20/20-"The Cardio-Free Diet"

E

elvira444

Cathlete
Cathe, I don't know if you saw this on 20/20 this past Friday, but this man Jim Karas has a book called the "The Cardio-Free Diet" and says that we don't need cardio. He emphasizes strenghth training, he says the following: "Cardiovascular exercise kills a weight-loss plan, your internal organs, your immune system, your time and your motivation. If your true goal is to lose weight, interval strength training is the only way to go," says Karas, an ABC News correspondent, celebrity trainer and fitness expert.
I wanted to know what your opinion is of this claim. Thanks.- Pam
 
RE: 20/20-

Not Cathe here but WOW! What are Mr. Karas' qualifications to make such a claim? Everything I've ever read in my Exercise Science classes speaks to the contrary of those statements. In my opinion, it sounds really gimicky. If this were true then most people who engage in cardiovascular activities would be sick and overweight, which isn't the case. Usually if it's too good to be true, it probably is when it comes to weight loss.

I just read the article about this and it sounds like he's having his clients doing circuit workouts with compound exercises. This creates a cardio effect, which burns more calories. Here's a few quotes I found about the book:

"Exercise physiologist Richard Weil is not convinced. "I'm flabbergasted, I'm astonished at what I'm reading. I genuinely believe he's deluding people and he's leading them to believe information that is really not factual. I believe that the book is dangerous."

"Weil, director of the weight-loss program at the New York Obesity Research Center at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, says it's untrue to suggest that aerobic exercise is not effective or helpful.
That it kills your weight-loss plan is just completely contradictory to the evidence. The evidence shows that people who keep their weight off are doing 30 minutes of walking or whatever it might be. Some are doing strength training, but the majority are not," says Weil. "There's data to show that exercise improves joint strength. And people with arthritis have fewer symptoms and things like that. Your internal organs? Which internal organ is upset by exercising?" Weil asks.

Carolyn
 
RE: 20/20-

He just wants to sell books...the vast majority of people in this country don't want to work for anything. So, title a book "cardio-free diet" is an instant best-seller...imho:)
 
RE: 20/20-

I can't imagine how exercising your heart and vascular system could be a bad thing. I like to think of my cardio workouts as strength training for my heart. There is a world of good that comes from cardio work -- and I always feel better after a good cardio workout. :)

I will be interested to hear Cathe's wisdom on this.

Marla
 
RE: 20/20-

I WISH it were true!! I HATE cardio workouts with every fiber of my being:eek: (sorry Cathe:D ) so if this were true I'd know about it. Trust me, I'm always looking for something to replace cardio -- it ain't happening;)
 
RE: 20/20-

In the April 2007 issue of Fitness RX for Women, I read an article and it was stating how cardiovascular training can decrease muscle gains; but, if you balance your cardio and muscle training the amount lost is negligible, especially compared to gains to your heart and lungs- cardiovascular system. That is a quick synopsis of a detailed article. I do not have the magazine with me (I am at work), but I definitely know it was discussed in the April 2007 issue.
 
RE: 20/20-

Well,remember about 10 years ago, we heard about the "aerobic zone" where you are better off doing an hour of low intensity (i.e. reading Cosmo on the bike)than throw up your lung cardio (ala Cathe)? Obesity has gone up 400 percent since 2001! And certainly this "no pain and its fine" gimmick is nonsense......Current ethical research shows you only need 20 minutes of KILLER intervals to get results......and ya gotta WORK...but we all know that huh?

Sure wish it were true though...............
 
RE: 20/20-

I've read his book, Flip the Switch, and evidently he owns a firm, I believe, in Chicago that helps people lose weight. This is the way they do it, although I think they do a little cardio but not much. People are paying him good money to help them lose weight and if what he teaches doesn't work, he'd be out of business. I went to Amazon and read a review that someone posted for this book (Cardio Free Diet) and they said they worked with his trainers and this type of working out does take off the pounds. I enjoy cardio, tho, and I don't think I'll ever stop doing it. It's good for your heart anyway.
 
RE: 20/20-

>I've read his book, Flip the Switch, and evidently he owns a
>firm, I believe, in Chicago that helps people lose weight.
>This is the way they do it, although I think they do a little
>cardio but not much. People are paying him good money to help
>them lose weight and if what he teaches doesn't work, he'd be
>out of business. I went to Amazon and read a review that
>someone posted for this book (Cardio Free Diet) and they said
>they worked with his trainers and this type of working out
>does take off the pounds. I enjoy cardio, tho, and I don't
>think I'll ever stop doing it. It's good for your heart
>anyway.

People pay good money to keep weight loss pills/gimmicks in business as well but it doesn't lend them any credibility.

Carolyn
 
RE: 20/20-

Hello. This is an interesting topic, and I do not think it's so clear cut as to say he's wrong. (Caveat: coming from someone who's done intense "Cardio" for the past 25 years - nearly daily). In the past year, I have been doing a LOT of research into what it takes to lose body fat and be healthy. One reason that I've been on my research mission is because I have been doing cardio for so long - intense cardio, long duratin cardio, 2x-3x daily cardio, less cardio, intervals, etc... - and not getting any results in bodyfat loss. Stamina stays fairly consistent, although obviously when I'm training for a half marathon or a similar event, I become proficient in running for longer periods. (Same w/ biking).

Now, because I have some pounds to lose, and because I've been doing all this aerobic exercise without getting those results, I got frustrated. Recently, I found that I have very little adrenal gland output (low cortisol, low sex hormones) and also slighly hypo - very slighly - thyroid. In researching this issue, I re-read the likes of Diane Schwarzbein, and I also looked into some other fitness-related research, such as that done by Paul Chek. There are several -particularly in the weight training world - who stand firm that a heavy schedule of aerobic exercise (anything above a heartrate 90 bpm consecutively from several minutes upwards) is detrimental to the body, accelerates aging, and is particularly hard on women over 35, due to its effects on the hormones. Instead, many recommend a combination of weight training, flexibility training, and other "light" exercise - or what would be considered light on this board, such as walking or hiking. I find it very interesting, and also persuasive particularly in light of my personal situation.

I know a few cardio surgeons, and they say that the heart actually remains quite healthy as long as you move your body in some way each day - you don't need to do IMAX 3 twice a week, plus running 5 miles a day, for a healthy heart. In fact, that is probably worse for your heart. That's their idea.

My point is that I think there are extremes both sides, and I do believe a lot of American women have been led down this path of "the more aerobic exercise I do the better", and many have been let down.

On a side note - I went to Africa recently and the folks there stay quite healthy and lean with simple large bouts of daily physical activity. That is the way we're meant to live. So in the modern world, we could accomplish that by moving our bodies frequently in different ways, but not necessarily by going all out, every day like hamsters on a machine.
 
RE: 20/20-

He doesn't really tell the whole story and the Title guarantees an instant seller. I have been involved in a few debates on this on various boards lately and I've written in my blog about it if anyone wants to have a peep.

Cheers
Liz N
(exercise physiologist)
 
RE: 20/20-

>Hello. This is an interesting topic, and I do not think it's
>so clear cut as to say he's wrong. (Caveat: coming from
>someone who's done intense "Cardio" for the past 25 years -
>nearly daily). In the past year, I have been doing a LOT of
>research into what it takes to lose body fat and be healthy.
>One reason that I've been on my research mission is because I
>have been doing cardio for so long - intense cardio, long
>duratin cardio, 2x-3x daily cardio, less cardio, intervals,
>etc... - and not getting any results in bodyfat loss. Stamina
>stays fairly consistent, although obviously when I'm training
>for a half marathon or a similar event, I become proficient in
>running for longer periods. (Same w/ biking).
>
>Laura, the body will adapt to *any* form of exercise if you don't change things up. This applies not only to high intensity cardio, but heavy weight training and everything in between. Every peer reviewed research I have *ever* read supports the importance of cardio, high intensity and low intensity (depending on your fitness level). The body needs overload (higher intensity cardio/heavier weights/more reps), to get stronger and fitter.

It is true that if all you do is high intensity cardio, your body will adapt and your gains will slow and eventually stop. This is the case for weight training as well. The body needs both to be fit. If your looking for strengthening the heart, exercising at a moderate intensity for 60 minutes tends to provide considerable benefits in cardioprotection, while high intensity increases that benefit slightly. Low intensity cardio provides only a small, possibly no cardiprotection for the heart. I got this information from my exercise physiology book published this year.

Carolyn
 
RE: 20/20-

I am a 45 y.o. woman who always does athletic training (i.e., power stepping, running, boot camp) and I am a healthy weight with no health issues (a little post-menopausal abdominal pudge, alas).

I work in the U of Mi Preventive Cardiology (incl. cardiac rehab) and am a personal trainer with an Exercise Science degree.

We got a medical journal a couple of years ago that had an article about a specific vascular surgeon who had been an Olympic sprinter and in the '70's involved on the Olympic committee, and had noticed that long-distance runners seemed to have more health issues, incl cardiac, while sprinters did not. He theorized that anaerobic training might be healthier than endurance training, so he began doing research studies on this, testing with his own patients, and there has subsequently been a building body of studies that show that interval training can be very/more effective for many ill people. He has his patients do 5 minutes of intense cardio(for them), rest for several minutes, repeat 3 times so in 1/2 hour they get 15 minutes of intense (for them) cardio. He claims this has radically improved the health of not only patients with cardiovascular health problems but lots of other diseases as well (e.g., auto-immune diseases). The journal disappeared, so I cannot remember the physician's name or a lot of the studies that have had the same results.

I just thought I'd throw this in the mix; I know I prefer interval work outs, I have always innately found them far more interesting and how I prefer to move my body; they make me feel great and energized, powerful and strong. I have no hormone problems! I have no joint problems or organ problems or immune system problems. I have been working out athletically like this since my teens--running in the mid-70's, started weightlifting in 1979. I am told I look quite younger than my age (I don't think so, and I'm proud to be a fit 45!) and our young 20-something exercise physiologist interns tell me they hope to look "as good as" me when they're my age--so this guy's claims aren't a one-size-fits-all.

I spoke with our exercise physiologist Manager and she reiterated that there's a massive body of research and experience showing that cardiovascular exercise is necessary to strenghen the heart to reduce cardiac events--or prevent them from occuring in the first place. We do see 40+ y.o. patients who decide to start up an exercise program and start at the level they did when they were in their 20's and throw a thrombus, ending up with an MI, in the hospital, in rehab--but that's because they started at too intense a level.

Also, studies have shown that when people work with a personal trainer or start some kind of diet or fitness plan, weight loss is greater just because they're doing something--they've moved from being sedentary to moving, they're changing their diet and being more conscious of what they're eating (regardless of what plan they follow). That's why working with a personal trainer is so effective--it keeps one on task more so than when one is just trying to do it alone.
 
RE: 20/20-

Hi Carolyn, I got ya, and I know where you're coming from, and I believe that some kind of cardiovascualar activity is good. But I don't think this is the last word on the subject. For instance, I don't think that doing an elliptical workout for 60 minutes a day, or something like that, is necessarily the best way to meet the heart's health needs. I think a more active lifestyle overall - say, hiking on the weekends, frequent walks during the day, strenuous gardening/outdoor work, is more what nature intended for our bodies. That's kind of where I'm coming from, and I think that's where some of these folks- fitness professionals themselves - are also coming from. (and I worked out on the elliptical this morning).

Of course, I know that the body adapts to load, but at some point, one has neither the time nor the energy to expend to increase the load.

The other point I was trying to make is that doing a lot of cardio every day, the way women in western developed economies are doing it, can be detrimental to healthy hormones. I am not trying to contradict what you've written, only to suggest that there's more to the story.
 
RE: 20/20-

Laura, I agree that variation is the key to any successful program. I am myself a victim of tending to do the same thing over and over. I have to force myself to constantly cross train or I'll just end up doing high intensity cardio forever.:)

I think though that as you exercise and get stronger, you will automatically increase the load or intensity or boredom will set in. More than anything, I think boredom is a great indicator that something is amiss. Either someone is overtraining, or not cross training enough.

I see where you're getting about excessive cardio. I remember doing Jazzercise (not the new ones!), and Jane Fonda workouts with my mom. All they did was cardio! It was constantly drilled into our heads! For some, the habit is hard to break. I hear ya about that and I totally agree. I'm not sure how intense cardio is detrimental to healthy hormones but I can see how it's not always called for.

Rcbinmichigan made GREAT points about anaerobic training and it's positive effects on patients. It's very true that marathon runners (not all!) are more susceptible to illnesses. This is considered an extreme sport (more than 2 hours I believe) and most people don't engage in this sort of exercise. That's the only form of exercise that I can see having possible negative effects for some.

Carolyn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top