Strength training - important or not?

MissTattoo

Log it as circuit training in the cardio section. I have a BFM and I work harder doing the circuit than I do on the elliptical.

Spanaval

If you are doing "traditional" strength training, then HRM calorie numbers are not accurate--the elevated HR during strength training is not the same as during cardio and doesn't indicate the same level of caloric burn.

Please explain. What you mean by "traditional" strength training (I'm assuming, weight training, not just resistance training), as well as the why. How is it different to elevate heart rate by walking at a brisk pace or by doing lunges and squats?

And, just to clarify, exercises like plyo squats, jumping lunges, burpees, etc are not the same as resistance training. In fact, some would argue that you should not do both at the same time--not only not in the same workout, but not during the same workout program.

I didn't mean to imply that those moves are resistance training, although they are whole body exercises that can have resistance components to them. I'm not convinced of the merits of the arguments that they don't belong in the same workout program.

diddyh

I think of them this way:

Cardio: Good for my heart
Weights/Strength Training: Good for my bones, balance, posture, injury resistance, etc.
Nutrition: Good for everything

I think you need all three to be really healthy.

tigersword

If you are doing "traditional" strength training, then HRM calorie numbers are not accurate--the elevated HR during strength training is not the same as during cardio and doesn't indicate the same level of caloric burn.

Please explain. What you mean by "traditional" strength training (I'm assuming, weight training, not just resistance training), as well as the why. How is it different to elevate heart rate by walking at a brisk pace or by doing lunges and squats?

And, just to clarify, exercises like plyo squats, jumping lunges, burpees, etc are not the same as resistance training. In fact, some would argue that you should not do both at the same time--not only not in the same workout, but not during the same workout program.

I didn't mean to imply that those moves are resistance training, although they are whole body exercises that can have resistance components to them. I'm not convinced of the merits of the arguments that they don't belong in the same workout program.

It's different because resistance training is an anaerobic activity. Cardio is aerobic. HRM's can only calculate aerobic calorie burns, as they base your calorie burn off of the difference between your resting heart rate and workout heart rate. The Anaerobic system operates independently of your heart rate. Your heart rate can go up and down during strength training, but it has no actual bearing on calorie burns (you aren't burning more just because your heart rate is up, and you aren't burning less because your heart rate is down, which is how an HRM calculates it.)

mfpcopine

I do strength training on my arms only. Since my legs are getting a great workout with the stairmaster, elliptical and treadmill, I don't want my thighs to really bulk out....When you start seeing nice curves appearing on your arms, you will want to keep doing it. It's also exciting when you are able to increase your weights, and also it feels great to have that extra bit of strength.

I do a similar workout. If you are concerned about your bottom half getting too big and don't have a need for strength, I believe that's the way to go.

Strength training, whether with weights or bodyweight, is good for overall health, and should be a part of every program, but I've read that the calorie burning effect of muscle has been overstated. If you want to lose weight, the most important thing still is to reduce calories.

mmapags

If you are doing "traditional" strength training, then HRM calorie numbers are not accurate--the elevated HR during strength training is not the same as during cardio and doesn't indicate the same level of caloric burn.

Please explain. What you mean by "traditional" strength training (I'm assuming, weight training, not just resistance training), as well as the why. How is it different to elevate heart rate by walking at a brisk pace or by doing lunges and squats?

And, just to clarify, exercises like plyo squats, jumping lunges, burpees, etc are not the same as resistance training. In fact, some would argue that you should not do both at the same time--not only not in the same workout, but not during the same workout program.

I didn't mean to imply that those moves are resistance training, although they are whole body exercises that can have resistance components to them. I'm not convinced of the merits of the arguments that they don't belong in the same workout program.

It's different because resistance training is an anaerobic activity. Cardio is aerobic. HRM's can only calculate aerobic calorie burns, as they base your calorie burn off of the difference between your resting heart rate and workout heart rate. The Anaerobic system operates independently of your heart rate. Your heart rate can go up and down during strength training, but it has no actual bearing on calorie burns (you aren't burning more just because your heart rate is up, and you aren't burning less because your heart rate is down, which is how an HRM calculates it.)

This! HRM's are inaccurate to the point of being useless for strength training to calulate burn. It's just not what they are desigend to do.

waldo56

If you are doing "traditional" strength training, then HRM calorie numbers are not accurate--the elevated HR during strength training is not the same as during cardio and doesn't indicate the same level of caloric burn.

Please explain. What you mean by "traditional" strength training (I'm assuming, weight training, not just resistance training), as well as the why. How is it different to elevate heart rate by walking at a brisk pace or by doing lunges and squats?

The different energy systems each require a different bloodflow for a given output. Cardio exercise uses mostly your aerobic glycogen and fat systems, that require a high heart rate for a given energy output. Heavy strength training uses primarily the creatine-phosphate and anaerobic glycogen systems, which don't require as much blood flow to recharge (the glycogen and C-P is stored nearby, in the muscles), and don't require oxygen as part of the reaction, so no lung to muscle transport is required.

The anaerobic glycogen system is a very inefficient reaction, the body uses a lot of glycogen for a little energy, and then has to clean up the toxic byproducts (lactic acid). But because it doesn't need to wait for the oxygen via the heart, it can sustain a much higher output in short bursts.

Heart rate monitors are good for estimating calorie burn for the aerobic systems, not so much for the calorie burns for the anaerobic systems. When doing cadio the energy contribution from the anaerobic systems is minimal. The vice versa is true for heavy strength training, where the vast majoirty of ATP is produced from anaerobic pathways.

Spanaval

If you are doing "traditional" strength training, then HRM calorie numbers are not accurate--the elevated HR during strength training is not the same as during cardio and doesn't indicate the same level of caloric burn.

Please explain. What you mean by "traditional" strength training (I'm assuming, weight training, not just resistance training), as well as the why. How is it different to elevate heart rate by walking at a brisk pace or by doing lunges and squats?

The different energy systems each require a different bloodflow for a given output. Cardio exercise uses mostly your aerobic glycogen and fat systems, that require a high heart rate for a given energy output. Heavy strength training uses primarily the creatine-phosphate and anaerobic glycogen systems, which don't require as much blood flow to recharge (the glycogen and C-P is stored nearby, in the muscles), and don't require oxygen as part of the reaction, so no lung to muscle transport is required.

The anaerobic glycogen system is a very inefficient reaction, the body uses a lot of glycogen for a little energy, and then has to clean up the toxic byproducts (lactic acid). But because it doesn't need to wait for the oxygen via the heart, it can sustain a much higher output in short bursts.

Heart rate monitors are good for estimating calorie burn for the aerobic systems, not so much for the calorie burns for the anaerobic systems. When doing cadio the energy contribution from the anaerobic systems is minimal. The vice versa is true for heavy strength training, where the vast majoirty of ATP is produced from anaerobic pathways.

Thank you! No time for a detailed response, so I'll ask more questions.

So, in a (purely hypothetical) situation where someone is doing lunges or squats for 60 minutes and getting their HR up, that strictly (or to a substantial extent) only uses the anaerobic pathway? Or does this apply only to the high resistance/low reps sort of workout?

waldo56

So, in a (purely hypothetical) situation where someone is doing lunges or squats for 60 minutes and getting their HR up, that strictly (or to a substantial extent) only uses the anaerobic pathway? Or does this apply only to the high resistance/low reps sort of workout?

You can get a good estimate of the primary energy system used by the time to failue.

The C-P system is used when you are at your physical max. It will peter out within 15 seconds or so. All work that you do that is primarily targeting the C-P system should be done at max effort. The 100m dash for example, every single step should be as hard as you physically can muster. Same with weight training, every single rep should take pretty much everything you've got, and you'll reach failure in 3-5 reps.

The anaerbic glycogen system is just a step below. It'll last about 40 seconds. That number is variable, it will be lower in untrained people, however over time you can raise it with training. For most people it will last 40-45 seconds. Because of the lactic acid byproduct, you can really feel it when you use this system, it will burn. Lifting really heavy with the C-P system won't have the burn. Depending on your rep speed, you should be able to do 10-15 reps before it peters out. Your 10RM will primarily use this system, and little else.

The body will use the energy system it needs. If the weight is really light it won't bother to use the higher output systems. This is why if you start out with an 80% sprint (using the An-G system) you should still have a 100% sprint in the tank for the finish if running a longer sprint event. The same applies to weights, but because the resistance isn't variable, you'll hardly use the higher output system. Your 10RM is too light to use your C-P system much.

So to answer your question about squats and lunges, no that won't, unless the squats and lunges are heavy enough to use the higher output systems. And if they are, and you can sustain 60 minutes (total w/recovery) of it without an inordinate amount of recovery time between sets, you have an absolutely inhuman work capacity, most people's legs will be jello after 5 work sets of squats.

Azdak

If you are doing "traditional" strength training, then HRM calorie numbers are not accurate--the elevated HR during strength training is not the same as during cardio and doesn't indicate the same level of caloric burn.

Please explain. What you mean by "traditional" strength training (I'm assuming, weight training, not just resistance training), as well as the why. How is it different to elevate heart rate by walking at a brisk pace or by doing lunges and squats?

The different energy systems each require a different bloodflow for a given output. Cardio exercise uses mostly your aerobic glycogen and fat systems, that require a high heart rate for a given energy output. Heavy strength training uses primarily the creatine-phosphate and anaerobic glycogen systems, which don't require as much blood flow to recharge (the glycogen and C-P is stored nearby, in the muscles), and don't require oxygen as part of the reaction, so no lung to muscle transport is required.

The anaerobic glycogen system is a very inefficient reaction, the body uses a lot of glycogen for a little energy, and then has to clean up the toxic byproducts (lactic acid). But because it doesn't need to wait for the oxygen via the heart, it can sustain a much higher output in short bursts.

Heart rate monitors are good for estimating calorie burn for the aerobic systems, not so much for the calorie burns for the anaerobic systems. When doing cadio the energy contribution from the anaerobic systems is minimal. The vice versa is true for heavy strength training, where the vast majoirty of ATP is produced from anaerobic pathways.

When it comes to HRMs, the answer is even simpler: the increase in HR that occurs during lifting is a pressure response; during aerobic exercise the increased HR is a "volume" response. With aerobic exercise, the increased HR is due to increased cardiac output (and thus increased VO2).

So not all increases in HR are equal--the increasd HR that occurs during aerobic training is different than that during weight lifting, which is different from the increased HR that occurs during thermal stress, or illness, etc. HRM algorithms assume that the increased HR is associated with an increase in cardiac output and VO2--they cannot differentiate between the different conditions.

Azdak

If you are doing "traditional" strength training, then HRM calorie numbers are not accurate--the elevated HR during strength training is not the same as during cardio and doesn't indicate the same level of caloric burn.

Please explain. What you mean by "traditional" strength training (I'm assuming, weight training, not just resistance training), as well as the why. How is it different to elevate heart rate by walking at a brisk pace or by doing lunges and squats?

The different energy systems each require a different bloodflow for a given output. Cardio exercise uses mostly your aerobic glycogen and fat systems, that require a high heart rate for a given energy output. Heavy strength training uses primarily the creatine-phosphate and anaerobic glycogen systems, which don't require as much blood flow to recharge (the glycogen and C-P is stored nearby, in the muscles), and don't require oxygen as part of the reaction, so no lung to muscle transport is required.

The anaerobic glycogen system is a very inefficient reaction, the body uses a lot of glycogen for a little energy, and then has to clean up the toxic byproducts (lactic acid). But because it doesn't need to wait for the oxygen via the heart, it can sustain a much higher output in short bursts.

Heart rate monitors are good for estimating calorie burn for the aerobic systems, not so much for the calorie burns for the anaerobic systems. When doing cadio the energy contribution from the anaerobic systems is minimal. The vice versa is true for heavy strength training, where the vast majoirty of ATP is produced from anaerobic pathways.

Thank you! No time for a detailed response, so I'll ask more questions.

So, in a (purely hypothetical) situation where someone is doing lunges or squats for 60 minutes and getting their HR up, that strictly (or to a substantial extent) only uses the anaerobic pathway? Or does this apply only to the high resistance/low reps sort of workout?

It's not really an "on/off" "either/or" system, and there are plenty of variables. In general, it might help to think of the activities as lying on a continuum--the greater the resistive component, the less the aerobic, and vice versa. Just as heavy lifting has little direct aerobic effect, aerobic exercises like running, cycling don't provide much in the way of resistance training.

The effect can also be affected by conditioning and training status. An untrained individual who does nothing but heavy lifting will see a modest increase in aerobic conditioning--if for no other reason than the fluxes in blood flow caused by work/recovery will mimic an aerobic training effect. However this is probably not going to be sustained. Conversely, an untrained person starting a cardio program will see statisically significant increases in muscle strength (and perhaps even small increases in mass). However this occurs only in response to the initial adaptation to the specific muscular demands of the cardio activity and will plateau fairly quickly.

Spanaval

Based on what most of you are saying, people that are not actually doing weight lifting (heavy weights, low reps) are not involving the anaerobic pathway. People mean different things when they say strength training/resistance training. It could be weight lifting, it could be the seemingly more popular lower weights, higher reps approach. If I'm reading this correctly, the former involves the anaerobic pathway, and the burn cannot be accurately measured by HRMs, while the latter recruits less of the anaerobic pathway, and the caloric expenditure is more accurately by a HRM.

mmapags

Based on what most of you are saying, people that are not actually doing weight lifting (heavy weights, low reps) are not involving the anaerobic pathway. People mean different things when they say strength training/resistance training. It could be weight lifting, it could be the seemingly more popular lower weights, higher reps approach. If I'm reading this correctly, the former involves the anaerobic pathway, and the burn cannot be accurately measured by HRMs, while the latter recruits less of the anaerobic pathway, and the caloric expenditure is more accurately by a HRM.

You are essentially correct in your assumptions. Just to be clear though, low weight, higher reps is muscle endurance training. Not that different from cardio. For it to be true STRENGTH training it would involve improving your strength. This mean lower reps, 6 or less, and higher weight. Strength training does not build mass. It just improves strength... oh yeah, and burn fat like crazy!

reggie2run

Thank you so much to everyone for your thoughts, advice and guidance. I learned so much. I'm so motivated now. Can't wait to get back at it. You guys are so wonderful. Thank you!

Spanaval

Based on what most of you are saying, people that are not actually doing weight lifting (heavy weights, low reps) are not involving the anaerobic pathway. People mean different things when they say strength training/resistance training. It could be weight lifting, it could be the seemingly more popular lower weights, higher reps approach. If I'm reading this correctly, the former involves the anaerobic pathway, and the burn cannot be accurately measured by HRMs, while the latter recruits less of the anaerobic pathway, and the caloric expenditure is more accurately by a HRM.

You are essentially correct in your assumptions. Just to be clear though, low weight, higher reps is muscle endurance training. Not that different from cardio. For it to be true STRENGTH training it would involve improving your strength. This mean lower reps, 6 or less, and higher weight. Strength training does not build mass. It just improves strength... oh yeah, and burn fat like crazy!

In all fairness, muscle endurance training would also improve strength over the long run. Otherwise, people wouldn't go up in weights. Obviously, it isn't the most efficient way to go about it.

kmmealey

Absolutely strength training is important. The "myfitnesspal" strength training database is the wink leak, in my opinion. It's been frustrating to me also, to do weight training, then find that MFP doesn't even have the exercise listed as you definitely burn a good number of calories with weights.
There was a great response posted on how to accurately calculate calories burned. I need to figure out the same thing.
Best wishes!

Salasel

Circuit training combines the best of both worlds. Get your heart rate up in the fat burning zone as you lift.

Edward

Ely82010

Weight training is absolutely important. Your calorie burn will definitely last longer when you lift. The more muscle you have, the more calories you burn. Keep up the weights and make sure your cardio keeps you in the fat burning zone with your heart rate.

Also, are you using a heart rate monitor watch to track calories burned? Seems like a low number of cals burned....

The problem is I don't know exactly how many calories I burned from weight training this morning. My screen under strength training only tells me the number of reps, the weight, etc. but no calorie burn. The 123 calories burned came from walking my Labrador, Midnight, this morning. Is there a way to tell how many calories I burned doing weights this morning?

Log weight training under cardiovascular. Enter the time-in minutes- that you worked out and the database will give you the calories burned. Of course, if you want more accurate readings, you need to get an HRM.

Brownsugar2011

I strongly encourage you to get a HRM!!!! You will be surprise at the amount of calories you are burning by lifting weights!!! Also add cardio to your workouts and limit weight lifting to three days a week. Beware, the scale will not always move on a weekly basis but (the scale) will eventually catch up with your progress. In a nutshell, lift the iron!!! MFP has it wrong on the amount of calories burned when lifting weights.....Hope this helps and encourage you to continue lifting IRON!!! Best of luck.

Azdak

I strongly encourage you to get a HRM!!!! You will be surprise at the amount of calories you are burning by lifting weights!!! Also add cardio to your workouts and limit weight lifting to three days a week. Beware, the scale will not always move on a weekly basis but (the scale) will eventually catch up with your progress. In a nutshell, lift the iron!!! MFP has it wrong on the amount of calories burned when lifting weights.....Hope this helps and encourage you to continue lifting IRON!!! Best of luck.

Somebody didn't read the whole thread first.........

Jacwhite22

Like everyone here, I am trying to lose weight.
I did about an hour and 20 minutes of weight training this morning.
But when I logged it, along with walking my dog for 30 minutes, I only burned about 123 calories.
I am just wondering if I should forget about strength training for now and focus entirely on doing cardio workouts as they burn more alot more calories than strength training.
But then I hear that strength training is really important as it helps build muscle that burn calories long after cardio does.
I am not sure what to do. I want to get the best bang for my buck so to speak.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Its all relative......It's less important than breathing and eating right......And more important than about anything else you are doing.

sinthebigcity

there is a general weight training category under the Cardio section of this site.. I also like the following sites (i tend to average the results)
http://www.prohealth.com/weightloss/tools/exercise/calculator1_2.cfm
http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc

and I use a fitbit http://www.myfitbit.com/

glennstoudt

Like everyone here, I am trying to lose weight.
I did about an hour and 20 minutes of weight training this morning.
But when I logged it, along with walking my dog for 30 minutes, I only burned about 123 calories.
I am just wondering if I should forget about strength training for now and focus entirely on doing cardio workouts as they burn more alot more calories than strength training.
But then I hear that strength training is really important as it helps build muscle that burn calories long after cardio does.
I am not sure what to do. I want to get the best bang for my buck so to speak.

Anyone have any thoughts?

I use circuit training caloric values on MFP for the time I lift weights and reduce it by 50%. Seems to work for me. Credit for the training calories and not overdoing the presumed burn.

glennstoudt

Strength training/muscle building is NOT important for fat loss. The effects of extra muscle on your metabolic rate have been overblown hugely. Whilst absolutely true, the effect of adding an extra 20lbs of muscle to your body is about 50cals a day, so it's irrelevant.

Similarly the caloric burn of a weights workout is substantially less than a cardio workout.

So a purist answer to your question is NO. However, there are so many other benefits from weight training on strength, body shape, self image/confidence etc etc that it's a great thing to do and I would never argue against it, but you don't need to do it to lose fat.

So then is cardio important?

Same answer really. In a purist sense NO it's not. You can create your calorie defecit just from diet. But it certainly helps the fat loss by generating a larger defecit and again there are second order benefits to health, fitness, increased energy etc that are very valuable.

In a purist sense, you don't need cardio either. However, from a PRACTICAL sense, the research strongly supports a combined training approach as opposed to diet-only, cardio-only, or strength-only.

This is a bit wrong.
Replacing 20 pounds of fat with 20 pounds of muscle results in a significant gain in calories burned daily, ie metabolic rate.
It is debatable how many exactly based on body weight, but the generally accepted formula is about a 15:1 ratio. So if you trade off 20 pound of muscle for 20 pounds of fat, you will burn 300 more calories daily at rest.

Granted it is pretty difficult to accomplish that 20 pound shift, but it is fact that the difference in calorie burn is what it is.

ShaunnaM

You can use something like this to estimate the calorie burn http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

i use this site its awesome

sheri02r

Try this formula:
220 pound person / 2.2 = 100 Kilogram person

Vigorous free weight training = 6 METs

100 x 6 x 0.0175 = 10.5 Calories per minute

60 minute workout = 10.5 x 60 = 630 Calories burned

Obviously, plug in your own data.

edit to add: I answer to your question on how important it is, I'd say very as part of an overall fitness program. It maintains lean mass while eating in deficit and doing cardio. You can lose weight but if you are also losing muscle mass it is self defeating. BTW, like you, I do strength, and cardio, both HIIT and steady state.

Interesting. Thanks for this.

Azdak

I have constantly remind everyone that I am not saying that resistance training does not burn calories, nor am I saying that resistance training is not important for weight loss. While obese beginners can lose significant weight doing cardio alone and even maintain lean mass (independent of structural reductions because their bodies are becoming smaller) for sustained and permanent weight loss, I feel the resistance training is crucial. Not only that, it is essential for long-term health and quality of life.

My main position in these discussions is that you can't use an HRM to estimate calories and database values aren't much good either.

Here is one study that illustrates the problem. It's an older one, but it is relatively simple to read.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2072844

The relationship between heart rate and oxygen rate is the most important component for an HRMs to accurately estimate calories. That's because heart rate, by itself, has little significance. Heart rate is only useful as an indirect indicator of oxygen uptake.

The algorithms built into most HRMs have been developed and validated by comparing them to actual oxygen uptake measured during aerobic exercise. Steady-state aerobic exercise.

During other activities and at higher intensities, there is a different "scale" between heart rate and oxygen uptake. But the HRM doesn't know the difference, so it can only return estimated data according to how it's programmed--when it senses a heart rate, it estimates oxygen uptake (and calories) as though you were doing steady state aerobic exercise.

In the study I cited, during moderate resistance exercise, for a given heart rate (percentage of HR max), the actual oxygen uptake was only about 1/2 the amount which occurred when performing steady state aerobic exercise at the same heart rate level.

ElHombre23

Do both just don't become rigid in your routine.... I often will do one week of heavy cardio 5 says then the next week I go in deep with resistance training the idea is your body never knows what's coming next... I usually determine what I'm going do 5 minutes before my workout... It's worked well for me just peek at the ticker.

Lleldiranne

Cardio burns the fat. Lifting shapes the muscle under the fat so you look better. It also increases your metabolism. Say you weigh 150 lbs. If that's with 22% body fat you will look slimmer and shapelier (and hotter!) than if you are the same weight but 30% body fat. You will also be able to eat higher calories and maintain! It's easy to fall into the trap of looking for the best calorie return - the best bang for you buck - in exercise, but some of the best barely even register on this site because they aren't really cardio. It's okay. Do both.

Jacwhite22

Cardio burns the fat. Lifting shapes the muscle under the fat so you look better. It also increases your metabolism. Say you weigh 150 lbs. If that's with 22% body fat you will look slimmer and shapelier (and hotter!) than if you are the same weight but 30% body fat. You will also be able to eat higher calories and maintain! It's easy to fall into the trap of looking for the best calorie return - the best bang for you buck - in exercise, but some of the best barely even register on this site because they aren't really cardio. It's okay. Do both.

no......calories in < calories out burns the fat....