Strength training burns more calories than cardio.

xipow

Everybody knows that 60 minutes of hard running will only burn around 1000 calories while 45 minutes of weights with 5 minutes of HIIT burns over 1,000,000 calories for two days.

1,000,000 ???

timboom1

"While it is evident that cardiovascular exercise burns more calories than lifting weights, the amount of calories burned after weight training is higher," reports the CTER Eportfolio System website. Metabolism increases after cardiovascular exercise only lasts 30 to 60 minutes, whereas post weight training metabolism increases up to 48 hours.

So is there an actual conclusion of which burns more in total? I read that I will be sore longer after strength training?

Everybody knows that 60 minutes of hard running will only burn around 1000 calories while 45 minutes of weights with 5 minutes of HIIT burns over 1,000,000 calories for two days.

Wahoo, my problems are finally solved. Pizza and beer tonight. It must be true I read it on the internet.

Really though, do what works for you and what you want out of it, if you want to lose weight then just have a calarie deficit at the end of the day. If you burn a few more than you counted because of the "afterburn" it isn't going to kill you.

cavewoman15

even if i do upper and lower body strength training on the same day, i don't think it lasts 45 minutes. maybe more like 35. however.. this is a good argument to lift before cardio. i usually do the other way around.

thanks!!

scottb81

ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)

It doesn't take an olympic level marathon runner. It only takes a year or so of fairly serious training and the ability to go out and run around 8 miles in an hour.

The problem I have with this oft stated argument is that it assumes steady state running is slow. That is not the case if one takes the time to get trained in which case one can burn many more calories steady state running than they can either lifting or doing HIIT. It only takes around four minutes of extra steady state running to equal the amount of calories burned with HIIT, including the "afterburn". Add to that that one can run much longer and much more often steady state points to it being the superior method of burning lots of calories.

HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.

tappae

Everybody knows that 60 minutes of hard running will only burn around 1000 calories while 45 minutes of weights with 5 minutes of HIIT burns over 1,000,000 calories for two days.

ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)

That was sarcasm, right? I'm a little suspicious of this idea. I need to read the studies, but I don't know of an accurate way to measure metabolism that would allow you to make statements about the increased burn after you stop exercising. Cardio is certainly a more efficient way to burn calories, but my favorite is what I did today: easy running between strength training stations, 50 minutes of running and about 20 minutes of body-weight exercises. I feel like I get more benefit from the chin-ups, dips, etc when I'm already tired and have an elevated heart rate when I start them versus doing them without the running.

timboom1

HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.

So not 1,000,000 calories.

xipow

cool. Thanks for posting that. Actually, that is exactly what I have begun doing!

Also, what diet suggestions do you make?

Nothing you haven't heard. I suggest you avoid foods with a low glycemic index. Get your sugar from fruit. Choose vitamin dense foods like veggies over calorie dense processed. Avoid carbohydrates before sleep to promote Human Growth Hormone secretion and minimize glucose production if you want lipolysis. Do not exceed 600 cal per meal with several meals a day to avoid fat storage and maintain metabolism rate. Water is important. Consistency is better than intensity.

xipow

ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)

It doesn't take an olympic level marathon runner. It only takes a year or so of fairly serious training and the ability to go out and run around 8 miles in an hour.

The problem I have with this oft stated argument is that it assumes steady state running is slow. That is not the case if one takes the time to get trained in which case one can burn many more calories steady state running than they can either lifting or doing HIIT. It only takes around four minutes of extra steady state running to equal the amount of calories burned with HIIT, including the "afterburn". Add to that that one can run much longer and much more often steady state points to it being the superior method of burning lots of calories.

HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.

Any references that support your statements will make them less subjective.

ahamm002

The olympic athletes where just examples. It's like there are these "newer" methods for weight loss that are supposedly more efficient. If a method promises better results, then we would have found it already. As I said below "Your body is smarter than you, you can't out trick it." Yes HIIT does have it's place in fitness, but it's not the be all end all. I think should be sport specific. Some want general fitness, some want to be endurance athletes, some want to be strength athletes. They should train for their sport. General fitness is "general" multiple forms of running is involved.

Well, most people do want something specific: fat burning. The bottom line is that most studies comparing HIIT to steady state cardio find that HIIT is more "efficient" for burning fat. However, if you have lots of time to do steady state cardio, then you could obviously burn more overall calories that way.

There is another side to the debate too though. It's not simply about the calories when it comes to exercise for those us concerned with body composition. HIIT will elicit a better GH response than steady state cardio. Whether that translates to a better body composition than steady state cardio is not definitively proven. But, if you look at sprinters versus marathon runners . . . .

pweinzap

ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)

It doesn't take an olympic level marathon runner. It only takes a year or so of fairly serious training and the ability to go out and run around 8 miles in an hour.

The problem I have with this oft stated argument is that it assumes steady state running is slow. That is not the case if one takes the time to get trained in which case one can burn many more calories steady state running than they can either lifting or doing HIIT. It only takes around four minutes of extra steady state running to equal the amount of calories burned with HIIT, including the "afterburn". Add to that that one can run much longer and much more often steady state points to it being the superior method of burning lots of calories.

HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.

Any references that support your statements will make them less subjective.

Here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101527

EPOC is very real of course. It has a direct relationship with the Intensity of exercise. HIIT/Intervals/whatever will indeed have a higher EPOC or "afterburn" than steady state cardio. However the significance of EPOC, regardless of the activity, compared to the amount of calories burned during the exercise is rather minimal.

BSchoberg

This is my mantra when I don't want to do the strength training...

MUSCLE BURNS FAT; MUSCLE BURNS FAT; MUSCLE BURNS FAT!

And it looks better, too!

RJAgeo

Exactly.

scottb81

Any references that support your statements will make them less subjective.

Which statement. The one about calorie burning is easily calculated using the MET values of the exercise. The rest you can find on Lyle McDonald's Body Recomposition site.

sandrajune72

As Jillian Michaels says, you should combine both. just my 2 cents worth!!

1Fizzle

Good info on here.....BUMP

xipow

ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)

It doesn't take an olympic level marathon runner. It only takes a year or so of fairly serious training and the ability to go out and run around 8 miles in an hour.

The problem I have with this oft stated argument is that it assumes steady state running is slow. That is not the case if one takes the time to get trained in which case one can burn many more calories steady state running than they can either lifting or doing HIIT. It only takes around four minutes of extra steady state running to equal the amount of calories burned with HIIT, including the "afterburn". Add to that that one can run much longer and much more often steady state points to it being the superior method of burning lots of calories.

HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.

Any references that support your statements will make them less subjective.

You can call it Murphy’s Law, but the promise of greater fat oxidation seen during and in the early postexercise periods of lower intensity cardio disappears when the effects are measured over 24 hours. Melanson’s research team was perhaps the first to break the redundancy of studies that only compared effects within a few hours postexercise [5]. In a design involving an even mix of lean, healthy men & women aged 20-45, identical caloric expenditures of 40% VO2 max was compared with 70% VO2 max. Result? No difference in net fat oxidation between the low & high-intensity groups at the 24 hr mark.

http://alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Summing Up the Research Findings

• In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments.
• Fed subjects consistently experience a greater thermic effect postexercise in both intensity ranges.
• In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.
• In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat.

Great info, thanks

RiannonC

[/quote]

The olympic athletes where just examples. It's like there are these "newer" methods for weight loss that are supposedly more efficient. If a method promises better results, then we would have found it already. As I said below "Your body is smarter than you, you can't out trick it." Yes HIIT does have it's place in fitness, but it's not the be all end all. I think should be sport specific. Some want general fitness, some want to be endurance athletes, some want to be strength athletes. They should train for their sport. General fitness is "general" multiple forms of running is involved.
[/quote]

You are 100% right about training for your sport. It seems like everyone thinks that everyone else should do the exact same types of exercise they do. If you want to be able to run a marathon, you're not going to get there by lifting hundreds of pounds. If you want to lift hundreds of pounds, you're not going to get there by running a marathon. It all depends on what you want to be able to do, and also, on what you enjoy doing. I personally love cardio and anything high intensity, whereas strength training bores me. I do it sometimes because it's good for me, but running, step aerobics, cycling; those are what I really enjoy and what I do most often. That's not about to change, whether strength training burns more calories or not. I would forgo a hamburger in a heartbeat if it meant getting to do the exercise I like rather than the type I don't like. I eat so I can exercise, not the other way around.

shivaslives

It depends on the type of strength training and the type of cardio that you do. If the strength training is circuits or crossfit or something similar that keeps your heart rate up, and the cardio is relatively low to medium intensity, then I would agree. Otherwise, my experience with HRM and fitness calculations over the past 9 months disagrees.



Advice is worth exactly what you pay for it!
<=>

meerkat70

A 45-minute strength training session followed by a 10-15 minute cardio workout (65%-75% of MHR) will burn more calories than a 60-minute cardio workout!

http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/

Eh. I disagree. And when I was wearing my body fit media thingy, it disagreed too. Running/fast walking and/or hiking burned a lot more for me than weight lifting did.

Burned 1500 cals today, running for 2 hours.

I am lucky to burn 300 by HRM lifting heavy for an hour.

(And yes, I understand that an HRM isn't the ideal way to measure calorie burn for lifting.)

I don't understand why the 'lifters' want to make this into a competition all the time.

Do weights. Do cardio. Do what makes you happy, and makes you feel good. FFS, stop trying to make everyone do it *your* way.

lauren3382

I don't strength train for the calorie burn, I strength train for the strength training.

Love this! While I only burned 106 calories on a killer 40 minute leg session today, I know I did more for my body transformation than an equal amount of time doing cardio would have done.