BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 04-08-2009, 08:55 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default Cardio and Mass Gains

Article on the main site
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 04-13-2009, 07:36 PM
swolll swolll is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 82
Default

I'm going to add back in some cardio after reading the article, but I believe I read on these forums that running wasn't a great choice due to its interference with leg recovery.
Was that in reference to long distance running, or would shorter, 30-minute runs suffice for some cardio?
If not, what forms of cardio do you recommend while gaining mass?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 04-13-2009, 09:55 PM
AllGenetix's Avatar
AllGenetix AllGenetix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 747
Default

walking 30-45 minutes
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 05-03-2009, 11:06 PM
swolll swolll is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 82
Default

what do you recommend for pre/post workout cardio nutrition for something that would get HR in the 150-160 range for 30 minutes or so?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 05-03-2009, 11:51 PM
AllGenetix's Avatar
AllGenetix AllGenetix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 747
Default

who cares, some carbs and fat if you want are fine. total cals for the day will matter more. its 30 minutes of cardio, not a marathon.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 05-04-2009, 08:32 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

For that duration cardio, it's not that big of a deal and I don't see much to worry about unless you're on zero carbs or something.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 05-06-2009, 09:41 PM
PeyZS PeyZS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,669
Default

Whats a more reliable gauge of intensity, HR or the bodyweight based estimation of calories/hr burned by machines?

According to the treadmill at the gym for example

3.7 mph walking
~10.0 incline
me at 155lbish
ends up being over 600 cal/hr

but honestly my HR is 120-125 during this entire mess, even if I do it for an hour straight

If I set things where my HR is 140-150 (which I prefer cuz its not as goddamned boring), regardless of the combination of incline/speed, I end up at 800 cal/hr easy

pretty much same story on any machine that factors in BW, and even the bikes, which don't.

Point being, by HR I would guess thats 'low intensity' but I seem to be burning up a significant amount of energy
I dunno if I'm weird or what

If it helps the few times I've taken resting HR in the AM its been well under 50, and I'm 29

Last edited by PeyZS : 05-06-2009 at 10:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 05-06-2009, 09:48 PM
PeyZS PeyZS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,669
Default

And one reason I ask...I'm trying to gauge what I actually burn

Assuming the calculators are right, and it seems like they are from experience

...even if I keep things to HR 120, 2-3 sessions a week, thats 9-1000 calories burned up (and I don't need this minimal amount to maintain at all, 4X week weights keeps me well around/over BW X 16, so it is extra)

so regardless of benefits, if I'm only running a 2-2500 cal surplus a week, that does detract from that surplus..its equivalent to only running a 1-1250 cal surplus right? Or said another way, its as if I'm just raising my maintenance even higher?

Or does the placement and restriction of intensity some how ensure that whatever surplus is going into muscle anyway will "stay there" and keep 'going there'

and surplus that goes into fat will magically get burnt up by the cardio?

(plz understand this is not a tension-style keep-me-lean-wank, its quite the opposite. I've been having trouble making/keeping gains with minimal to zero cardio even, but would like to keep some going as I enjoy it without screwing things up)

Last edited by PeyZS : 05-06-2009 at 10:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 05-07-2009, 08:29 AM
Bioteknik Bioteknik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeyZS View Post
Whats a more reliable gauge of intensity, HR or the bodyweight based estimation of calories/hr burned by machines?

According to the treadmill at the gym for example

3.7 mph walking
~10.0 incline
me at 155lbish
ends up being over 600 cal/hr

but honestly my HR is 120-125 during this entire mess, even if I do it for an hour straight

If I set things where my HR is 140-150 (which I prefer cuz its not as goddamned boring), regardless of the combination of incline/speed, I end up at 800 cal/hr easy

pretty much same story on any machine that factors in BW, and even the bikes, which don't.

Point being, by HR I would guess thats 'low intensity' but I seem to be burning up a significant amount of energy
I dunno if I'm weird or what

If it helps the few times I've taken resting HR in the AM its been well under 50, and I'm 29

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the cal numbers your'e getting are high.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 05-07-2009, 09:18 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

I dunno, 10% incline is going to increase calorie burn quite a bit I think, although I couldn't put numbers to it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.