No cardio Workouts?
 

A few days ago I was watching a "Trainer to the Stars" trying to sell his new fitness book.
There he claimed that doing cardio exercise is totally pointless. That what you need to do is strength training only and you'll get great results.
He gave some examples, which were basically resistance band training exercises from what I remember.

Now, I am not very fond of cardio exercise myself. I do it because conventional wisdom says that a good workout routine should include both cardio and strength training. But I feel silly and uncoordinated a lot of the time...a public aerobic class would be my worst nightmare hehe.

Is there any validity to his claims? Has anyone tried a no-cardio routine? What were your results?

I haven't tried it. From everything I have read you need a combination of both and both are important for overall health and appearance.

I don't know what this would mean for weight loss - after all, you can lose weight without any exercise whatsoever by eating less calories than you burn. Cardio just helps burn the fat off faster by increasing that "calories burned" number.

That being said, more and more research is coming out that suggests that its physical cardiovascular fitness, not weight, that primarily determines health risks. So his approach seems, to me, to be a bit backward for health...he's saying you can LOSE WEIGHT but have a poorly in shape cardiovascular system, which recent research suggests won't actually make you much healthier at all.

Where can I send him my measurements from my cardio exercise plan? I think my 22" lost inches beg to differ. ;)

See, my boyfriend is in the Army and he said that you should do mostly cardio.

Sometimes I think that most of these trainers are trying to find their shtick just to sell books, whether it works or not.

I read this book... Cardio-Free Diet. And I was afraid of just giving up on my cardio, because I actually had some results on it...
He give you nice tips about strength training though...

The guy is just trying to find a niche to market his book. A quote from the book,

"Cardiovascular workouts do burn a few calories, but far fewer than you think. And the more cardio you do, the hungrier you feel. Not only does cardio fail to help you lose weight, but it kills -- it kills your time, your energy, your joints, and your motivation. You burn a few measly calories but then eat twice as many afterward. The result? Weight gain -- and lots of it."

That's alot of hype and blather.

Reviews indicate he also recommends all women eat a 1200 calorie a day until in maintenance. That's pretty harsh. Tons of cardio isn't for everyone, there are lots of different options for people to find sports that they enjoy. I'm sure his interval lifting program is great. But there is no need to pretend that cardio exercise is useless.

Oh geeze -- without reading the book it sounds like partly hype and partly misinformation! I do believe that you can get your heart rate up with resistance training, so there can be a cardio component to it. But, to paint cardio exercise as "bad" ?? Hogwash.

IMO, you need to work it all: cardio, strength, flexibility, core, balance. But, his book is just like the diet books that advocate a food group as "bad" that you need to eliminate. Carbs are Evil. Fat is evil. Eat this ONLY with that. Take my pill; drink my shakes; eat my cookies. If you just follow MY magic formula, it will magically work for you.

There is no magic formula. It's all about eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise: calories in vs. calories out. But that doesn't sell books, does it? :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, this is actually true.

With an extremely strict diet and heavy strength training, you can achieve excellent figure results.

This diet would involve a strict macro combination (ie. 1800 calories 40/30/30 protein/carbs/fat - just an example, not the real formula) with maybe one treat meal per month (within those macros - for example, a non-fat latte - yes, that strict) and consistent heavy heavy weights.

Diet and strength training are truly key.

That being said - cardio has so many health benefits that you'd be setting your body up for later failure without doing it!

Some people truly only care about the "look" and many figure competitors can be dizzy on competition day because they are extremely dehydrated for the "look".

DO CARDIO!!! Your heart will thank you!

I dunno about no cardio... It seems like intense cardio is usually what leans people out and gets the last few pounds off. Almost all of the runners I see have lean bodies.

That's what I figured. Mainly because of what Mandalinn said.
I am not willing to trade 1200 calories a day for a no cardio workout anyway. And as for the heavy weights, like I said, a lot of what he was demonstrating were resistance bands and maybe body weight, so not that extreme.
So, the tried and true way is still the way to go I guess :D

I read a lot of articles on the woes of too much steady state cardio. However, these people (who write the articles) aren't advocating some band work and sitting on your butt. They recommend you lift like your life depends on it and do some intense interval cardio. They are trying to appeal to a crowd who wants to be lean and muscular. Different trainers say different things depending on their audience. I'm convinced a lot of the "trainers to the stars" and the like are just idiots who somehow talk themselves into the spotlight.

That being said, I lost my 18 inches on mostly weight training with a little cardio. I really do not see the point of completely eliminating cardio work. Going for walks, riding a bike, swimming....those are all very healthy and fun things to do. It sounds like this guy wants people to believe they can lose weight without much work.

When he said to focus on strength training, he meant lifting really hard and heavy [edited: this was my assumption, which is apparently incorrect], which is different than the strength training most women do when they're trying to lose weight.

An intense weight lifting session can elevate your heart rate just as much as cardio, and as a bonus can increase your metabolism even when you're not working out. Cardio tends to do the opposite because doing a lot of it can lead to muscle wasting.

After I lost over 100 pounds I realized that cutting my calories so low and doing lots of cardio was only going to result in me having a smaller version of my fat body (a.k.a., the dreaded "skinny-fat") rather than a strong, tight body. So in the last few months, I've cut my cardio sessions to 30 minutes once or twice a week, and focused more on heavy weight lifting. Since doing so, I've managed to increase my calorie level from 1500-1600 to 1900-2000 and still lose weight. Of course, the losses are coming a little more slowly now (after all, I'm retaining and building muscle, rather than losing it along with the fat), but it's remarkable how much my body is tightening up. The difference is huge.

Call me a believer (in weight lifting, not necessarily the book he's selling...)

She said the guy gave examples of working with resistance bands. It doesn't sound like he was promoting heavy lifting. What is the name of this book? I believe it is a legitimate way to train, if he's talking about lifting heavy. It just didn't sound like that and I don't know who the guy is to look it up.

I agree cardio is useful but I have to wonder if he doesn't make a valid point in saying that people tend to overdo it and end up hungrier and with their energy levels depleted. I remember when cardio first became all the rage (showing my age here) and reading medical reports that stated it only took 12 minutes to get the benefits of this type of exercise. Do any of us stop at 12 minutes? Oh no. If a little is good, a lot must be better so let's try for 45 minutes to an hour. And the end result, at least in my case, is I am extremely hungry and tired on that type of program. I seem to do better with (and am more likely to stick to) a more moderate exercise program than an extreme one.

I think it's very important to communicate to people that ANY exercise is better than sitting there like a lump on the sofa, stuffing your face with chips. I think if people could embrace that idea they might slowly build their way into being more active, instead of taking an "all or nothing" approach (I'm going to do 45 minutes of cardio 5 days a week) and giving up altogether when they can't keep up.

Honestly, I've never heard of the book or the author, but I have been following some of the exercise physiology lit on which such programs are based.

I've been reading a lot about training that way too. But it didn't sound like that is what this guy is talking about. Who is the guy and what is the name of the book?

and of course, now that I want to find an article for the OP, I can't find any. maybe you have one Drina.

Yes the "no cardio" works, if done correctly with a good weight training program and diet.

Usualy I have found I end up looking alot better without doing cardio since I keep my muscle mass, but weight on the scale itself moves slower.

I enjoy running for about 25 min every few days, high intensity. I do it because it puts me in the zone mentally and keeps me clear headed.


But If I want to look the best at the end of a cutting cycle then Weight lifting only with a lower carb diet is the answer. May not be the healthiest thing ever tho

Sorry...
I had been away. I believe it's The Cardio-Free Diet by Jim Karas.
I just went to his website and found this

Heh, just started another thread on this topic.

I don't find doing a lot of cardio does anything for weight loss for me. It has other benefits, but that's not one. Weight training always leads to immediate weight loss for me (at least for the first 6 months), but cardio has almost no effect.

He isn't trying to make a "valid point" by saying that cardio is essentially useless if not harmful (which is a ridiculous statement contradicted by tons of scientific study and anecdotal evidence). He simply doesn't offer balanced, objective exercise advice. But then he's trying to sell a book -- balanced, objective exercise advice just doesn't market well. ;).

Other than that, I totally agree with your point of view. Everyone *is* different (both physiologically and emotionally). People need to be willing to experiment with various forms of exercise to find what works for them long-term (both physiologically and emotionally). No single exercise program is going to suit everyone. If a person loathes a certain type of exercise it is unlikely, in my opinion, that they are going to embrace it for very long.

Plenty of people overdo exercise programs when they start out (running and weight lifting being two I've witnessed repeatedly), usually out of innocent ignorance and imagined peer pressure (No pain, no gain!.... I'm not a *real runner* unless I go thus far, so fast!..... I should add more weight immediately!....It won't count unless I do it every single day!.....etc.). They take a very short view and attempt to make up for years of inactivity in a couple of weeks. They suffer, get injured, burn out, and quit. The "all or nothing mentality" really messes people up. It's a crying shame.

You forgot "but the schedule says that I'll be able to run 20 minutes straight five weeks from now regardless of the fact that I'm totally inactive now and at least 50 pounds overweight." It's one of my favorites, anyway.