My lesson for the day, resistance training v cardio

Options
2»

Replies

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    jeanona wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Tallawah_ wrote: »
    Personally I find it quite ridiculous that people are putting so much effort into proving one is 'better' than the other. There are many routes to the goal, the point is to do something repeatedly for the rest of your life. The precursor to doing something repeatedly for the rest of your life is that you kinda enjoy it. It almost doesn't matter what it is as long as you regularly put maximal effort into it and as you get better you put more effort in.

    All 'research' I've seen to date has its own hidden agenda or has so many pre-requisites as to be pretty irrelvant in the real world.

    Trust your instincts and stick with the treadmill if that's what you love.

    I agree that this is one of the stupidest arguments in the forums.

    I started a thread on the calorie burning effects of strength training a couple of weeks ago (obviously missed by the OP during his research).

    The consistent numbers I have seen for calories burned doing a “traditional” lifting program (e.g. free weights/machines, sets, reps) was in the 300-350 calories/hour range. There will be a boost to that because of the “afterburn”, but that varies widely. Most studies I have seen put it in the 50-175 total calories range—but it is very hard to accurately measure.

    Someone running at a modest speed of 6mph and of average weight (175lbs) will burn 400 calories in 30 min of running, 800 in an hour. It’s obvious which is the higher burn.

    Of course, that’s not the whole story. As I stated in another comment, personal preference is as important or more important than any definition of “best” exercise as determined under the artificial conditions of a research lab.

    Resistance training conserves/builds lean mass. That is essential to long-term health and long-term weight control. It is by far the strongest argument someone on “team strength training” can make in the “best exercise” argument.

    Bottom line however: exercise calories at best contribute about 20% to a successful weight loss effort. Diet consistency accounts for 80%. So all of this debate is over the smallest part of a successful program.

    Is it essential though?

    I personally know a lot of older folks in their 70s and 80s who don’t do any form of resistance training but yet are very fit and healthy. They keep very active with walks, gardening, household chores, looking after grand or great-grand kids and generally maintain their health very well.

    That’s certainly a valid question. The body adapts to what it is asked to do. So someone who follows a more active lifestyle that includes physical work could conceivably achieve enough “resistance training” through that activity. The same holds true for aerobic fitness level and cardio.

    So while strength training is “essential”, it can be done in different ways. Interestingly enough, recent research has suggested that increased protein intake and strength training can provide even more benefits.

  • jeanona
    jeanona Posts: 155 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Tallawah_ wrote: »
    Personally I find it quite ridiculous that people are putting so much effort into proving one is 'better' than the other. There are many routes to the goal, the point is to do something repeatedly for the rest of your life. The precursor to doing something repeatedly for the rest of your life is that you kinda enjoy it. It almost doesn't matter what it is as long as you regularly put maximal effort into it and as you get better you put more effort in.

    All 'research' I've seen to date has its own hidden agenda or has so many pre-requisites as to be pretty irrelvant in the real world.

    Trust your instincts and stick with the treadmill if that's what you love.

    I agree that this is one of the stupidest arguments in the forums.

    I started a thread on the calorie burning effects of strength training a couple of weeks ago (obviously missed by the OP during his research).

    The consistent numbers I have seen for calories burned doing a “traditional” lifting program (e.g. free weights/machines, sets, reps) was in the 300-350 calories/hour range. There will be a boost to that because of the “afterburn”, but that varies widely. Most studies I have seen put it in the 50-175 total calories range—but it is very hard to accurately measure.

    Someone running at a modest speed of 6mph and of average weight (175lbs) will burn 400 calories in 30 min of running, 800 in an hour. It’s obvious which is the higher burn.

    Of course, that’s not the whole story. As I stated in another comment, personal preference is as important or more important than any definition of “best” exercise as determined under the artificial conditions of a research lab.

    Resistance training conserves/builds lean mass. That is essential to long-term health and long-term weight control. It is by far the strongest argument someone on “team strength training” can make in the “best exercise” argument.

    Bottom line however: exercise calories at best contribute about 20% to a successful weight loss effort. Diet consistency accounts for 80%. So all of this debate is over the smallest part of a successful program.

    Is it essential though?

    I personally know a lot of older folks in their 70s and 80s who don’t do any form of resistance training but yet are very fit and healthy. They keep very active with walks, gardening, household chores, looking after grand or great-grand kids and generally maintain their health very well.

    That’s certainly a valid question. The body adapts to what it is asked to do. So someone who follows a more active lifestyle that includes physical work could conceivably achieve enough “resistance training” through that activity. The same holds true for aerobic fitness level and cardio.

    So while strength training is “essential”, it can be done in different ways. Interestingly enough, recent research has suggested that increased protein intake and strength training can provide even more benefits.

    Thanks for the insight. While I am planning to explore strength training in the gym using weights, I like the idea of building “natural” resistance training (aka physical work) especially if we can do it until we are literally on our death bed!

    I also think that it’s just as important, if not more important, for maintaining good health and strong bones is to maintain a healthy weight. I know of two underweight individuals (women) who unfortunately have poor bone health (and no other risk factors).
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Tallawah_ wrote: »
    Personally I find it quite ridiculous that people are putting so much effort into proving one is 'better' than the other. There are many routes to the goal, the point is to do something repeatedly for the rest of your life. The precursor to doing something repeatedly for the rest of your life is that you kinda enjoy it. It almost doesn't matter what it is as long as you regularly put maximal effort into it and as you get better you put more effort in.

    All 'research' I've seen to date has its own hidden agenda or has so many pre-requisites as to be pretty irrelvant in the real world.

    Trust your instincts and stick with the treadmill if that's what you love.

    I agree that this is one of the stupidest arguments in the forums.

    I started a thread on the calorie burning effects of strength training a couple of weeks ago (obviously missed by the OP during his research).

    The consistent numbers I have seen for calories burned doing a “traditional” lifting program (e.g. free weights/machines, sets, reps) was in the 300-350 calories/hour range. There will be a boost to that because of the “afterburn”, but that varies widely. Most studies I have seen put it in the 50-175 total calories range—but it is very hard to accurately measure.

    Someone running at a modest speed of 6mph and of average weight (175lbs) will burn 400 calories in 30 min of running, 800 in an hour. It’s obvious which is the higher burn.

    Of course, that’s not the whole story. As I stated in another comment, personal preference is as important or more important than any definition of “best” exercise as determined under the artificial conditions of a research lab.

    Resistance training conserves/builds lean mass. That is essential to long-term health and long-term weight control. It is by far the strongest argument someone on “team strength training” can make in the “best exercise” argument.

    Bottom line however: exercise calories at best contribute about 20% to a successful weight loss effort. Diet consistency accounts for 80%. So all of this debate is over the smallest part of a successful program.

    Is it essential though?

    I personally know a lot of older folks in their 70s and 80s who don’t do any form of resistance training but yet are very fit and healthy. They keep very active with walks, gardening, household chores, looking after grand or great-grand kids and generally maintain their health very well.

    Some form of resistance training is optimal, yes. Especially for older people (I'm middle aged, so I'm thinking ahead myself). Sarcopenia (muscle loss) and bone health are two worries for seniors. Resistance training helps with both of those.

    Thanks. I’m also thinking ahead with strength training and having a good look at my nutrition. I’d much rather be safe than sorry!

Categories