cardio or weights?

GiddyupTim

If cardio is so great, why does one always see the same people doing the same cardio, and no change in body comp?

The OP asked which one was best if they could only do one, its resistance without a shadow of a doubt. For my current cut, I've lost around 8-10kg doing zero cardio. Yo when she was dieting for her comp that she won the entire show, did about 10-15 lots of cardio in 6 months.

Its over rated that cardio. Unless you like it!

Funny. I see lots of people in the gym, who are there a lot, who never get much better.

ateamtrainer

Her goal was to lose fat. As the study suggests, given her time constraints she should focus on cardio. As long as her deficit is not too extreme and she gets enough protein she will lose much more fat than muscle. If her goal is to lose fat without losing any lean body mass then of course weights twice a week will help prevent it.

Sarauk2sf

Her goal was to lose fat. As the study suggests, given her time constraints she should focus on cardio. As long as her deficit is not too extreme and she gets enough protein she will lose much more fat than muscle. If her goal is to lose fat without losing any lean body mass then of course weights twice a week will help prevent it.

What studies?

BeachIron

To lose weight, you don't need either. You just need a caloric deficit, which you can achieve by moderating your food intake. No cardio or weight training required.

However, you clearly want to lose fat, and there is a difference between weight loss and fat loss. For optimal fat loss, you need a caloric deficit to drop pounds, along with adequate protein intake and strength training to maintain your lean body mass so that most or all of the pounds you lose are in the form of fat and not muscle.

Cardio is not a necessary part of the fat loss process. If your goal is to improve your cardiovascular fitness/health, do it. If you have performance goals that involve "cardio" activities like running or cycling, do it. If you enjoy cardio, do it. But if your only goal is fat loss, you don't need it.

Game, set and match.

yep

^ This is a balanced view.

Mr_Excitement

Whichever you enjoy. The best workout is the one you'll do consistently-- whatever it is.

aelunyu

To lose weight, you don't need either. You just need a caloric deficit, which you can achieve by moderating your food intake. No cardio or weight training required.

However, you clearly want to lose fat, and there is a difference between weight loss and fat loss. For optimal fat loss, you need a caloric deficit to drop pounds, along with adequate protein intake and strength training to maintain your lean body mass so that most or all of the pounds you lose are in the form of fat and not muscle.

Cardio is not a necessary part of the fat loss process. If your goal is to improve your cardiovascular fitness/health, do it. If you have performance goals that involve "cardio" activities like running or cycling, do it. If you enjoy cardio, do it. But if your only goal is fat loss, you don't need it.

Game, set and match.

yep

^ This is a balanced view.

I agree with most of that..but I cannot apply it...so it may not be true for all individuals. I believe cardio serves a few functions that are yet to be proven by science...as the science in this field is completely non-existent. All "bodybuilders"(at least that want to get on stage) do cardio. They actually taper cardio up, as calories fall, and sometimes taper calories up to accommodate cardio...depending on how lean they are. Cardio is an experimental variable in a situation where all else is constant (diet, strength..etc)....But the more cardio we do, the more we can eat, and also perhaps (maybe) the more "full" we look. I'm not sure about the rest of the community, but i certainly retain better fullness with cardio...minus salt, minus water...

ateamtrainer

Her goal was to lose fat. As the study suggests, given her time constraints she should focus on cardio. As long as her deficit is not too extreme and she gets enough protein she will lose much more fat than muscle. If her goal is to lose fat without losing any lean body mass then of course weights twice a week will help prevent it.

What studies?

If you read my first post on this thread you should be able to find it.

Matt_Wild

Her goal was to lose fat. As the study suggests, given her time constraints she should focus on cardio. As long as her deficit is not too extreme and she gets enough protein she will lose much more fat than muscle. If her goal is to lose fat without losing any lean body mass then of course weights twice a week will help prevent it.

What studies?

If you read my first post on this thread you should be able to find it.

Most recent studies show the opposite. Indeed there has been a spate of television programs showing this.

Indeed, one study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine tracked the results of 58 sedentary overweight/obese men and women who participated in a 12 week course of supervised aerobic exercise. The results were positive in terms of increased endurance and decreased systolic and diastolic pressure but not at all glowing in terms of weight loss. The mean weight loss was only a bit over seven pounds in three months, with most of the group losing barely half of that amount.

Indeed if one has to choose which cardio to do, it would be HIIT over SSCV/LISS. A study done at Laval University investigated the impact of aerobics versus high intensity anaerobic exercises on body fat using young adults and the findings were quite eye opening. Participants took part in either a 20 week endurance training regime of sustained aerobics or a 15 week high intensity intermittent training protocol. Despite the fact that participants doing the aerobic exercises expended over twice as much energy as the anaerobic group- (120.4 MJ as opposed to 57.9 MJ), those in the anaerobic group lost significantly more body fat than the cardio exercise group.

Cardio does reduce insulin sensitivity and the risk of diabetes as a result, it does increase bone mass and decrease the risk of osteoporosis but it is NOT efficient for holding on to muscle. Its fairly obvious why as well. The muscle held is inefficient, it needs more calories to exist. The body will get rid of muscle when it is not required regularly in daily use.

The reverse is why muscle is grown when it is used more than the body can cope with - to help it do the task it is required to do and actually burn less calories whilst doing so (think about it, the stronger you get, the easier a task gets, you don't pour with sweat like you once did).

The other thing you need to remember is that THE CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM WORKS TO SUPPORT THE MUSCULAR SYSTEM AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Needless to say, a high intensity set of squats to even close to the threshold of muscular failure leaves even the most conditioned of athletes gasping for air. You can’t work muscles at high intensities without significantly elevating your heart rate.

If you are serious about getting into great shape or looking for a more efficient way to improve your health and fitness, high intensity training might be a better fit for you over cardio. So get off the treadmill and pick up the weights if you really want ‘the look’ and don't forget to watch what you eat as neither aerobic nor anaerobic exercise can negate the ill effects of an unhealthy diet.

ateamtrainer

I'm not trying to argue that its pointless doing resistance training. As you said, for all round fitness and a good body both resistance training and some form of cardio should be done.

But with a time constraint, in her case, she would be better of doing just cardio. I u?nderstand all the reasons you and others have given for resistance training. But she is just not going to lose any significant amount of muscle mass because her current body fat is not low enough. If you're very lean or even under 15% you need to worry about it. But with a moderate calorific deficit and some cardio her body is going to burn off mostly fat. If she ups her protein intake that will increase muscle synthesis which will help negate the muscle breakdown effect of the deficit.

The other thing about HIIT and resistance training is that done properly they are very hard. They require a level of intensity that unsupervised, most people will just not get to. In terms of the number of calories she could burn from cardio, if she increases the stimulus by going slightly faster every week she could soon get fit enough to burn 400 or 500 calories in half an hour and it will be easier to stick to than HIIT.