What burns faster, muscle or fat during cardio?

I'm pretty sure cardio workouts burn muscle faster than muscle, but some people just cant be proved wrong, because it can't just be googled.

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26932769/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

Fat. You can't burn muscle. Once it's there, it's there for life.

Depends on the kind of cardio. Distance running will cause your body to break down both proteins and fat, walking around with a weighted vest will cause your body to break down mostly fat.

Nice bait

>I'm pretty sure cardio workouts burn muscle faster than muscle
what did he mean by this?

Shit meant to say "burn muscle faster than fat"

Fat, obviously. That's what it's designed for, to be a energy reserve that will be dipped into once glycogen reserves within the muscles have been depleted. To actually break down muscle fibre macromolecules into individual amino acid components and then turning those amino acids into appropriate Krebs cycle intermediates takes far more biochemical reactions and nets the body far less energy than breaking down triglyceride reserves located in lipid cells, so the body would much rather burn fat, and so it does.

So theres a short chemistry lesson on the logic of the process.

lolwut

But what about all professional track and field people. Why are they so slim compared to muscleheads? You never really see a super swoll guy running track. I would assume it would be to keep people aerodynamic, if they were running alot.

No?
Nice bait tho senpai. I'll extend an olive branch and say that it's much harder for your body to use muscle as a fuel source, but it most definitely can be burned

Sprinters are usually pretty jacked. But you are right endurance runners do tend to be pretty small. Not so much a case of too much cardio, but rather too little anaerobic activity

Because those people have fewer/less developed Type IIA and Type IIB fast twitch muscle fibres, which are thicker and used in short high intensity bouts of exercise. They have more developed narrow Type I fibres used in endurance exercise. In addition, these people don't train to put on mass, and why would they? They don't use it and in fact carrying around all that extra mass is a disadvantage. It's a matter of training regiment and preferential development of certain fibres.

But what if a person of a larger muscle mass were to take on the hobby of track, would they lose a ton of muscle, or what?

No evidence for this if their diet contains sufficient protein + calories and training volume is maintained.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26932769/

Maybe your body is retarded but not mine. My body doesn't burn muscle to fuel...my muscles. That's next leve retard shit son. Your body burns muscle just before it's about to die. Otherwise it burns fat. That's what fat is fucking THERE FOR.

Depends on leanness and what you mean by muscle loss. If they are very lean and do long distance track yes they will probably lose some protein muscle mass over the long term due to their body not wanting to drop anymore bodyfat. If they were to do shorter distance sprinting they would only be losing easily replaced glycogen mass from the muscles as the body will not need to dip into extra reserves.

If this is just you wondering if you can do distance cardio without compromising gains just make sure you're eating enough and not burning out and you should be fine.

That's a big log.

For you

>literally can't be googled

You aren't googling the right things. If you're interested in exactly which macromolecules are used for work in what amounts at different intensities you should google "respiratory exchange ratio," the quotient and conversions related to that ratio, and more about muscle fiber types and the order in which they're recruited ( has already given you a good starting point), and what this means for the unrecruited fibers if you do lots of work that uses some and not others.

kek'd