I am in the process of losing weight, trying to lose a total of 40-50lbs; after 6 weeks I am down close to 20lbs. I track my calories and macros using fitday.com and shoot for a deficit of 700-100 calories daily from my BMR. 33 yrs old, 5'5, current weight is 205.

I am currently doing a FBW every other day (switched from a split after listening to the advice of you and some others on this site) and 20 minutes of HIIT on the bike 2x a week. I have been doing 30 minutes on the treadmill after my FBW workout at a moderate pace (3-3.5mph) and trying to get in an additional 20 minutes of moderate steady state cardio after my HIIT. In addition, I also try and get another off day of 30-40 minutes of steady state cardio at a moderate pace in as well if the schedule allows. To break this down a bit:

Monday:
FBW + 30 minutes on the treadmill

Tuesday:
HIIT and 20 minutes on the treadmill

Wednesday:
FBW + 30 minutes on the treadmill

Thursday:
HIIT and 20 minutes on the treadmill

Friday:
FBW + 30 minutes on the treadmill

Saturday:
45 minutes of moderate cardio: treadmill and swimming

Sunday:
rest day


My basic question is: Is this the proper amount of cardio in conjunction with weight training to maximize weight loss?

You mean a deficit from your ' daily maintenance level ' of calories instead of BMR don't you ?

One other option would be to do your HIIT right after your FBW on M,W,F and do the 45 minutes of moderate cardio on T,R, & Sat.

That said, what primary goal - if any - is your " moderate steady state cardio " aiming to achieve ?

Primary goal for the SS cardio is just to aid in weight loss.

Well, fat loss is about losing calories, and the higher intensity you do your cardio the more calories you'll burn.

So, instead of doing moderate intensity steady state cardio, I'd do steady state cardio at as hard an intensity you can sustain for the same time period..but that's just me. The ' harder ' you exercise the more calories you will lose, and under normal conditions, the more calories you lose - all other things being equal - the more fat you will lose over a set period of time. So, for example, instead of doing 30 minutes on the treadmill at a moderate pace (3-3.5mph), instead, do 30 minutes on the treadmill at 6+ mph ( which is a speed most reasonably fit people can handle for 30 minutes IMO ).

Doing cardio at lower or moderate intensities does burn a greater proportion of fat than at at higher intensities, but it'll burn less fat ( i.e volume of fat ) than if you do cardio at higher intensities. As your cardo intensity goes up, the total number of calories burned for a given unit of time will also increase.

I ask because I have read in a number of threads on the site where its been suggested that cardio be limited or moderate intensity when your incorporating weight training and HIIT.

from the weight loss sticky:

JW...

You're in good hands with the advice of Wrangell. I too took a very scientific approach in wanting to get maximum results for my efforts.

There's a lot of info out there and while you'd think there is an exact answer, it really depends on which school of thought you want to subscribe to.

There are those who seemingly despise cardio, on an extreme you'll even find an arguement that cardio is a 'big-lie' and that it just teaches your body to store fat in anticipation of needing bigger reserves to fuel your lenghty cardio sessions. I can tell ya first hand, I see lots of spin-instructors who teach classes all day long and they have guts, butts and not-so-lean bodies! At the same time, plenty of trainers (not instructors, trainers) will insist that cardio can be kept to a minimum and that weight-training is the key: you not only burn fat while doing your weights, but the calorie burning sustains for days afterwards! FWIW, I don't know of any trainers who actually do cardio! When I invite them to bike or swim with me, they all turn it down. They say they're trying to build muscle and don't want to burn muscle while doing cardio...but when pressed, they all admit they just hate cardio and any time, all time, is better spent weight-training!

On the flip side, there's plenty of research that suggest cardio is awesome for fat-burning and weight-loss. The respiratory, circulatory and many other benefits are outstanding. And I see plenty of cardio-bunnies at the gym that look simply delicious!

So you know what's next...the obvious: MIX IT UP. Both weight-training AND cardio are excellent...and when doing cardio, it's easy to take in some HIIT by simply pushing it really hard for some intervals!

So to address your query: how much is optimal? I'd think the more the better. Technically they say health benefits are max'd-out with one hour and anything after that is for weight-loss...but who knows. I've read that after an hour of cardio your body really starts burning-up the fat at an even faster rate. There may be some truth to that, when I extended my bike rides longer, I saw an improvement in loss. But be warned: the body is an amazing instrument and it can and will adapt quickly. What used to take me 1,400 calories to cover a 15-mile loop, now takes me a mere 750 calories....I'm hauling less weight and my body has built muscle & adapted to meet the demand in a more efficient manner.

So I'm going to borrow a chapter from the book of corny-ness and answer your question this way: How much is optimal?...as much and as often as you can so long as you enjoy it and won't burn-out on it. The "runner's high" is way addictive, get some great music in your ear, trance-out and melt the fat!!!!!

Oh, and one thing I've learned: be sure to hydrate!!!!!! I've done some reading lately that explains how the amount of fat you burn during exercise can significantly be affected by the amount of proper hydration. I think I read how having enough and amble water can help your cardio workouts burn as much as 20% more fat!!!! It sounds a little hyped, but can't hurt!

I have to disagree here.

Although its true that higher intensity does indeed increase volume of fat loss, there is a certain point, or threshold if you like, that sees volume of fat decrease.

At your highest intensity, almost all of the enrgy input is from carbs - no increase in the volume of fat burned.

IMO, why fix something that isn't broken? You are kicking serious weight loss @ss right now, and as long as you continue to lost weight, I wouldn't change a thing in my program!!!

If you plateau before your goal, then adjust your program.

True, but I would say the threshold is not applicable in the context of my post

In this context, I'm talking about doing 30 - 45 minutes cardio that is done at a given level of intensity so high that it can still be sustained for 30 - 45 minutes non-stop - not HIIT ( in which your threshold comment would make more sense )

If you go for 30 minutes of running non-stop - i.e flat out, as hard as you can - there is still a rather large aerobic component ( I'm guessing mind you , but maybe 50%+ or so ) you need in order to pull that off. So in this context, I would still maintain that doing cardio at lower or moderate intensities ( i.e for 30 minutes ) does burn a greater proportion of fat than at at higher intensities, but the higher intensity over 30 minutes would still burn a greater volume of fat.

i see i see..

I think you're missing the point.

You want to lose fat via steady state cardio.

If the choice is only between doing 30 - 45 minutes of moderate intensity steady state cardio versus doing 30 - 45 minutes of higher / high intensity steady state cardio you want to do the latter because you'll burn more calories. Generally speaking, all other things being equal, the more calories you lose the more fat you'll lose.

That crossover point is the anaerobic threshold, where you would not be able to sustain that intensity for more than a sprint. That's why doing cardio at that high an intensity is done in sprint intervals interspersed with easy intervals (HIIT).

To do longer duration cardio, one would have to stay aerobic, where you can burn fat as well as carbs. Going to an intensity near the upper end of the aerobic range maximizes calorie and fat burn during long duration cardio sessions.

I am trying to do a range of intensity levels with the cardio in addition to the weight training. So I am mixing in HIIT along with periods of regular lower intensity cardio. One of the concerns I had was that Ive read after a time, your body will adapt to regular moderate cardio and become more efficient and thus burn less calories. I def see the value in doing the more intense HIIT and non interval cardio, just after my FBW 3.0-3.5mph feels like 5-6mph to my body

I think you might be comparing apples and oranges on this issue.

If you were to ask which type - of all types - of cardio protocols one should choose for ' optimal ' fat loss, you're going to hear all the hosannas to HIIT and why HIIT is the way to go if you want to really ' shred fat '. So, in that context, when you compare HIIT to low to moderate intensity steady state cardio, HIIT is in vogue as being the more ' optimal ' cardio approach to fat loss. In a nutshell, HIIT is superior to low to moderate intensity steady state cardio for fat loss. In that case, over a short period of time, you could possibly do nothing but HIIT as your only form of ' fat loss ' cardio - i.e HIIT sessions 4X - 5X a week.

But, you told me earlier that your were doing steady state cardio for the primary purpose of helping you shed fat - i.e " SS cardio is just to aid in weight loss ". So, what I'm saying is that if you choose to use steady state cardio as a means of losing fat - then that's fine. However, if you're going to do steady state cardio, and your primary goal for doing steady state cardio is to lose fat, then you're much better off doing steady state cardio as hard ( an intensity ) as you can sustain. The reason is, again, that the ' harder ' you exercise the more calories you will burn, and under normal conditions, the more calories you burn ( all other things being equal ) the more fat you will lose over a set period of time.

Losing fat is about losing calories. So, you could do 30 minutes of low to moderate intensity steady state cardio and burn ( for example ) 300 calories OR you could do 30 minutes of high / higher intensity steady state cardio and burn ( for example ) 500 calories. The latter option burns more calories in 30 minutes and since losing fat is about losing calories, it's the better choice IMO.

I think i already knew that, thats pretty simple.

I wasnt refering to that anyway, but rather the CHO-fat cross over point. Which shifts to the right with improving fitness and occurs around the 70% aerobic mark.

On another note. The longer you stay in the steady state, gradually the % of fat use increases, usually around the 20/25 minute mark.