Strength gain and cardio

[Rowan11088]

Just curious if this is another one of those "muscle myths" or not. You always hear that gaining muscle (which in the layman's mind equals strength) is a detriment to cardio, since the new tissue requires extra blood flow and oxygen. Is this true, or even partially true? Does purely neuromuscular adaptation also figure into this?

Also, I'm sure the distinction between white fast twitch and red fast twitch muscle fiber factors in as well, since the white is used for max strength and doesn't use much blood flow or oxygen, but red fast twitch is built more through higher rep "bodybuilding" style training.

Feel free to comment on any or all of the above.

 

[Tosa]

If you gain muscle, but do no cardio then your Vo2max will go down, just because of the additional mass that you have to move and supply with blood.

However, it doesn't take much cardio to maintain your Vo2max while gaining a moderate amount of size.

As for muscle fibers:
Skeletal muscle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not to sure about the terminology of red & white fast twitch fibers. I know I've heard it before, but I prefer type I, type II a, type II b, and type II x.

 

[thailandvc]

what about if you lose weight via fat? you are in effect "carrying" less weight. Does the oxygen need of the new muscle affect overall conditioning?

 

[Tosa]

what about if you lose weight via fat? you are in effect "carrying" less weight. Does the oxygen need of the new muscle affect overall conditioning?

Are you asking what if someone gains muscle and losing fat, thus staying the same weight, how that would effect their conditioning?

I'd say the conditioning would be slightly worse, because muscle is more metabolically active than fat. But the exercise and nutrition it'd take to lose fat and gain muscle means that realistically the conditioning should improve.

 

[garyleeman2000]

^ wow do you really think a person would be conditionally worse by losing fat and replacing that mass with muscle?

yes muscle requires more resources than fat but it also will do more work for you. When you run your legs will be working less hard if you are stronger because the resistance will seem a lot lower than if you were fatter. So your heart rate should be lower because you dont need to work as hard.

This is my experience anyways.

 

[Rowan11088]

^ wow do you really think a person would be conditionally worse by losing fat and replacing that mass with muscle?

yes muscle requires more resources than fat but it also will do more work for you. When you run your legs will be working less hard if you are stronger because the resistance will seem a lot lower than if you were fatter. So your heart rate should be lower because you dont need to work as hard.

This is my experience anyways.

It really doesn't work that way, bud. Perceived exertion has nothing to do with how much oxygen is required to complete an action. That's why marathon runners are twigs, not muscled like sprinters.

If it seems like I'm answering my own question, I'm not really...the details still escape me, I'd like to hear from others.

 

[Richmond_Hrvat]

Depends on what kind of cardio you want, as well. You're not going to be running 20 miles at any respectable time if at all weighing 270lbs, no matter what kind of muscle it is. But there are plenty of top level rugby athletes who tackle, push, lift, sprint, and jog for 80 minute games non-stop weighing between 220-260lbs. That's the limit of my knowledge on the subject.

 

[garyleeman2000]

It really doesn't work that way, bud. Perceived exertion has nothing to do with how much oxygen is required to complete an action. That's why marathon runners are twigs, not muscled like sprinters.

If it seems like I'm answering my own question, I'm not really...the details still escape me, I'd like to hear from others.

I was refering to putting on muscle, in place of fat with your body mass staying the same.

Marathon runners have a very small amount of body fat.

I should have quoted Tosa in hindsight to be more clear, but what im trying to say is that if your mass doesnt change, then having lower body fat will allow you do have better cardio.

 

[Richmond_Hrvat]

No, the comment about the running being easier because you are stronger is what is fucked up. That's what doesn't work like that. If that logic were true elite powerlifters could just run everywhere instead of walk.

 

[Rowan11088]

I was refering to putting on muscle, in place of fat with your body mass staying the same.

Marathon runners have a very small amount of body fat.

I should have quoted Tosa in hindsight to be more clear, but what im trying to say is that if your mass doesnt change, then having lower body fat will allow you do have better cardio.

I'd rather hear from someone who isn't just guessing, thank you.

 

[garyleeman2000]

Dude you guys arent reading properly.

This is what Tosa said:

"Are you asking what if someone gains muscle and losing fat, thus staying the same weight, how that would effect their conditioning?

I'd say the conditioning would be slightly worse, because muscle is more metabolically active than fat. But the exercise and nutrition it'd take to lose fat and gain muscle means that realistically the conditioning should improve."

He clearly states that the person stays the same weight.

Consider two people.

Person A: 6 feet, 180 lbs 20% body fat
Person B: 6 feet, 180 lbs, 10% body fat.

do you really think Person A will be able to perform better cardiovascularly?

The key is that there is no weight gain. Muscle mass is REPLACING fat mass.

Re-read Tosas post again.

 

[Rowan11088]

I know EXACTLY what you're saying, and you're WRONG. Generally well-conditioned people have lower body fat, so it's easy to assume that someone with a lower body fat percentage will have better conditioning but that's not necessarily true. I'm not going to come out and say the opposite, as I asked this question in the first place to get some clarification, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are giving an overly simplistic answer.

 

[garyleeman2000]

obviously its possible for somebody who is fatter to have better cardio, but their potential will be lower.

Im not comparing a 6 foot, 180 lb person with a 6 foot 250 lb person.

Im saying if the mass is the same.

If athletes with higher body fat %s would be better in track events and biking and generally any cardio event, then why are these athletes so lean?

You never see a a marathon runner, or a short distance runner that is 20% body fat.

 

[garyleeman2000]

the person with better cardio will be the person who trains their cardiovascular system more effectively.

The person with a lower body fat % will have greater potential in what they can achieve.

 

[Richmond_Hrvat]

Considering that there are different types of endurance and that lower bodyfat % can be a result of sustained cardio advancement and in the end, a variable of training and diet, I don't think you are correct.

 

[grrthetree]

No, the comment about the running being easier because you are stronger is what is fucked up. That's what doesn't work like that. If that logic were true elite powerlifters could just run everywhere instead of walk.

there is a limit to what he is saying, but yes stronger legs do lead to faster paces. for instance, after the last cross country season I only did weight training. I signed up for a race about a month and a half later and a set a new PR. the stronger your legs are the farther your stride is and the more power you put in each step. that doesn't mean that marathon runners are going to have strong legs or that powerlifters will run fast. theres always a medium in between where each are beneficial to each other.

 

[garyleeman2000]

If you are going to put on 10 pounds you would be better off putting on 10 pounds of muscle instead of 10 pounds of fat.

I find it mind boggling that people actually believe that having 10 pounds of fat would be better for cardio because that 10 pounds of fat is going to require less oxygen then the 10 pounds of muscle.

Im not saying bulky muscular people have better cardio than smaller lighter less muscular people. Im talking about two people who are the same size, with one having more fat, and the other having more muscle.

Why do athletes have low body fat %?

The only way this is debatable is if you are comparing something like:

Person A: 6 feet 180 lbs - 18 lbs of fat
Person B: 6 feet 200 lbs - 18 lbs of fat

However if you are comparing:

Person A: 6 feet 180 lbs - 18 lbs of fat
Person B: 6 feet 180 lbs - 36 lbs of fat

then there is no question that people like Person A will have statistically better cardiovascular potential.

Extra fat wont help you.

 

[garyleeman2000]

there is a limit to what he is saying, but yes stronger legs do lead to faster paces. for instance, after the last cross country season I only did weight training. I signed up for a race about a month and a half later and a set a new PR. the stronger your legs are the farther your stride is and the more power you put in each step. that doesn't mean that marathon runners are going to have strong legs or that powerlifters will run fast. theres always a medium in between where each are beneficial to each other.

Is there a limit? Is there a point where my legs getting stronger wont help my cardio (assuming my mass doesnt increase)?

Im talking about if mass stays the same.

If you get stronger but increase mass then I agree you have to find the happy medium.

 

[Rowan11088]

Is there some way to limit responses in my thread to people who aren't talking out of their ass?

 

[Richmond_Hrvat]

there is a limit to what he is saying, but yes stronger legs do lead to faster paces. for instance, after the last cross country season I only did weight training. I signed up for a race about a month and a half later and a set a new PR. the stronger your legs are the farther your stride is and the more power you put in each step. that doesn't mean that marathon runners are going to have strong legs or that powerlifters will run fast. theres always a medium in between where each are beneficial to each other.

Neither one of us has science or footnotes, so I'll just say I disagree and passive aggressively embolden the part of your paragraph I believe to be truest.