Incline with pack weight VS Running for distance (2miles)

[Pwells10]

I tried looking. Didn’t see anything on it.

what is better to lose weight/build endurance?

thanks for insight

 

[*zap*]

long duration, fasted, low intensity cardio done very often.

 

[ExpectNoMercy]

Sprinters can run long distance, long distance runners can’t sprint

 

[ianpadron]

long duration, fasted, low intensity cardio done very often.

Fasted cardio is one of the stupidest fads to come into the fitness community in the past decade.

As an Exercise Science guy, I used to beat my head against the wall watching people try this shit.

First study to ever look into it:

Body composition changes associated with fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise - PMC

It has been hypothesized that performing aerobic exercise after an overnight fast accelerates the loss of body fat. The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in fat mass and fat-free mass following four weeks of volume-equated fasted ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And every single legit study conducted since concludes the same thing...no significant difference. Zero.

 

[ianpadron]

I tried looking. Didn’t see anything on it.

what is better to lose weight/build endurance?

thanks for insight

Pretty hard to make a recommendation based on those two things alone.

Intensity matters big time.

For losing weight, your diet is going to be 10x more effective than any form of exercise.

For "building endurance", you need to define endurance in your terms. Do you want to hump a 60 pound pack for 10 miles at altitude? Maintain a 6 min mile pace for 2, 5, 10 miles? Give us some more specifics and the recommendations will be a lot more helpful/applicable.

 

[P Carter]

I would say similar to above...too many variables. All things told, you’d probably be best off running several days and rucking several days. (Slowly building up to that, of course.! And stretching it to more than two miles for each...two miles is enough to get warmed up, and better than nothing, but not enough to really work the systems that need to be worked.

But at the end of the day, doing what you will consistently do over the days, weeks, months, and years is probably the most important factor of all.

 

[bozeman]

Noone has asked your age, previous exercise experience/background nor about any hereditary health issues (heart, blood pressure, etc). These would need to be answered before someone can truly provide a proper response. I will say for me, early 40's and have enjoyed running for decades, I have found a low intensity hike/ruck with a 20-40lbs pack has helped me more for hunting than anything, but that is just ME. I cringe when people take advice from a stranger on the internet just because they call themselves a trainer. YMMV. Best of luck and stay safe!!!

 

[Ozarkansas]

¿Porque no los dos? In my experience running long distances and gaining elevation with weight both build different facets of endurance, and complement each other pretty well. Running distance usually will keep your heart rate higher than just walking an incline, while walking an incline with a pack will build more muscle than just running.
Doing too much of either can make you more prone to injury if you’re not careful

 

[mtwarden]

run/hike a few days (trying to slowly build mileage) AND hit the incline w/ some weight a few days

no reason these should be mutually exclusive- do both

endurance is something that is built brick by brick, not short term- loooooong term, but it starts with the first few miles, so get started

 

[zacattack]

I came here to say do both on alternating days but I see I was beaten to the punch. Running is pretty much king for building cardio endurance but you won’t build muscle like rucking will. I run 5 miles on one day and then turn around and ruck 3 miles the next day with 50lbs. Both take me around an hour to finish.

 

[Coach Chris]

Fat loss comes from caloric deficit
Caloric deficit from diet is most effective
Additional deficit from exercise is beneficial
Strength training through progressive overload is more effective than endurance training.
Endurance training in addition to strength training is more effective than strength training alone

 

[justinspicher]

I hate running, but I love to hike. I hike every other day, mileage varies. I will generally keep my pack weight low and I am rarely over 50lbs. I like to train/work in the “green” zone.

 

[*zap*]

Fasted cardio is one of the stupidest fads to come into the fitness community in the past decade.

As an Exercise Science guy, I used to beat my head against the wall watching people try this shit.

First study to ever look into it:

Body composition changes associated with fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise - PMC

It has been hypothesized that performing aerobic exercise after an overnight fast accelerates the loss of body fat. The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in fat mass and fat-free mass following four weeks of volume-equated fasted ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And every single legit study conducted since concludes the same thing...no significant difference. Zero.

fasted cardio works very well, no study done here we just did it and talked to other who did it and the results were there when they were not before. If done correctly it is one of the best gender specific fat loss methods.

Have you done low intensity fasted cardio for 45 days straight, every day?

In addition, daily liss is probably the best base for any training program. The very good low gear achieved from low intensity training comes in handy for many, many things.......the longer your sessions and the more frequent the better of an aerobic capacity you will build.

 

[ianpadron]

fasted cardio works very well, no study done here we just did it and talked to other who did it and the results were there when they were not before. If done correctly it is one of the best gender specific fat loss methods.

Have you done low intensity fasted cardio for 45 days straight, every day?

In addition, daily liss is probably the best base for any training program. The very good low gear achieved from low intensity training comes in handy for many, many things.......the longer your sessions and the more frequent the better of an aerobic capacity you will build.

SMH

This is why people spin their wheels when trying to get into shape.

There is ZERO difference between fasted cardio and fed cardio regarding weight loss. None.

No legitimate and trusted strength and conditioning lab team has ever found one iota of a difference. Yet here we are on the internet listening to someone say "yeah but me and my friends/family lost weight while doing it".

Cool, show me the research. Anecdotal evidence has next to no application value, especially when you recommend something as superior when the data shows otherwise...

Fat loss is simple thermodynamics. Calories in vs. calories out. If you are burning more calories during the course of a day than you are consuming, you will lose weight. Timing of those calories is irrelevant.

And daily LISS as the best base for a training program and building aerobic capacity? For who? An 80 year old recovering from a broken hip?

Here's a study indicating that your stance on LISS is also incorrect. VO2 max improvements (metric used to measure aerobic capacity) are most dramatic and rapid with intense exercise, not low to moderate.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17414804/

I don't want to come across as a dick, but digging your heels in and posting up unfounded advice doesn't help anyone.

Providing evidence based training protocols for specific goals DOES.

 

[Dragonfish]

I hate running, but I love to hike. I hike every other day, mileage varies. I will generally keep my pack weight low and I am rarely over 50lbs. I like to train/work in the “green” zone.

you hit on a great point here. consistency and adherence is mandatory no matter what you do. if you hate running, good chance you won't do it. whatever you do, you have to be consistent.

 

[P Carter]

SMH

This is why people spin their wheels when trying to get into shape.

There is ZERO difference between fasted cardio and fed cardio regarding weight loss. None.

No legitimate and trusted strength and conditioning lab team has ever found one iota of a difference. Yet here we are on the internet listening to someone say "yeah but me and my friends/family lost weight while doing it".

Cool, show me the research. Anecdotal evidence has next to no application value, especially when you recommend something as superior when the data shows otherwise...

Fat loss is simple thermodynamics. Calories in vs. calories out. If you are burning more calories during the course of a day than you are consuming, you will lose weight. Timing of those calories is irrelevant.

And daily LISS as the best base for a training program and building aerobic capacity? For who? An 80 year old recovering from a broken hip?

Here's a study indicating that your stance on LISS is also incorrect. VO2 max improvements (metric used to measure aerobic capacity) are most dramatic and rapid with intense exercise, not low to moderate.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17414804/

I don't want to come across as a dick, but digging your heels in and posting up unfounded advice doesn't help anyone.

Providing evidence based training protocols for specific goals DOES.

I think the disconnect here could be that the sources upon which zap relies recommend fasted cardio as a way to increase aerobic endurance, i.e., as a way to increase/promote the use of fat as fuel. Which I believe is accurate.

I would agree with you, though, that it does not make a difference for weight loss. I've noted that folks often confuse the two by equating "fat-burning" with "weight-loss." Which is not the case even though media seem to equate the two. It's not about weight loss, or fat loss; it's about using one energy system versus another.

Of course, all other things being equal, exercising more is going to burn more calories and thus promote weight loss, and to the extent the goal of fasted cardio is to engage in long periods of exercise rather than shorter periods of exercise, there may be a correlation generally between "people who do fasted cardio" and "people who lose weight." And I doubt those that do significant amounts of fasted cardio -- endurance-based athletes -- have a lot of extra weight. So a correlation could be drawn, but the key factor would not be fasted vs. non-fasted.

If zap disagrees with what I've said, I think he's reading his sources wrong. And I believe even his sources would recommend one long fasted-cardio workout every week or two weeks, rather than every workout. But I might recall incorrectly.

On your V02 study, I think the response would be that Vo2 max is likely not the correct variable to measure when talking endurance-type fitness. In fact, I believe -- could be wrong -- that V02 max is widely seen as not a good guide to developing fitness insofar as it is tough to measure, highly dependent on body weight, and most driven by genetics rather than training. I may be wrong here, but is V02 max truly a measure of "aerobic capacity," as in aerobic fitness, as in ability to cover long distances with minimal metabolic stress? I know (or I think I know) that Vo2 Max measures the ability of your body to process oxygen, but as I understand it, the measurement comes into play during high-intensity activities rather than the lower-intensity exercise at issue here.

In any case, just trying to move the conversation along.

 

[Brendan]

Time is a factor for me. My approach: I'll take 30 minutes of HiiT 2x a week, usually max heart rate Hill Sprints to work on leg power / leg strength that translates to hunting season, and then layer in a longer 2-3 hour endurance hike with a pack on a Saturday morning, and a couple days of upper body / core weights in between. Get enough rest, eat healthy, don't overthink it.

I went from living at sea level to hunting between 10K-12.5K ft last season, and never missed a beat. Also went in as lean and in as good shape as I've ever been...

 

[ianpadron]

Time is a factor for me. My approach: I'll take 30 minutes of HiiT 2x a week, usually max heart rate Hill Sprints to work on leg power / leg strength that translates to hunting season, and then layer in a longer 2-3 hour endurance hike with a pack on a Saturday morning, and a couple days of upper body / core weights in between. Get enough rest, eat healthy, don't overthink it.

I went from living at sea level to hunting between 10K-12.5K ft last season, and never missed a beat. Also went in as lean and in as good shape as I've ever been...

bingo.

 

[ianpadron]

I think the disconnect here could be that the sources upon which zap relies recommend fasted cardio as a way to increase aerobic endurance, i.e., as a way to increase/promote the use of fat as fuel. Which I believe is accurate.

I would agree with you, though, that it does not make a difference for weight loss. I've noted that folks often confuse the two by equating "fat-burning" with "weight-loss." Which is not the case even though media seem to equate the two. It's not about weight loss, or fat loss; it's about using one energy system versus another.

Of course, all other things being equal, exercising more is going to burn more calories and thus promote weight loss, and to the extent the goal of fasted cardio is to engage in long periods of exercise rather than shorter periods of exercise, there may be a correlation generally between "people who do fasted cardio" and "people who lose weight." And I doubt those that do significant amounts of fasted cardio -- endurance-based athletes -- have a lot of extra weight. So a correlation could be drawn, but the key factor would not be fasted vs. non-fasted.

If zap disagrees with what I've said, I think he's reading his sources wrong. And I believe even his sources would recommend one long fasted-cardio workout every week or two weeks, rather than every workout. But I might recall incorrectly.

On your V02 study, I think the response would be that Vo2 max is likely not the correct variable to measure when talking endurance-type fitness. In fact, I believe -- could be wrong -- that V02 max is widely seen as not a good guide to developing fitness insofar as it is tough to measure, highly dependent on body weight, and most driven by genetics rather than training. I may be wrong here, but is V02 max truly a measure of "aerobic capacity," as in aerobic fitness, as in ability to cover long distances with minimal metabolic stress? I know (or I think I know) that Vo2 Max measures the ability of your body to process oxygen, but as I understand it, the measurement comes into play during high-intensity activities rather than the lower-intensity exercise at issue here.

In any case, just trying to move the conversation along.

Lot to digest in that one, I'll do my best to touch on everything:

Regarding fasted cardio, I'll refer you to the massive body of research showing that it is identical to fed cardio for weight loss. Not worth anyone's time to dispute that fact unless you have peer reviewed data claiming otherwise. I'm simply the messenger on that one...

Now, to your VO2 max comments, which are very good btw.

VO2 max is not only the correct variable, but arguably the ONLY variable that matters when attempting to quantify "aerobic capacity" AND "aerobic endurance", regardless of where on the incremental scale of exercise the task at hand is (walking vs running vs hiking with weight etc). It's of critical importance because it gives us an objective reading on how much Oxygen the human body is capable of moving per minute...which is quite literally the definition of aerobic capacity...

If you take an athlete who has a VO2 max in the 70s (very high), they will also perform more efficiently (lower RPE, lower HR, etc) during lower intensity aerobic exercise compared to subjects with lower VO2 maxes. Again, this has been studied.

Without going down the rabbit hole of advanced statistics, a quick analysis of covariance eliminates any significant effects of varied body mass in terms of calculating trends in VO2 max during statistical analysis of any solid peer reviewed research.

So how do we get a higher VO2 max...well, MOST of the literature points to focusing your training volume near or at your HR Max for 3-5min intervals at a 1:1 work/rest ratio...which is why I made the recommendation of HIIT style training.

THAT SAID...

You touched on the hereditary nature of VO2 max, which is likely beyond the scope of this thread but an interesting topic nonetheless...

SO, I'll link one of the craziest case studies I've ever read, and it actually DISPUTES my claim that higher intensity exercise is better for maximizing VO2 max improvements. I have a degree in Exercise Science, so I spend my downtime picking through this stuff lol. It's fundamentally important to examine the entire body of data, and what this researcher found in his work with sprint cyclists is at least worth mentioning:

How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study - SimpliFaster

For years we’ve been told that VO2 max is largely fixed, largely genetic, and largely untrainable. To the contrary, exercise physiologist and endurance sports coach Alan Couzens makes a case for the trainability of VO2 max, based on real-world experience.

simplifaster.com

He has personally seen the most dramatic jumps in VO2 max in athletes that put in most of their work volume in the 65-80% HR zones...(mind you the LISS is performed between 50 and 65% HR Max)

NOTE *The 65-80% zone meshes quite nicely with a mixed terrain weighted ruck*

I'll add a disclaimer that there is absolutely nothing wrong with LISS cardio, and it's obviously wide ranging benefits (mental and physical)...that said, to claim that it is better for weight loss, or building aerobic capacity is just flat out wrong for the vast majority of people.

In my own training program, LISS is a recovery aid and for brain maintenance. That's it.

Long winded but this is my jam, hopefully it helps a fella or two make sense of the plethora of training info floating around the internet these days!

 

[ianpadron]

Fat loss comes from caloric deficit
Caloric deficit from diet is most effective
Additional deficit from exercise is beneficial
Strength training through progressive overload is more effective than endurance training.
Endurance training in addition to strength training is more effective than strength training alone

That's about as clear and concise as it gets right there.