Strength training - important or not?

MB_Positif

In my own experience it is insanely important. For example, I have only lost 2 pounds since January but I have gone from a size 10 jeans to a size 6 because I have been strength training. I say that makes it very important!

Azdak

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've also heard the same thing...

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 would encourage you to add legs/core to your resistance training, for the only reason the muscles in your arm aren't all that big and thus don't burn that many calories. Your legs/hips/core stablize the rest of your body, burn more calories when worked. While the stairmaster offers some resistance, it's nothing compared to actual resistance training...and your balance, and knee & joint health will improve.

I was going to respond, but I'll just add to yours. Yes, cardio training is not the same as resistance training. You may be getting a "great" CARDIO workout from the stairmaster, elliptical, and treadmill, but not a great resistance workout. The two have different physical effects.

jcr85

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.

Reading things like this hurt my brain.

BigMech

The problem with creating a deficit from just diet is that you will lose muscle along with the fat, and you may very end up with the same body fat percentage just at a lower weight, which isn't all that much healthier. By adding a weight lifting component to your plan, you will be able to slow or halt the muscle/lean mass loss during fat loss, and end up with a much better body fat percentage. I'm pretty sure the goal is to be healthier, not just thinner and lighter.

Azdak

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.

Jomalone2

It is hard not to focus on the scales - we all know that. I've gone from a size 12 to a size 6 and only lost about 10 pounds (on a good day). But to me if you are sweating you are burning calories. Someone suggested to me to categorize it as circuit training so you can get the calories. Others may disagree.

catpow2

I do both. But I have seen significantly more results from strength training than from cardio. If you're just interested in losing weight and burning calories then reduce your calories and do cardio. If you want to look leaner and stronger and more defined, add in some strength training.

waldo56

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?

Keep track of how long you did it.

MFP has 4 entries for strength training in the CARDIO section.

Calisthenics - Light
Calisthenics - Heavy
Strength Training
Circuit Training

The Calisthenics - Light and Strength Training entries are low. If you are lollygagging around at the gym, spending time waiting for benches/machines, doing mostly isolation exercises, and/or not trying very hard (such as warming up), these are the entries to use.

The Heavy Calisthenics and Circuit Training entries are moderate, if you are lifting heavy with compound exercises, supersetting and moving fast, or actually doing moderate effort circuit training these are the entries to use.

There is no entry for super hard circuit training. Stuff like Crossfit metcons. If you are pushing yourself to your physical brink as you circuit train, no entry in MFP has a high enough calorie burn. I fix this by adding a couple more minutes than I really did. Super hard circuit training can burn upwards of 2x the calories per minute as MFP's circuit training entry.

Remember, recovery time counts. If you are done circuit training, and have to lay on the floor half dead for 5 minutes before you can move, that recovery time counts when it comes to calorie burn.

Calorie burn cannot be estimatd from the amount of weight and the exercise. How hard the exercise is to you is what determines the burn, not how hard it is overall. If you are lifting at your 5RM you are lifting heavy and have a high calorie burn, whether or not your 5RM is 20 lbs or 200 lbs.

Azdak

After I got my HRM, I found out that my strength routines get my heart rate up, and do provide a nice burn. Without much of an impact really, because I cannot do anything along those lines.

Make sure you're doing more compound moves and less isolation work. If you feel the need to increase the intensity, feel free to add stuff like plyo squats and jumping lunges. You can also add things like burpees (and variations, side burpees, with jumps, with push-ups, etc.), mountain climbers, man makers, etc.

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.

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.

SPNLuver83

YES YES YES Strength training is a MUST. Do not drop it! The key to weight loss is BOTH cardio AND strength!!! (with proper nutrition of course)

Good luck on your journey!

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.