Comeback Workout!

[MikeW]

I'm adding to what [MENTION=20947]MikeW[/MENTION] has already said.

Weight lifting builds muscle, BUT you need cardio exercise to burn fat. That means your belly fat won't go away unless you're doing something cardio (like the running you mentioned choosing).

It's entirely possible to have an 8-pack stomach under a soft layer of fatty belly, so make sure you remember to do your cardio!

[MENTION=23908]Shawn[/MENTION] ... I finally have time to comment on [MENTION=20738]TwisttheLeaf[/MENTION]'s post. I'm not going to contradict him, I too believe cardio is important. Where we *may* disagree somewhat is whether or not it contributes significantly to fat loss.

Let me say first off that until about seven years ago (IOW, around age 61) I had no interest in anything 'athletic'. I'd grown up a slender guy... what I would now call "skinny fat" (someone who looked thin but with very little muscle and, in fact, had a relatively high body fat percentage). My young adult weight was around 165lbs. As I got older the eating habits I had as a young man (that is, eating and drinking anything I wanted) didn't change but my metabolism DID change. Consequently, I ended up gaining a LOT of weight. By the time I began working out I, at 5' 10" weighed about 250 lbs. Now I'm under 190 lbs. However, in the past five years, I've gained a lot of muscle. I'm not a huge muscle stud by any means but I'm more muscular now than I've ever been. Muscle weighs more than fat... so my guess is my *ideal* weight (somewhere closer to 10% body fat than I am now) would be around 175 lbs.

When I get interested in something I do a TON of research. I've been researching losing fat and body building for years now. What I discovered is that the truth is FAR more complicated than I could have imagined. So much depends on 1: DIET (a very complex subject in its own right); 2: GENETICS; 3: BODY TYPE (similar to genetics); and finally ENERGY EXPENDITURE (how one metabolizes food/fuel).

There are so many variables within each of those parameters that it is virtually impossible to make over-reaching statements that will be true for everyone.

That said, when it comes to "fat loss" the most important factor (aside from genetics and body type) IS DIET (not whether you do or do not do cardio, or even lift weights for that matter). It is now clearly established by science that if you want to burn fat, you HAVE to be operating in a caloric deficit. What that means is, you have to some idea how much food (calorically) you need to stay the same as you are and THEN live in a state where you consistently (over time) eat LESS than that. Thus, the truth is, unless you have a genetic pre-disposition for being "skinny" (10% body fat or under), you have to EAT LESS than what is "normal" for you... AND that means you *have* to be willing to feel hungry a lot of the time.

This is a generality. The details fill tons of already available books.

I also have to point out that there are different *kinds* of "cardio". Typically, for example, running is what is referred to as "steady state" cardio. That is, you run more or less at the same rate for a given period of time. Lets say you hit the runner's 'zone' and are going at a good clip and can stay that way for 30 minutes or so. How many calories do you believe that burns? Well, of course, it is going to vary somewhat from one individual to another. But the truth is running for a half hour at six miles per hour will burn somewhere between 350 to 575 calories. That may sound like a lot but if you consider that a plain bagel (for example) has 245 calories, it's not that much.

The bottom line here is you can NOT out run a bad diet. If you're overeating (eating in a caloric surplus), you can run for hours and still not loose fat. In fact, you're far more likely to end up putting your body into a catabolic state, thus burning muscle for fuel.

This whole, "what does the body use for fuel," question is huge. So far as I understand it now, we need to think of our bodies as fluid things. At the molecular and cellular levels, our bodies are CONSTANTLY changing, transforming -- even when, and sometimes especially when, we're asleep. It is so complex that, although our science now tells us far more than we've ever known about metabolism, there is still much that we do NOT know.

What we do now are two things: 1) The body is always using a combination of carbohydrates, fats and proteins as fuel. Understand that "using" here means not only physical activity... moving around one way or another. It means all the transformative processes going on inside the body... from thinking and feeling, sensing and perceiving (the brain uses a lot of energy) to all the chemical processes going on inside it. 2) When it comes to physical activity, the body prefers to 'burn' carbohydrates first, fats second and muscle tissue third. THUS... in any activity that we engage in for the purpose of "burning fat" we have to FIRST use up all (or most) of the carbohydrates available. The first to go are the simple carbohydrates: Alcohols and sugars; then the more complex carbohydrates. Only *then* will it begin to burn fats. But the first fats to go are the fats consumed in the diet. It's only after THEY have been used up that the body will reach into its stored fat for fuel.

I think it has been fairly well established scientifically now that so far as 'fat burning' is concerned, interval aerobics are better for this purpose than steady state cardio. Google HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) for example. Rather than running at six miles per hour for half an hour, one can burn the same amount of calories (remember, carbohydrates go first, then dietary fats, then stored fats) running as hard as one can for one minute and then at a moderate pace for one minute, then back to running very fast for one minute.... alternating this 10 to 15 times. Moreover (so far as I understand it) this is less likely to put one in a catabolic (muscle consuming) state.

The bottom line for me is "cardio" (steady-state cardio) is best thought of as a heart conditioning activity. THAT is its primary virtue, not fat burning. ALL activities, including weight lifting, also burn calories. BUT if you want your weight lifting to 'burn fat' it HAS to be performed rapidly. IOW, you get your heart rate up by moving quickly, with very little rest between sets. Twenty seconds at most. THIS builds up a lot of lactic acid in the muscles. You'll feel the 'burn' and this is exactly what you want to both burn fat and build muscle.

Finally, though, the bottom line is diet. Diet is at least 80% of the body transformation process. To build muscle you *have* to be consuming enough calories (and specifically proteins and complex carbs) to fuel and build up muscle tissue. This is why body builders speak in terms of "bulking" and "cutting" phases. They'll eat in a calorie surplus to "bulk" and then, once they've reached a certain point, will cut back their food consumption, continue to workout, but in a caloric deficit, to 'burn off' any accumulated fat. These "cycles" have to be repeated many times over a period of years.

I'm going to leave aside the TRUTH (seldom stated but true none the less) that MOST of the bodybuilders (and models and actors) we see with those amazing "cut" bodies are using Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AASs) or Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARMs) or both to build those physiques. MOST are also using some other drugs (such as T3) to "cut" -- get their body fat percentage under 10%.

I'm sure this is way more than you wanted to know but I wanted to chime in on this because it just isn't quite as simple as [MENTION=20738]TwisttheLeaf[/MENTION] has indicated. Yes, cardio has its virtues. If you're trying to build muscle, it is best done AFTER (never before) your weight lifting. Yes, it can contribute to fat loss but it can NOT out run a caloric surplus.