weight lifting exercises are more important to losing weight than diet

atlas_star

Strength training with less cardio (~30min) is a bigger influence on maintaining muscle in a calorie deficit than macros.

You can have super high protein, excellent macros in a deficit and still lose muscle. The effect of diet in preserving muscle is miniscule in comparison to the lifting weight components.

If you lift weights, you'll preserve muscle even if your diet isn't perfect.

Lots of cardio and a deficit isn't the way to go. Lifting weights is non-negotiable. Losing muscle should be avoided at all costs as it affects and impedes all aspects of weight loss.

source: says me

ninerbuff

Subjective. If the goal is to lose weight, then diet is more important. And while I do believe you should lift weights to retain what muscle one already has, when the goal is losing weight then it's not entirely necessary. For instance, someone who's obese many times already has increased muscle mass in their legs because they've had to carry more weight progressively as they gained. If one is obese, then losing the most amount of weight to a more normal level is more important than retaining all their muscle they've already had gained through that process.

So you're title heading is misleading especially since there are things like dance, pilates, etc. that don't include lifing weights and people lose weight on them just fine.
\
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 40 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

sollyn23l2

atlas_star wrote: »

Strength training with less cardio (~30min) is a bigger influence on maintaining muscle in a calorie deficit than macros.

You can have super high protein, excellent macros in a deficit and still lose muscle. The effect of diet in preserving muscle is miniscule in comparison to the lifting weight components.

If you lift weights, you'll preserve muscle even if your diet isn't perfect.

Lots of cardio and a deficit isn't the way to go. Lifting weights is non-negotiable. Losing muscle should be avoided at all costs as it affects and impedes all aspects of weight loss.

source: says me

I mostly agree when it comes to preserving muscle. But I'd say they're equally important, as they work in tandem. If you lift weights, but eat in too steep of a calorie deficit with not enough protein, you're likely going to lose a fair amount of muscle, because your body won't be able to keep the muscle without sufficient protein. Same thing for weight training. You can eat all the protein, but if you're not weight training, your body will just turn it to fat.

evileyefirefly

I'd say they are both important. Strength training is needed to build muscle which will burn more calories over time, and you need the muscle. However cardio is important as well for your health and is still very good at calorie burn. You really need both for optimal loss/health. I tend to do circuit training with weights to get both together. (High rep/lower weight, 30sec rest between machines)

lynn_glenmont

Sufficient calories, sufficient protein, sufficient progressive resistance training, and sufficient rest are all limiting factors.

Think of them like four different essential amino acids. You're only going to build protein until you've used up one of them. After that, it doesn't matter if you still have some of the other amino acids leftvover.

Adventurista

For diabetes, combo workout of cardio followed by strength has a 24 hr or longer enduring beneficial impact on blood glucose...

as does muscle mass.

Cardio is important for endurance and heart/cardio health... and 10 mins vigorous cardio such as a brisk walk can help to lower the spikes in glucose after eating.

So i would fall in with both cardio and strength are important/essential, together at times, but also either kind separately as well for particular focus/priority on issues.

AnnPT77

Weight lifting is the most efficient exercise modality to gain or maintain strength and muscle mass, and (subjectively) everyone would be well advised to do some.

But . . .

Weight lifting is not the only form of strength challenge that can minimize loss of lean tissue alongside fat loss that's triggered by calorie deficit.

"Cardio" is not all one thing. Some so-called "cardio" includes strength challenge, and some types even allow mild progressivity of that challenge.

What constitutes a relevant strength challenge varies with the starting fitness/strength level of the person wanting that strength challenge.

Strength challenge is probably necessary to minimize muscle loss during weight loss, but not sufficient. If nutrition is bad enough (especially but not exclusively protein intake), it will be a limiting factor. Aggressively fast weight loss is nearly always a bad plan for muscle mass retention, since we can only metabolize a certain amount of stored fat per day per pound of stored fat we have on our body. Any additional calorie deficit will be made up from other body tissue, after the body does its adaptive thermogenesis downregulation thing, at least.

As niner points out, losing some lean mass, and possibly even losing some muscle mass, may be a reasonable thing in severe cases of obesity.

Most of the above is Sez Me, but if pressed I could dig up reasonable cites for most of it.

Here's my overgeneralized and unreasonable opinion: People who really enjoy and feel they have benefitted from weight lifting sometimes seem to want to misunderstand and mischaracterize cardio, especially if they don't enjoy cardio as they see it. That's human. Personally, I don't enjoy weight training, and don't do nearly enough of it. I do try to keep it in perspective and give good, nuanced advice to others.

Everyone would be healthier and fitter with significant strength challenge in their exercise repertoire. That's true whether I adhere to that advice or not.

ETA PS: I think your thesis statement in the title is wrong. "weight lifting exercises are more important to losing weight than diet". Calorie deficit is more important to losing weight . . . it's the only way to lose weight, whether we count the calories, or not. Weight lifting, good stuff though it is, doesn't burn many calories. That puts more emphasis on the food intake side for weight loss, if lifting is done instead of cardio (which is a fine tradeoff to make, if a person wants to lose weight that way). Where strength training comes in is the body composition goals we may have alongside weight loss per se.

nossmf

Click-bait!

Rather than address the debate of diet vs lifting, I want to instead challenge one of the last statements from the OP:

atlas_star wrote: »

Lifting weights is non-negotiable.

I'm an avid weightlifter who will gladly discuss all the intricacies of lifting until you are blue in the face, but I want to swap these two words for "strength training is non-negotiable." Lifting weights is NOT the only way to challenge the body's strength. Doing bodyweight workouts will prompt the body to develop impressive musculature (just glance at any Olympic gymnast). Swimming forces you to work against the resistance of the water with every motion. Rock climbing forces the body to adjust in surprising ways, as does boxing, rowing, and a wide variety of other athletic movements.

gerrieryba

Through calorie deficit and cardio focused exercise, I lost the weight I wanted to lose, especially around my middle. And, I have been sustaining that weight for awhile. However, with age and hormone changes, I have noticed muscle mass loss and the resulting weakness in my endurance sports from that loss. I, like the OP, decided I needed to swap out high cardio focused workouts (distance running) for weight focused strength training and swap out a more carb focused diet for a protein focused diet. I have been loving the look ( noticable muscle and tone)and feel (power) of that switch. Unfortunately, I gained 7 pounds, and not all of that 7 pounds is muscle. I have my soft pillowy belly back and the resulting tightness of my waist bands around my middle. My thoughts are I should add back some of my running for at least a few times a week but not the distance I had been doing. 3 miles 2-3 times a week should be fine at the calories I currently consume and time I have with weight lifting. In conclusion, based on my experience with this topic, I agree with the OP to a point. Their opinion works for me at this stage in my life but it would not have 10+ years ago. Also I found ommiting all-together my idea of high cardio (running) wasn't such a good idea for me and my idea of fittness so I am bring it back to a much lesser degree.

ninerbuff

Barcherik wrote: »

Strength training really is crucial for preserving muscle, especially when you’re in a calorie deficit. A while back, I got caught up in doing tons of cardio while trying to lose weight. I was seeing the scale drop, but I noticed I was losing strength and muscle tone, which was super frustrating.

Yes a STRENGTH training or RESISTANCE training program is important for health and muscle retention. One doesn't ALWAYS have to lift weights to do this since bodyweight and HIIT exercises are also resistance training and helps to preserve muscle. Look at sprinter's bodies. Or that of a gymnast or rock climber. There are so many ways to still involve resistance training into a routine without having to lift weights.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 40 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

AnnPT77

Barcherik wrote: »

Strength training really is crucial for preserving muscle, especially when you’re in a calorie deficit. A while back, I got caught up in doing tons of cardio while trying to lose weight. I was seeing the scale drop, but I noticed I was losing strength and muscle tone, which was super frustrating.

Yes, true if a person defines strength training in a much broader way than usually is true for those saying "strength training is essential".

@Nossmf is right: Anything that challenges current strength is "strength training". It needs to keep challenging current strength as strength increases, in order to keep strength increasing (i.e., incorporate progressivity). If those conditions are met, muscle mass will increase . . . eventually. Weight training and proper bodyweight training are the most efficient modalities for meeting those conditions.

That said, most of any extra muscle mass I have compared with others in my demographic came from "cardio" in the form of rowing, on water and machine . . . and I do have more than average. It was a slow route to that outcome, but it wasn't my goal, it was just a nice side effect.

There's also reasonable research suggesting that aerobic exercise helps avoid or minimize muscle loss during weight loss. For example:

". . . both endurance- and resistance-type exercise help preserve muscle mass during weight loss, and resistance-type exercise also improves muscle strength."

Source: "Preserving Healthy Muscle during Weight Loss" from the journal Advances in Nutrition

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28507015/

That's a random example; there are others.

Weight lifting or bodyweight exercise is more efficient at doing this, too, of course. I recommend that people do some during weight loss, along with some cardiovascular challenge. Even the cardio IMO is not so much for weight loss but for health, and ideally for enjoyment. It's just a bonus that it lets us eat a few more calories - and get better nutrition if we make good choices - while losing at the same sensibly moderate rate.

Dividing exercise activity into strict categories of "strength training" vs. "cardio" loses a lot of nuance that matters in real life.

P.S. Too-fast weight loss pace will tend to cause "losing strength and muscle tone". Exercise of many types helps minimize that downside, and strength challenge helps most. But losing weight fast is a Bad Plan for other reasons, not just loss of strength and muscle tone.

PAV8888

atlas_star wrote: »

weight lifting exercises are more important to losing weight than diet

No, they are not.

atlas_star wrote: »

Strength training with less cardio (~30min) is a bigger influence on maintaining muscle in a calorie deficit than macros.

assuming you're keeping within a semi sane range of values for both then one can plausibly be more immediately impactful ... So sure!👍

atlas_star wrote: »

You can have super high protein, excellent macros in a deficit and still lose muscle.

Uh-huh. Sounds good to me👍

atlas_star wrote: »

The effect of diet in preserving muscle is miniscule in comparison to the lifting weight components.

You can lift till the cows come home and you're in hospital but if you eat, say, 800 Cal a day, you don't preserve **kitten**. Now, if you're arguing that 2 hours at the gum are a metric crapton more useful than worrying about 150g vs 188g of protein, I'm all with ya!

atlas_star wrote: »

If you lift weights, you'll preserve muscle even if your diet isn't perfect.

You'll do that anyway with a wide variety of activities and a wide variety of diets. Maybe not as optimally, but, most certainly to within normal non athletic human physiological parameters.
And depending on starting and ending points, this will probably be more than good enough even if it is less than optimal.

Encouraging something positive and helpful is good. Catastrophising/fear mongering about not doing it... yeah: nope

atlas_star wrote: »

Lots of cardio and a deficit isn't the way to go. Lifting weights is non-negotiable. Losing muscle should be avoided at all costs as it affects and impedes all aspects of weight loss.

Really?
I can think of a lot of reasons why I might want to avoid losing muscle but impeding all aspects of weight loss is not what first comes to mind.

losing weight can be done in many ways that improve your health with an infinite amount of negotiating of your non negotiables.

I would worry about health in general which would be driven by getting weight in control assuming we're having this discussion because it's out of control. This means getting my food and psychological issues in some semblance of order. Then about ensuring I had adequate sleep and cardio and was engaging in strength maintaining or building activities. And then I would worry about optimizing my additional training.

In the end no exercise at all is required to manage weight. It doesn't mean that it isn't both helpful and beneficial. Nor that I'm not personally using it as a component and even driver to maintain the weight I lost. But it isn't the main driver for weight loss. It's a side quest and not the main game.

source: says me

I2k4

A couple of years since my rabbit hole dive into this, but assuming the same nutritious, high protein diet, the takeaways were mainly:
1) the term "Weight" is misleading happy-talk combining and confusing unwanted "Body FAT" with valuable "Lean Body Mass",
2) in the immediate short term cardio will "burn" and lose more "Weight" during active exercise while building lean muscle mass more slowly than resistance training;
3) over the intermediate-long term (e.g. after six months or so) the body efficiently adapts to cardio, lowering the all-day resting metabolic (fat-burning) rate, economizing muscle mass, and lowering the energy burn during active exercise. More and more cardio is needed to burn the same calories over time.
4) By contrast, over time, resistance training builds lean body mass, increases the resting base metabolic rate and calorie burn required to maintain more muscle.

Conclusion: while cardio is wonderful and essential for heart, circulatory and lung health and fitness it is not the optimal long term tool for FAT LOSS as compared with resistance training.

AnnPT77

I2k4 wrote: »

A couple of years since my rabbit hole dive into this, but assuming the same nutritious, high protein diet, the takeaways were mainly:
1) the term "Weight" is misleading happy-talk combining and confusing unwanted "Body FAT" with valuable "Lean Body Mass",
2) in the immediate short term cardio will "burn" and lose more "Weight" during active exercise while building lean muscle mass more slowly than resistance training;
3) over the intermediate-long term (e.g. after six months or so) the body efficiently adapts to cardio, lowering the all-day resting metabolic (fat-burning) rate, economizing muscle mass, and lowering the energy burn during active exercise. More and more cardio is needed to burn the same calories over time.

That last has 100% NOT been my experience. I've been doing about the same cardio for 20+ years, the first dozen years of which I stayed around class 1 obese's lower boundary.

That cardio still burns calories.

Yes, for some skill-based cardio, efficiency can improve, and that can mean burning fewer calories to achieve any given objective pace because there's less wasted motion.

Yes, overdoing cardio (or any movement type) can cause lower NET calorie burn than anticipated, because overdoing results in fatigue, and fatigue can make us drag through the day, resting more and burning fewer calories doing daily life stuff.

Yes, it's easy to overestimate exercise calories.

Yes, fitness trackers and heart rate monitors may tell us we burn fewer calories doing the same cardio exercise at the same objective intensity and the same body weight as we get fitter. That is in large part a limitation of heart rate as a proxy for calorie burn. In other words, it's primarily a flaw in heart rate monitors or fitness trackers in estimating calorie expenditure, not a fully true picture of adaptation.

It's actually oxygen consumption that correlates pretty well with calorie expenditure during exercise. Heart rate is an indirect and imperfect proxy. As we get fitter cardiovascularly, our heart gets stronger, and pumps more blood per beat, delivering more oxygen per beat, so requiring fewer beats per minute to deliver the same amount of oxygen. Some trackers IMU attempt to adjust for this with experience with our bodies, but not all.

Further, there's more to cardiovascular fitness adaptation than this, and most of it tends to drive things in the direction of needing fewer heartbeats when burning calories at the same rate.

Finally, elite endurance athletes - bikers, swimmers, runners, XC skiers, rowers, etc. - require hugely more calorie intake than the average person their size. If the calorie-burn effectiveness of cardio trailed off over time, this extra calorie need wouldn't be so large. The same is true, BTW, for well-trained recreational athletes in cardiovascular sports. I've been familiar with this effect in a good university team in a cardiovascular sport in the past, gotten education in coaching in that sport (including some fitness adaptation and calorie needs education), and - as I said - participated in the sport myself for over 20 years.

There can be some decrease in calorie needs when the body gets accustomed to a certain cardiovascular load, and the details are complicated, but I'm quite certain the effect isn't as big as what you've written here implies. You're overstating the case.

4) By contrast, over time, resistance training builds lean body mass, increases the resting base metabolic rate and calorie burn required to maintain more muscle.

Conclusion: while cardio is wonderful and essential for heart, circulatory and lung health and fitness it is not the optimal long term tool for FAT LOSS as compared with resistance training.

I'm not deprecating strength training. It's excellent for many reasons, including increased calorie expenditure at rest, and some extra calorie needs to keep building muscle with a progressive strength program. But the difference is calorie needs at rest between a pound of muscle and a pound of fat (which is also metabolically active) is single digits of calories per pounds per day.

As I said, I think you're overstating the case here, even though I'd encourage anyone and everyone to do some progressive strength work for best health, body composition, and weight management.