clearly i didn't understand basic physiology.
it responds to exercise by using less calories for the same stimulus. No it doesn't. You are wrong. But I'm sick of arguing with you.
Answer:
I must be a crap exercise physiologist then and all those years of training must have been a waste, since clearly i didn't understand basic physiology.
LOL, so far I've seen a guy who has copied and pasted from a website. Credentials mean jack s%6t on this website, as I can say that I have PhD in EVERYTHING......who the hell are you to prove me wrong?
Here, have a gander at this page, you just might learn something
http://www.physicaleducation.co.uk/g...%20Fitness.htm
No it doesn't. You are wrong. But I'm sick of arguing with you. Translation-"I got nothing, I tried to fake the funk, but now I'm confused. Help my head hurts, hand me an aspirin, I need to lay down."
As a guy who has been a "physiologist for years and years"(at the age of 25 too...wow...impressive).........you clearly are not well-read on some of the main principles of sports exercise, namely progression and overload.
Answer:
Here is something interesting for folks to read, from a lady with real credentials and the common sense to take full advantage of her knowledge.
Yes, I've done it before. I've performed massive amounts of long cardio sessions in an attempt to lose fat. I've chosen aerobic exercise ('cardio') instead of strength training in order to get that slim, lean look. Did it work? It worked in the beginning. There were some initial results. But actual, measurable results over time were minimal.
Sure, I'm a former high-level athlete. So I just kept blaming my lack of results on my high fitness level. I thought that maybe my body needed more challenge than I had been giving it. And it did! But that wasn't only because of my athletic ability. The body always needs a new stimulus in order to keep progressing, no matter what your fitness level. Plain and simple.
See, the human body adapts to exercise over time. Once the body adapts, it becomes more efficient. That means it burns less calories for the same activity. In order to burn more calories, one has to add more time or more intensity. With aerobic work, exercisers tend to simply add more time. That leads to three possible problems.
One, most people continue to do the same exact cardio routine week in and week out. They don't add more time or intensity. They also continue to believe that this approach is still helping them. Are any of these people seeing results? Should I inform them that they're wasting a bunch of precious time?
Two, most exercisers run out of time and simply stop progressing at a certain point. They are still dedicating large amounts of time to aerobic activity. They are still putting a lot of effort into a strategy that they believe is beneficial for fat loss (this was my approach!). But, obviously, their efforts are insufficient. An example of these people? Overweight individuals who perform marathons?
Three, some exercisers perform aerobic activity whenever they have a spare moment. Aerobic exercise is all they ever have time to do because they've progressed so far!
These are the troubles in which so many exercisers face. With a goal to shed excess fat, many men and women implement an exercising strategy that includes walking, running, aerobics, and long sessions on the cardio machines at the gym. They might include some strength training, but aerobic exercise seems to take priority. Yet, it seems that these hard-working exercisers find it more and more difficult to stay lean, get lean, or just lose fat in general. How can this be?
Why long 'cardio' may lead to fat gain?
Let's think of how the body works. When an exerciser performs a fairly intense strength training session, the body immediately responds by breaking down its muscle. Over the 24 - 48 hours after that exercise session, the body adapts to this muscle breakdown by building more muscle (and stronger muscle). This is why strength training results in increased strength and increased muscle mass over time. Not just because of the strength training itself, but because of how the body adapts after the strength training.
By this same principle, many top-notch fitness experts believe that the body adapts to aerobic exercise by storing more fat. If a cardio session primarily breaks down fat, then shouldn't the body adapt to that fat loss by storing more of it? That extra fat will ensure that the body has enough fuel for the next mega cardio session. Is this why the 'cardio junkies' make little to no progress in the fat loss department even after hours of exercise every week?!
It's time for us to really re-evaluate this 'cardio' obsession. It's time to put aside outdated methods and attempt new strategies for fat loss. Simply put, most trainers and exercisers have been going about this fat loss thing ALL WRONG. Like I mentioned earlier, I've even tried this faulty approach before. Let's determine how we can all reach our goals the right way!
Why long 'cardio' became such a popular choice for fat loss?
The cardio obsession is not unfounded. In addition to the many health benefits of aerobic, cardiovascular exercise (decreased blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels, improved blood flow and heart function, increased control of blood sugar, etc), long cardio does burn calories and it does burn fat. In fact, over the same time span, steady-state cardio burns a larger percentage of calories from fat than strength training. This is why the 'fat burning zone' was created. Target ranges of 50-70% max heart rate or even 60-80% max heart rate have been suggested because these 'zones' of low to moderate intensity were shown to burn the most fat calories.
This research data caused most exercisers and trainers to implement lots of long, steady-state aerobic exercise. Many add this type of cardio to their strength training programs as a source of extra calories burned (especially fat calories!). However, many, many people have interpreted this information by deciding that aerobic training is superior for fat loss. They believe that strength training solely grows muscle and cardio solely burns fat. This is simply not true.
Why strength training should be emphasized for fat loss instead?
Yes, the purpose of strength training is to build muscle. I won't deny that. However, muscle is the body's fat-burning equipment. It doesn't just sit around in your body all day like an annoying houseguest. Muscle burns calories 24 hours a day. Therefore, the more lean muscle you have, the higher your metabolism, and the more fat you are able to burn. (And, no, it is NOT easy to put on muscle? ladies, you won't magically turn into a bulky bodybuilder over night!)
If we focus on the exercise session itself, strength training doesn't seem to compare to cardiovascular exercise on a fat burning basis. Strength training is usually performed at a higher intensity, so it burns more carbohydrates and less fat. To most, this does not appear to be optimal for fat loss.
However, there is also a phenomenon that is coupled with strength training. Following high-intensity, anaerobic exercise, metabolism increases for an extended amount of time. This increase in metabolism causes extra calories to be burned for up to 48 hours after strength training! The higher the intensity of the strength training session, the longer the metabolism remains elevated, and the more calories burned during exercise recovery.
If we zoom out from our close perspective on what happens only during exercise, and we look at the bigger picture (what our bodies are doing over a 24-hour period), then we can clearly see that strength training causes you to burn a large amount of calories and body fat over the course of the day.
Why are so many exercisers eliminating strength training from their arsenal? Seems silly, doesn't it?
Is 'cardio' bad?...
NO! Walking, running, swimming? none of this is bad for your body. Eating a Big Mac every day for lunch is bad for your body. Aerobic exercise is 100% healthy. And long cardiovascular exercise has its place. Endurance athletes, marathoners, and those who run in 5K and 10K charity events need to train aerobically for long periods of time.
Steady-state cardio can also be used in an initial program for beginners or as a way to increase one's overall activity. Otherwise, continuous aerobic exercise as a beneficial fat-loss weapon has been greatly over-emphasized for way too long.
Let's look at the reasons why steady-state cardio can be ineffective toward our fat loss goals:
* Excess cardio can stop muscle growth or lead to a loss of muscle
* Excess cardio can speed up the muscle loss that happens w/ dieting (leading to a slower metabolism)
* Excess cardio puts extra stress on the adrenal glands, which can lead to fatigue, anxiety, depression, insomnia, frequent illness, decreased memory/concentration, & the inability to lose weight
* Excess cardio can decrease fat-burning hormones and enzymes (harder for the body to burn fat)
* Excess cardio increases the hormone cortisol? Cortisol is a major culprit of belly fat
* Performing excess cardio w/ improper walking/running/movement patterns can create injury
Kim Ball is the owner and sole trainer of Deliberate Movement in Long Beach, California. She specializes in fat loss and spends much of her focus on correcting poor nutritional habits. She holds a masters degree in both exercise physiology and nutritional sciences.
Answer:
More info on fat burning/cardio adaptation.
Ultimate fat-loss formula: master the science of developing a lean, muscular body
Bill Hartman
True or false: Losing fat is 90% diet and 10% training.
False. That's actually the formula for losing weight-a very different goal.
I'll explain. Most trainers will tell you that your diet is the most important factor in your pursuit of a fat-free body. After all, you can eat 1,000 calories (think two Snickers and a Big Gulp) a lot faster than you can burn them. But that's still only half the equation. Simply cutting calories without exercising--or worse, doing the wrong type of exercise--doesn't just burn fat. It burns fat and muscle. So you'll weigh less, but your body will be weak and soft in stead of lean and hard.
The fact is, the way you train is every bit as important for fat loss as the way you eat. Unfortunately, when most guys think of exercising to lose weight, they think of aerobic activities such as jogging or cycling. And while both burn lots of calories (which is important if you have trouble sticking to a diet), when it comes to burning pure fat, aerobic exercise is about as overrated as Lindsay Lohan's acting. Here's why:
* Your body adapts to cardio. Meaning, the more you do it, the more efficient your body becomes at burning fat for fuel, causing you to burn fewer calories from your fat stores each time you exercise.
It takes longer. Because your body adapts to aerobic activity, your workouts have to last increasingly longer in order to provide the same calorie burn. This not only increases the amount of time you have to spend in the gym but also increases the odds that your body may start breaking down muscle instead of fat for fuel.
The benefits are temporary. Aerobic activity doesn't increase the amount of fat you burn after your workout. Your metabolism returns to normal shortly after stepping off the treadmill.
THE WORLD'S MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO LOSE YOUR LARD
At this point, it should come as no surprise that hitting the weights is the best way to get rid of unwanted fat. The trick, though, is knowing exactly how to train to accelerate the rate at which your body burns fat, without sacrificing any of your hard-earned muscle. The first step: Forget about training individual body parts. Instead of doing arm and shoulder days, think of your body as a single unit and try to work as many muscles as possible each session.
Studies show that the more muscle you stimulate in a workout, the greater the boost to your metabolism for the next 24-48 hours (a process known as "afterburn"). That means your body burns fat at an increased rate long after your workout is over-while you're driving to work, watching TV, or even sleeping.
OK, so you ready to start lifting? Aim for three flail-body workouts per week, resting a day between each. (Because you're working your entire body each session, you'll want to avoid lifting on back-to-back days, in order to give your muscles time to recover for your next workout.) Here are the four essential rules you must follow to ensure you get the most out of your muscles--and your fat-loss workout--every time you set foot in the gym:
1 Use free weights. Machines are designed to target individual muscle groups. This actually reduces the total amount of muscle involved in moving the weight. For instance, a leg-extension machine works one major muscle group: the quadriceps (and maybe your jaw if you grind your teeth hard enough). A free-weight squat, however, hits more than 250 muscles.
2 Stay on your feet (whenever possible). Nothing shuts off muscle like sitting or lying down. For example, a standing curl is generally better than a seated curl because your back, hip, leg, and even big-toe muscles have to work just to keep you standing.
3 Do compound exercises. Always opt for exercises that force you to move at more than one joint--the squat (hip and knee joints), bench press (shoulder and elbow joints), and rows (shoulder and elbow joints) are all excellent examples. These "big" lifts require a tremendous amount of energy, stimulating the release of muscle-building and fat-burning hormones and accelerating your results.
4 Go heavy. Conventional wisdom used to suggest that high-rep, light-weight workouts were the best way to lose fat and increase muscle definition. But in reality, low-rep, heavy-weight workouts burn more calories. More important, they also work more muscles, increasing your "afterburn" once you leave the gym. (Low-rep, heavy-weight workouts also have a much greater protective effect on your muscle, preventing it from being used for energy and ensuring that your weight loss comes purely from fat.)
The bottom line when lifting to lose fat: Stick to 5-12 reps, using the heaviest weight that allows you to complete each rep with good form. Perform 3-5 sets of 4-6 exercises per workout. (If you do four exercises, do more sets per exercise; if you do six exercises, perform fewer sets.)
Answer:
Alright, i'll take one more bite.
I can bring up random websites to back my story too:
http://www.medicdirectsport.com/athl...?step=4&pid=63
And even research!
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1.2002.03623.x
This is what universities in Australia and the USA are teaching future physiologists... oh oh's! You better tell them it's all wrong.
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article...endurance.html
http://physiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/r...9/runcycle.cfm
http://www.lcsc.edu/mcollins/Exercis...daptations.htm
Answer:
Erm, ofcourse you get more efficient at an exercise!
My main sport is cycling and the difference is in technique: lots of cycling learned me to :
keep a steady and swift cadance
and the number one reason: a smooth all round pedal cycle
With the clipless pedals you can pull your pedals as they go up as well as the normal "down" stroke of the pedal. By repositioning your knees you can keep the pedal cycle smooth at high rotation levels and keep exerting as much force as possible. After a while of actively watching that form you start doing it on autopilot.
Same goes for running.
This is the reason that 7 times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong did relatively poor on the NY marathon, lack of effecient energy conserving technique when running.
Some specialisation does play a role in it. Appart from some minor adjustments in your musculature to compensate for the load you put on them for that particular sport there is as far as I'm concerned no physiological difference or adaptation. Whether it's rowing or cycling or running, the cardiovascular system responds in equal terms.
Just my opinion though.