is it possible to bulk AND tone my abs simultaneously?
- Thread starter sexanoe
- Start date
Short answer - Yes. But....(someone else can answer coz i surely can't)
My opinion-if you have super skinny arms and legs, then you need to add muscle not worry about whether you have some fat around your midsection.
Go to Testosterone Nation search for the Carb Cycling Codex
As long as you eat extremely clean, you can put on muscle w/o gaining much fat at all. You have to make sure you are getting enough calories though to pack on the weight. Do cardio a couple times a week for about 45 min to an hour at a slow pace. The longer and slower you go the more likely you are to burn fat and not muscle. Another good cardio exercise that will help you out is staduim steps, b/c they will help grow your legs while getting your cardio in. My .2cents
Erm...sorry but that's completely wrong, in fact the opposite is true, lengthly cardio will limit muscle gain or worse still cause muscle atrophy. If you want to get the benifits of cardio without muscle loss look into HIIT.
And remember, muscle burns a hell of a lot of calories so if you want to lose fat then build muscle (your engine)
Last edited:
I just saw this on another thread too, can you stop telling people this! There's probably a reason your name's Slim, I doubt you have the first clue about gaining muscle.
Last edited:
Heart Rate Training Zones
.
The Energy Efficient or Recovery Zone - 60% to 70%
Training within this zone develops basic endurance and aerobic capacity. All easy recovery running should be completed at a maximum of 70%. Another advantage to running in this zone is that while you are happily fat burning you may lose weight and you will be allowing your muscles to re-energise with glycogen, which has been expended during those faster paced workouts. Check out the Fat burning zone page.
The Aerobic Zone - 70% to 80%
Training in this zone will develop your cardiovascular system. The body's ability to transport oxygen to, and carbon dioxide away from, the working muscles can be developed and improved. As you become fitter and stronger from training in this zone it will be possible to run some of your long weekend runs at up to 75%, so getting the benefits of some fat burning and improved aerobic capacity.
The Anaerobic Zone - 80% to 90%
Training in this zone will develop your lactic acid system. In this zone, your individual anaerobic threshold is found - sometimes referred to the point of deflection (POD). During these heart rates, the amount of fat being utilised as the main source of energy is greatly reduced and glycogen stored in the muscle is predominantly used. One of the by-products of burning this glycogen is lactic acid. There is a point at which the body can no longer remove the lactic acid from the working muscles quickly enough. This is your anaerobic threshold or POD. Through the correct training, it is possible to delay the POD by being able to increase your ability to deal with the lactic acid for a longer period of time or by pushing the POD higher.
The Red Line Zone 90% to 100%
Training in this zone will only be possible for short periods. It effectively trains your fast twitch muscle fibres and helps to develop speed. This zone is reserved for interval running and only the very fit are able to train effectively within this zone.
.
The Energy Efficient or Recovery Zone - 60% to 70%
Training within this zone develops basic endurance and aerobic capacity. All easy recovery running should be completed at a maximum of 70%. Another advantage to running in this zone is that while you are happily fat burning you may lose weight and you will be allowing your muscles to re-energise with glycogen, which has been expended during those faster paced workouts. Check out the Fat burning zone page.
The Aerobic Zone - 70% to 80%
Training in this zone will develop your cardiovascular system. The body's ability to transport oxygen to, and carbon dioxide away from, the working muscles can be developed and improved. As you become fitter and stronger from training in this zone it will be possible to run some of your long weekend runs at up to 75%, so getting the benefits of some fat burning and improved aerobic capacity.
The Anaerobic Zone - 80% to 90%
Training in this zone will develop your lactic acid system. In this zone, your individual anaerobic threshold is found - sometimes referred to the point of deflection (POD). During these heart rates, the amount of fat being utilised as the main source of energy is greatly reduced and glycogen stored in the muscle is predominantly used. One of the by-products of burning this glycogen is lactic acid. There is a point at which the body can no longer remove the lactic acid from the working muscles quickly enough. This is your anaerobic threshold or POD. Through the correct training, it is possible to delay the POD by being able to increase your ability to deal with the lactic acid for a longer period of time or by pushing the POD higher.
The Red Line Zone 90% to 100%
Training in this zone will only be possible for short periods. It effectively trains your fast twitch muscle fibres and helps to develop speed. This zone is reserved for interval running and only the very fit are able to train effectively within this zone.
If I -
- burned 200calorie's HIIT, but all glycogen no fat during exercise
versus
- 200calorie's from fat during cardio
Then there are no 'extra' calorie's burned in EPOC phase 1. glycogen replacement because i'm simply delaying the use of my fat from during the exercise, until after it.
The only 'extra' potential is 2,3,4 i.e. muscle repair and growth, mostly of fast twitch fibre's.
I believe this is bit of a widespread misunderstanding being spread about HIIT, the only added benefit in terms of fat loss is the potential for muscle growth and resources used in muscle repair, not the fact it delays burning of fat until after exercise.
To be honest, you won't burn as many fat calorie's doing HIIT as cardio in most cases. A 20minute HIIT will burn around 200-300 calorie's if done intensely. Whereas a 40minute cardio will burn around 600-700.
The hope is though that HIIT will cause muscle reapair/growth which increases metabolism, burns exra calorie's above cardio - just as per weight training.
That is definitely true, and anyone new to HIIT should get that effect for the first few months, but then it will slow down. That assumes you EAT ENOUGH and REST ENOUGH to allow muscle growth, which from what I see, most people aren't.
So why do studies show HIIT burning more fat?
There's only a couple of studies, and the methods and results in detail don't show that infact. The main point was HIIT is more TIME efficient i.e. your burning fat faster, but not necessarily more of it, this will come out later as papers are peer reviewed more.
Also most studies are only measuring this 'initial effect', when the quick gains are made.
I'm not saying HIIT is no good, I'm just pointing out people are misunderstanding and hyping these studies and EPOC way beyond what the results show.
also if you look at the studies by tremblay and tabata it is HIIT versus low ss-cardio not moderate or high ss-cardio.
if they had used high ss-cardio i think you will find the results different.
I know from myself, HIIT does work for fat loss, but cardio works just as well if not better if done intensely( not low intensity as per HIIT studies).
Edit: just wanted to add, that weight training is the ultimate HIIT !! doing 20reps on the squat at say 60% max weight versus sprinting is basically the same in terms of physiology. There is an important difference though to do with speed of movement.
- burned 200calorie's HIIT, but all glycogen no fat during exercise
versus
- 200calorie's from fat during cardio
Then there are no 'extra' calorie's burned in EPOC phase 1. glycogen replacement because i'm simply delaying the use of my fat from during the exercise, until after it.
The only 'extra' potential is 2,3,4 i.e. muscle repair and growth, mostly of fast twitch fibre's.
I believe this is bit of a widespread misunderstanding being spread about HIIT, the only added benefit in terms of fat loss is the potential for muscle growth and resources used in muscle repair, not the fact it delays burning of fat until after exercise.
To be honest, you won't burn as many fat calorie's doing HIIT as cardio in most cases. A 20minute HIIT will burn around 200-300 calorie's if done intensely. Whereas a 40minute cardio will burn around 600-700.
The hope is though that HIIT will cause muscle reapair/growth which increases metabolism, burns exra calorie's above cardio - just as per weight training.
That is definitely true, and anyone new to HIIT should get that effect for the first few months, but then it will slow down. That assumes you EAT ENOUGH and REST ENOUGH to allow muscle growth, which from what I see, most people aren't.
So why do studies show HIIT burning more fat?
There's only a couple of studies, and the methods and results in detail don't show that infact. The main point was HIIT is more TIME efficient i.e. your burning fat faster, but not necessarily more of it, this will come out later as papers are peer reviewed more.
Also most studies are only measuring this 'initial effect', when the quick gains are made.
I'm not saying HIIT is no good, I'm just pointing out people are misunderstanding and hyping these studies and EPOC way beyond what the results show.
also if you look at the studies by tremblay and tabata it is HIIT versus low ss-cardio not moderate or high ss-cardio.
if they had used high ss-cardio i think you will find the results different.
I know from myself, HIIT does work for fat loss, but cardio works just as well if not better if done intensely( not low intensity as per HIIT studies).
Edit: just wanted to add, that weight training is the ultimate HIIT !! doing 20reps on the squat at say 60% max weight versus sprinting is basically the same in terms of physiology. There is an important difference though to do with speed of movement.
So, you're saying that if this guy runs " for about 45 min to an hour at a slow pace " this " lengthly cardio will limit muscle gain or worse still cause muscle atrophy ".That 45 minute ' slow ' run may be fuelled by as much as 60% fat and only 40% glycogen, whereas the HIIT might be fulled by as much as 95% glycogen and 5% fat during work intervals and closer to 75 % +/- glycogen during recovery intervals.
Assuming your glycogen stores are topped up in both cases, are you saying if you run at a slow pace for 45 minutes and burn 300 calories and do 30 minutes of HIIT and burn 300 calories, that there is a greater risk your body will break down protein ( i.e amino acids / muscle tissue ) to create glycogen for energy during the 45 run ?
Why is that ? What is it about a slow 45 minute run that greatly increases the liklihood protein will be synthesized to glycogen for energy vs HIIT ?
Last edited:
If I understand the Tremblay study correctly, the steady state cardio group burned 2X as many calories - while actually exercising - as the HIIT group that they compared them to.
And, once they accounted for those differences in the amount burned during exercise, they found that for every calorie burned while exercising, the HIIT group ended up with more fat loss per calorie expended than the steady state cardio group.
In fact, the HIIT group had a fat loss 9 X greater than the steady state cardio group.
That's why " studies show HIIT burning more fat " IMO.
I wouldn't say " weight training is the ultimate HIIT " - it is simply a form of anaerobic training of varying intensity levels ( i.e moderate to high ) and doesn't follow any sort of strict interval protocol.
okay.. if you calories from fat or just carbs and **** you have eaten during exercise doesnt matter. If you eat 2500 cals a day, your maintence is 2500. You do cardio burning 500 cals of fat per day, you end up with a 500 cal deflict. If you do cardio burning 500 cals of carbs and **** you have been eating during the day, you have a 500 cal deflict. So what matters for fatloss is the total ammount of cals burned, aslong as its not protein and muscle its pretty much the same.
you never read this bit
also if you look at the studies by tremblay and tabata it is HIIT versus low ss-cardio not moderate or high ss-cardio.
if they had used high ss-cardio i think you will find the results different.
ss-cardio at a higher level will burn more fat,simply because you are at a higher level for longer.
Yes...I did.
Why is that needed, if the ss-cardio group was already burning 2X as many calories - while actually exercising - as the HIIT group ? If I recall correctly, the steady state group burned a total of 28,000 calories and the HIIT groups burned a total of 14,000 calories during exercise. The ss-cardio group burned twice the calories as the HIIT group yet the HIIT group had 9 times more fat loss than the ss-cardio group. The issue is the amount of total fat loss derived using one cardio protocol vs another protocol from a ' per calorie expended ' basis.
Are you suggesting it might require the moderate or high ss-cardio to burn 4x, 6x, 8X as many calories as the HIIT group in order to lose the same amount of fat overall than the HIIT group did ?
What would the results be ?
As Karky pointed out, the issue isn't the % of fat burned during exercise, it is the total calorie deficit created both during and post exercise.
When it comes to fat loss, Karky is right, the issue is total calories burned overall...not how much fat ( vs carbs ) is burned as fuel during exercise.
Last edited:
Well, first of all, as Karky mentioned, the important factor isn't whether glycogen or fat stores get used but rather the calories that get used. If the HIIT and the 45 minute run use up the same number of calories then do you think they've had the same effect?
HIIT causes EPOC (Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption) which causes your body to burn calories at a higher rate for long after the exercise has finished. The slow 45 minute cardio will do no such thing, also, with such lengthly cardio you risk your cortisol levels increasing and causing muscle atrophy.
Yes...I know.
That's why I earlier said,.... " As Karky pointed out, the issue isn't the % of fat burned during exercise, it is the total calorie deficit created....When it comes to fat loss, Karky is right, the issue is total calories burned overall...not how much fat ( vs carbs ) is burned "
Acutally, I'm curious as to - " If the HIIT and the 45 minute run use up the same number of calories " - the ' effect ' a 45 minute has on the risk of muscle loss versus 30 minutes of HIIT.
As I said before ( on the issue of both burning the same number of calories ) if you run at a slow pace for 45 minutes and burn 300 calories and do 30 minutes of HIIT and burn 300 calories, the suggestion was made, that there is a greater risk your body will break down muscle / protein running a slow pace for 45 minutes.
I know what EPOC is - but, I'm not asking about EPOC.
This is what i was curious about - why it is, a ' slow ' 45 minute run greatly increases the liklihood protein will be synthesized - i.e causing muscle atrophy - to glycogen for energy vs HIIT.
For example, if you do a ' slow ' 45 minute run it could be at a ' slow ' pace in which you may only be exerting yourself at 60% - 70% of Max HR for 45 minutes. With HIIT, the work intervals could be at 90%+++ Max HR, and the ' active ' recovery intervals may never go below 70%++ Max HR, so the bulk of your HIIT training is at a much higher ' average ' training heart rate than the 45 minute run.
Cortisol is a good point. I do understand that cortisol is released in response to ' stresses ' placed on your body. That said, I would think that over the 30 minutes in which your body is under very high stress ( as it is with HIIT ), your body would generate cortisol of at least the same amount / duration in your system ( if not more ) as a 45 minute ' slow ' run would. It just seems to me that from a Max HR point of view your body is under as much if not greater ' stress ' over 30 minutes of HIIT versus the amount of stress your body is under over a ' slow ' 45 minute run.
Are you suggesting that the ' stress ' is much greater - i.e in terms of cortisol - over a 45 minute ' slow ' run ' than 30 minutes of HIIT?
Welcome your thoughts.
I did a search on T-Nation for this as I'm about to go to the Doctors and don't have the time to put it down in words (and I'm lazy) 
Testosterone Nation - BONUS ARTICLE: Two-Day Workout
And also, why would you not be talking about EPOC after you challenged my post saying that lengthly cardio isn't the best way to lose fat while retaining muscle? EPOC is very relevant
Testosterone Nation - BONUS ARTICLE: Two-Day Workout
And also, why would you not be talking about EPOC after you challenged my post saying that lengthly cardio isn't the best way to lose fat while retaining muscle? EPOC is very relevant
to put it simply moderate to high ss-cardio also uses EPOC and seing as you are at a high hr for longer therefore you will burn more cals during and after.
i am not saying HIIT is not good its just overhyped and the more conditioned you become the less of an effect it has on you.