Whoa whoa whoa!! You can't burn fat via exercise????
Replies
-
So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
Dammit! I've always cherished the claim that you continue to burn higher calories for a while after exersizing!!! I HATE exersizing and I want to gleen every last bit of benefit from it! :sad:
Your body can still burn exercise calories for a period of time after anaerobic exercise (resistance training). Usually after aerobic training (cardio), the exercise calories stop being burned upon completion of the workout.
No, this is not true. It used to be thought that metabolism slowed back to at rest state within an hour of doing aerobic exercise. But it's been shown to last for several hours.
Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.0 -
So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
Dammit! I've always cherished the claim that you continue to burn higher calories for a while after exersizing!!! I HATE exersizing and I want to gleen every last bit of benefit from it! :sad:
Your body can still burn exercise calories for a period of time after anaerobic exercise (resistance training). Usually after aerobic training (cardio), the exercise calories stop being burned upon completion of the workout.
No, this is not true. It used to be thought that metabolism slowed back to at rest state within an hour of doing aerobic exercise. But it's been shown to last for several hours.
Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
I meant consistent cardio also. The NC study was done on cardio alone - 45 min of intense cardio using exercise bikes. 100% of the participants (all men, if I remember correctly) showed an afterburn of several hours. The average was 14 hours.
ETA: Here is an article describing the carefully controlled study, if you are interested.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-01/health/sc-health-0201-fitness-burn-20120201_1_post-exercise-exercise-scientists-metabolism0 -
So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
Dammit! I've always cherished the claim that you continue to burn higher calories for a while after exersizing!!! I HATE exersizing and I want to gleen every last bit of benefit from it! :sad:
Your body can still burn exercise calories for a period of time after anaerobic exercise (resistance training). Usually after aerobic training (cardio), the exercise calories stop being burned upon completion of the workout.
No, this is not true. It used to be thought that metabolism slowed back to at rest state within an hour of doing aerobic exercise. But it's been shown to last for several hours.
Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
I meant consistent cardio also. The NC study was done on cardio alone - 45 min of intense cardio using exercise bikes. 100% of the participants (all men, if I remember correctly) showed an afterburn of several hours. The average was 14 hours.
ETA: Here is an article describing the carefully controlled study, if you are interested.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-01/health/sc-health-0201-fitness-burn-20120201_1_post-exercise-exercise-scientists-metabolism
Thank you for the article. However, it does back up more of what I'm saying. Very little EPOC is provided from running on a treadmill at a constant speed for 3 miles. Your article states the the participants in the study went through "vigorous" cycling workouts. This suggest they were performing a workout closer to HIIT than steady cardio. In that scenario, EPOC would be greater based on the intensity of the workout.0 -
The MOST simplistic answer is YES you can burn fat via exercise. But you'd have to burn off your glycogen stores first.
What most people DON'T know is that you burn more fat AT REST (not exercising) than you would exercising.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.0 -
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Not sure I completely agree with that. This is just my opinion, but I would think running at a constant pace for 30 minutes would not burn as many calories as a HIIT workout for 30 minutes.0 -
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Exactly, cardio exercise burns way more calories than weight lifting. You see many people promoting weight lifting on here versus cardio. If you have 30 minutes of exercise time it is your best bet to do cardio in increase weight loss. It makes maintaining a caloric deficit much easier.0 -
So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
Dammit! I've always cherished the claim that you continue to burn higher calories for a while after exersizing!!! I HATE exersizing and I want to gleen every last bit of benefit from it! :sad:
Your body can still burn exercise calories for a period of time after anaerobic exercise (resistance training). Usually after aerobic training (cardio), the exercise calories stop being burned upon completion of the workout.
No, this is not true. It used to be thought that metabolism slowed back to at rest state within an hour of doing aerobic exercise. But it's been shown to last for several hours.
Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
I meant consistent cardio also. The NC study was done on cardio alone - 45 min of intense cardio using exercise bikes. 100% of the participants (all men, if I remember correctly) showed an afterburn of several hours. The average was 14 hours.
ETA: Here is an article describing the carefully controlled study, if you are interested.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-01/health/sc-health-0201-fitness-burn-20120201_1_post-exercise-exercise-scientists-metabolism
Thank you for the article. However, it does back up more of what I'm saying. Very little EPOC is provided from running on a treadmill at a constant speed for 3 miles. Your article states the the participants in the study went through "vigorous" cycling workouts. This suggest they were performing a workout closer to HIIT than steady cardio. In that scenario, EPOC would be greater based on the intensity of the workout.
I didn't see anything to suggest the cycling was HIIT and not a steady pace, but you are correct that for the afterburn the intesity matters. But it is quite possible to do intense consistent (steady state) cardio.0 -
It largely depends on how well trained the person is. One person running steady state may be running 14 minute miles. Another is running 11 minute miles. Still another is running 7 or 8 minute miles.Not sure I completely agree with that. This is just my opinion, but I would think running at a constant pace for 30 minutes would not burn as many calories as a HIIT workout for 30 minutes.
Another factor is that of that 30 minutes HIIT only about half of that is actually spent running fast. The other half is spent recovering at a significantly lower calorie burn. Just because the heart is still beating fast, the calorie burn still goes down when the muscles reduce their energy expenditure.0 -
false. Metabolic chamber study, 45min of 70% VO2MAX 188bpm HR caused about a 30% metabolic increase over the next 24 hours vs no cardio done. This was on top of the 420 calories burned directly from the exercise done.
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
In addition to that, the more you increase intensity, the more the metabolic increase is. When you damage tissue, it needs repair. Resistance training by definition damages tissue. Thats how you get a hypertrophic response. This repair is not done from thin air, it requires calories to do. Ask ANYONE trying to gain weight while lifting heavy. it's not easy. They eat and eat more until they are stuffed. Gaining weight while resistance training is dam hard once you're able to lift decently heavy.
This is comparable to burn victims. Ask any doc what the caloric requirements of burn victims are. easily 10k+. It takes a ton of every to repair damaged tissue.
To note though. This is resistance training that actually pushes progressive overload. If you're following those cardio routine ment to look like resistance training, then ya, no overload means no epoc.0 -
nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Exactly, cardio exercise burns way more calories than weight lifting. You see many people promoting weight lifting on here versus cardio. If you have 30 minutes of exercise time it is your best bet to do cardio in increase weight loss. It makes maintaining a caloric deficit much easier.0 -
So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
It happened to me. I started storing extra fat when I hit 39 from being a cardio addict so I had to revamp my routine in the past year. After 15yrs of doing primarily cardio, it finally failed me. I had to start hitting weights, hard! Not 5lb weights for 150 reps, more like heavy weights and few reps. Now I'm back where I wanna be!
I believe you can't burn fat from exercise alone or from diet alone. It's been my experience that it's a two-part...all the exercise in the world will not get me where I wanna be if I didn't clean up my eating. Just like I can eat perfectly "clean" all the time but if I'm not getting up and moving, I'm not gonna get where I wanna be. Especially at 40 yrs old!0 -
If you are not exercising and eating at a surplus you will gain weight and increase your bf %.
If you are not exercising and eating at maintenance you will maintain your weight and bf%.
If you are not exercising and eating at a deficit you will lose weight and decrease your bf%.
If you are exercising and eating at a surplus you will gain weight and increase your bf %.
If you are exercising and eating at maintenance you will maintain your weight and bf%.
If you are exercising and eating at a deficit you will lose weight and decrease your bf%.
If you are not exercising and eating at a deficit you will lose weight, decrease your bf%, and possibly be a little jiggly.
If you are exercising and eating at a deficit you will lose weight, decrease your bf%, and possibly be not be a little jiggly.0 -
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
That's a very simplistic understanding of the caloric deficit caused by weight training. So many people here are only trying to figure amount the calories burned during the actual 45-60 min workout and make a comparison some form of cardio. They don't add in the massive calorie intake your body needs over the next 48 hours to replenish, rebuild and grow the muscles damaged during that 60 minute workout.0 -
Take everything you read here with a grain of salt...0
-
So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
It happened to me. I started storing extra fat when I hit 39 from being a cardio addict so I had to revamp my routine in the past year. After 15yrs of doing primarily cardio, it finally failed me. I had to start hitting weights, hard! Not 5lb weights for 150 reps, more like heavy weights and few reps. Now I'm back where I wanna be!
I believe you can't burn fat from exercise alone or from diet alone. It's been my experience that it's a two-part...all the exercise in the world will not get me where I wanna be if I didn't clean up my eating. Just like I can eat perfectly "clean" all the time but if I'm not getting up and moving, I'm not gonna get where I wanna be. Especially at 40 yrs old!
While I agree that a mix of cardio (aerobic) exercise and strength training is usually most effective and healthiest option. It was not cardio 'messing with your hormones' that caused you start storing extra fat. Our metabolisms naturally begin slowing at about age 20. It's likely the cardio that allowed you not begin storing that extra fat until age 39.
If you think it's bad at age 40, wait till you hit menopause!0 -
nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Exactly, cardio exercise burns way more calories than weight lifting. You see many people promoting weight lifting on here versus cardio. If you have 30 minutes of exercise time it is your best bet to do cardio in increase weight loss. It makes maintaining a caloric deficit much easier.
I've lifted a lot of weights in my lift and at one point I was a very competitive cyclist. You burn many more calories in an hour of cycling or running than you would in an hour of lifting. Long term you will get some metabolic gain from increased muscle mass, but for most people on here trying to lose weight with limited time cardio is the answer.0 -
external factors can make hormonal changes that affect your base BMR. This is nothing new. There was a harvard study recently done that found macro breakdown alone can change your base BMR, even with equal calories. There was another doc called why skinny people are skinny or something like that. Basically they fed 20 skinny people who claim they can't gain weight 5k calories a day. So like 3k+ their normal intake. No other changes were made. End result is every last one of them gained weight, but NONE of them gained the amount of weight math says they should gain by adding 3k calories a day. In every case, their base BMR increased to try and compensate.So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
It happened to me. I started storing extra fat when I hit 39 from being a cardio addict so I had to revamp my routine in the past year. After 15yrs of doing primarily cardio, it finally failed me. I had to start hitting weights, hard! Not 5lb weights for 150 reps, more like heavy weights and few reps. Now I'm back where I wanna be!
I believe you can't burn fat from exercise alone or from diet alone. It's been my experience that it's a two-part...all the exercise in the world will not get me where I wanna be if I didn't clean up my eating. Just like I can eat perfectly "clean" all the time but if I'm not getting up and moving, I'm not gonna get where I wanna be. Especially at 40 yrs old!
While I agree that a mix of cardio (aerobic) exercise and strength training is usually most effective and healthiest option. It was not cardio 'messing with your hormones' that caused you start storing extra fat. Our metabolisms naturally begin slowing at about age 20. It's likely the cardio that allowed you not begin storing that extra fat until age 39.
If you think it's bad at age 40, wait till you hit menopause!
How many people on here do you constantly see saying I do tons of cardio, only eat 1k calories a day, but I just cannot lose weight.
Your BMR is NOT constant, and can easily change based upon external factors. Not just age.0 -
Again, once you can lift heavy, this is no longer true.
nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Exactly, cardio exercise burns way more calories than weight lifting. You see many people promoting weight lifting on here versus cardio. If you have 30 minutes of exercise time it is your best bet to do cardio in increase weight loss. It makes maintaining a caloric deficit much easier.
I've lifted a lot of weights in my lift and at one point I was a very competitive cyclist. You burn many more calories in an hour of cycling or running than you would in an hour of lifting. Long term you will get some metabolic gain from increased muscle mass, but for most people on here trying to lose weight with limited time cardio is the answer.
You said you've done a lot of lifting. What are your 1rep maxes for the big lifts?
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf
Are you in the intermediate level of strength? Advanced? I'm going to have to say no you're not because of this claim you're making. Once you start getting solidly into intermediate then try and tell me that lifting doesn't create a huge caloric requirement.0 -
I recommend scheduling an appointment with a nutritionist. Try to find somebody who is a registered dietician, since basically anybody can call themselves a nutritionist. If you have insurance, it's usually not too pricey (mine costs $15/appointment). A nutritionist will work with you to figure out YOUR body's needs, both in terms of exercise and diet. I wouldn't rely too much on MFP for tailored exercise advice. Borrow some exercise books from the library (try New Rules of Lifting), and get some solid basics down before you invest too much into a certain workout/diet regimen.
It's not that I don't trust MFP's advice! MFP can be a great starting point for research and discussions, and has helped me a ton! Just keep in mind that with so many different bits of advice, experience, and opinions being thrown at you, your best bet is to visit a few different professionals to set the record straight.0 -
external factors can make hormonal changes that affect your base BMR. This is nothing new. There was a harvard study recently done that found macro breakdown alone can change your base BMR, even with equal calories. There was another doc called why skinny people are skinny or something like that. Basically they fed 20 skinny people who claim they can't gain weight 5k calories a day. So like 3k+ their normal intake. No other changes were made. End result is every last one of them gained weight, but NONE of them gained the amount of weight math says they should gain by adding 3k calories a day. In every case, their base BMR increased to try and compensate.So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
It happened to me. I started storing extra fat when I hit 39 from being a cardio addict so I had to revamp my routine in the past year. After 15yrs of doing primarily cardio, it finally failed me. I had to start hitting weights, hard! Not 5lb weights for 150 reps, more like heavy weights and few reps. Now I'm back where I wanna be!
I believe you can't burn fat from exercise alone or from diet alone. It's been my experience that it's a two-part...all the exercise in the world will not get me where I wanna be if I didn't clean up my eating. Just like I can eat perfectly "clean" all the time but if I'm not getting up and moving, I'm not gonna get where I wanna be. Especially at 40 yrs old!
While I agree that a mix of cardio (aerobic) exercise and strength training is usually most effective and healthiest option. It was not cardio 'messing with your hormones' that caused you start storing extra fat. Our metabolisms naturally begin slowing at about age 20. It's likely the cardio that allowed you not begin storing that extra fat until age 39.
If you think it's bad at age 40, wait till you hit menopause!
How many people on here do you constantly see saying I do tons of cardio, only eat 1k calories a day, but I just cannot lose weight.
Your BMR is NOT constant, and can easily change based upon external factors. Not just age.
I never suggested it couldn't.
People who say they eat 1000 calories a day do tons of cardio and can't lose weight are either miscalculating their calories or very, very small with little weight to lose. Cardio can't make you gain or maintain weight on a calorie deficit, and it's the rare person that has a TDEE of 1000 even at sedentary.0 -
external factors can make hormonal changes that affect your base BMR. This is nothing new. There was a harvard study recently done that found macro breakdown alone can change your base BMR, even with equal calories. There was another doc called why skinny people are skinny or something like that. Basically they fed 20 skinny people who claim they can't gain weight 5k calories a day. So like 3k+ their normal intake. No other changes were made. End result is every last one of them gained weight, but NONE of them gained the amount of weight math says they should gain by adding 3k calories a day. In every case, their base BMR increased to try and compensate.So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
It happened to me. I started storing extra fat when I hit 39 from being a cardio addict so I had to revamp my routine in the past year. After 15yrs of doing primarily cardio, it finally failed me. I had to start hitting weights, hard! Not 5lb weights for 150 reps, more like heavy weights and few reps. Now I'm back where I wanna be!
I believe you can't burn fat from exercise alone or from diet alone. It's been my experience that it's a two-part...all the exercise in the world will not get me where I wanna be if I didn't clean up my eating. Just like I can eat perfectly "clean" all the time but if I'm not getting up and moving, I'm not gonna get where I wanna be. Especially at 40 yrs old!
While I agree that a mix of cardio (aerobic) exercise and strength training is usually most effective and healthiest option. It was not cardio 'messing with your hormones' that caused you start storing extra fat. Our metabolisms naturally begin slowing at about age 20. It's likely the cardio that allowed you not begin storing that extra fat until age 39.
If you think it's bad at age 40, wait till you hit menopause!
How many people on here do you constantly see saying I do tons of cardio, only eat 1k calories a day, but I just cannot lose weight.
Your BMR is NOT constant, and can easily change based upon external factors. Not just age.
I never suggested it couldn't.
People who say they eat 1000 calories a day do tons of cardio and can't lose weight are either miscalculating their calories or very, very small with little weight to lose. Cardio can't make you gain or maintain weight on a calorie deficit, and it's the rare person that has a TDEE of 1000 even at sedentary.
I think a lot of people get burned by under reporting their food and then overestimating their exercise time, intensity, and the fact that MFP overestimates calories burned during exercise anyway. If you eat back all your calories you are probably overeating especially as your body gets more efficient at running, cycling, Jillian MIcheals or whatever you do. That is why we find a lot of people say they aren't losing weight and then someone sets them a specific calorie target based on TDEE and all of a sudden they lose.0 -
you can burn fat when not in a calorie deficit. look at athletes who are technically heavier in weight, but have low body fat percentage. I guarantee they are not eating in a calorie deficit otherwise they would not build much muscle.0
-
external factors can make hormonal changes that affect your base BMR. This is nothing new. There was a harvard study recently done that found macro breakdown alone can change your base BMR, even with equal calories. There was another doc called why skinny people are skinny or something like that. Basically they fed 20 skinny people who claim they can't gain weight 5k calories a day. So like 3k+ their normal intake. No other changes were made. End result is every last one of them gained weight, but NONE of them gained the amount of weight math says they should gain by adding 3k calories a day. In every case, their base BMR increased to try and compensate.So many exercise facts get twisted and turned around partly because none of them are 100% proven.
Exercise absolutely can burn fat. Most likely what got twisted is that we used to think that exercise would burn tons of extra calories even once we were done performing it and that doesn't seem to be true. Of course I'm sure someone will argue with me on that.
Excessive cardio can mess with women's hormones and cause them to store fat. It's individual though - I've never had that issue.
It happened to me. I started storing extra fat when I hit 39 from being a cardio addict so I had to revamp my routine in the past year. After 15yrs of doing primarily cardio, it finally failed me. I had to start hitting weights, hard! Not 5lb weights for 150 reps, more like heavy weights and few reps. Now I'm back where I wanna be!
I believe you can't burn fat from exercise alone or from diet alone. It's been my experience that it's a two-part...all the exercise in the world will not get me where I wanna be if I didn't clean up my eating. Just like I can eat perfectly "clean" all the time but if I'm not getting up and moving, I'm not gonna get where I wanna be. Especially at 40 yrs old!
While I agree that a mix of cardio (aerobic) exercise and strength training is usually most effective and healthiest option. It was not cardio 'messing with your hormones' that caused you start storing extra fat. Our metabolisms naturally begin slowing at about age 20. It's likely the cardio that allowed you not begin storing that extra fat until age 39.
If you think it's bad at age 40, wait till you hit menopause!
How many people on here do you constantly see saying I do tons of cardio, only eat 1k calories a day, but I just cannot lose weight.
Your BMR is NOT constant, and can easily change based upon external factors. Not just age.
I never suggested it couldn't.
People who say they eat 1000 calories a day do tons of cardio and can't lose weight are either miscalculating their calories or very, very small with little weight to lose. Cardio can't make you gain or maintain weight on a calorie deficit, and it's the rare person that has a TDEE of 1000 even at sedentary.
I think a lot of people get burned by under reporting their food and then overestimating their exercise time, intensity, and the fact that MFP overestimates calories burned during exercise anyway. If you eat back all your calories you are probably overeating especially as your body gets more efficient at running, cycling, Jillian MIcheals or whatever you do. That is why we find a lot of people say they aren't losing weight and then someone sets them a specific calorie target based on TDEE and all of a sudden they lose.
I second this. I meet a lot of people that say they eat a tiny amount of food, and in spending a few hours with them I seem them eat 100s of calories that don't get logged. From snacks to gigantic Starbucks offerings loaded with much cream and sugar, these mystery calories never hit their log and I'll on see on the log is Breakfast, 1 egg white, lunch, 2 peanuts, diinner, stared at a picture of food. And don't get me started on lack of intensity of the workouts that get logged as 600 cal+.0 -
I work in the fitness and nutrition industry and can confirm 100% exercise plays a key role in fat burning.
technically speaking your body can only burn fat when you have a negative calorie ratio... basically you burn more then you eat on a specific day. So if you eat 2000 calories you can't burn a thing until you burn 2001 calories... so in some regard i can see where your fear comes from that its only about calorie in.
What your forgeting is that exercise is a huge calorie expenditure, making it much easier to hit not only what you've intaken but exceed it. Plus, it assists in increasing BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate)... more lean muscle tissue requires more energy just to maintain itself... so exercise not only increase what you burn that day but improves how much you burn 24 hours 7 days a week.
Exercise is a key component of increasing your metabolism. and a fast metabolism is without a doubt required to have optimal fat loss.0 -
Again, once you can lift heavy, this is no longer true.
nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Exactly, cardio exercise burns way more calories than weight lifting. You see many people promoting weight lifting on here versus cardio. If you have 30 minutes of exercise time it is your best bet to do cardio in increase weight loss. It makes maintaining a caloric deficit much easier.
I've lifted a lot of weights in my lift and at one point I was a very competitive cyclist. You burn many more calories in an hour of cycling or running than you would in an hour of lifting. Long term you will get some metabolic gain from increased muscle mass, but for most people on here trying to lose weight with limited time cardio is the answer.
You said you've done a lot of lifting. What are your 1rep maxes for the big lifts?
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf
Are you in the intermediate level of strength? Advanced? I'm going to have to say no you're not because of this claim you're making. Once you start getting solidly into intermediate then try and tell me that lifting doesn't create a huge caloric requirement.
I would have been advanced for the most part. Some maybe intermediate. Never tested myself on some of the lifts on the list. Lifting does create a caloric requirement, but compare that to the calories that an intermediate to advanced cyclist riding 20 mph or an intermediate to advanced runner doing 60 minutes at 6-8 minutes per mile. The cardio guys are going to burn more. A elite cyclist will burn 2k to 7k per day of training. Again, for most people on this website who have limited time to workout they are much better off to take the hour they can spare 3-4 times per week and do cardiovascular exercise then lift weights. Both are beneficial, but when trying to lose weight you are going to burn more in less time doing cardio.0 -
Again, once you can lift heavy, this is no longer true.
nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Exactly, cardio exercise burns way more calories than weight lifting. You see many people promoting weight lifting on here versus cardio. If you have 30 minutes of exercise time it is your best bet to do cardio in increase weight loss. It makes maintaining a caloric deficit much easier.
I've lifted a lot of weights in my lift and at one point I was a very competitive cyclist. You burn many more calories in an hour of cycling or running than you would in an hour of lifting. Long term you will get some metabolic gain from increased muscle mass, but for most people on here trying to lose weight with limited time cardio is the answer.
You said you've done a lot of lifting. What are your 1rep maxes for the big lifts?
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf
Are you in the intermediate level of strength? Advanced? I'm going to have to say no you're not because of this claim you're making. Once you start getting solidly into intermediate then try and tell me that lifting doesn't create a huge caloric requirement.
I would have been advanced for the most part. Some maybe intermediate. Never tested myself on some of the lifts on the list. Lifting does create a caloric requirement, but compare that to the calories that an intermediate to advanced cyclist riding 20 mph or an intermediate to advanced runner doing 60 minutes at 6-8 minutes per mile. The cardio guys are going to burn more. A elite cyclist will burn 2k to 7k per day of training. Again, for most people on this website who have limited time to workout they are much better off to take the hour they can spare 3-4 times per week and do cardiovascular exercise then lift weights. Both are beneficial, but when trying to lose weight you are going to burn more in less time doing cardio.
Just a quick search yielded this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698
Lifting weights creates a small burn during the exercise and a small burn after to repair your muscles. However, you cannot compare that to an intermediate to advanced runner or cyclist.0 -
Again, once you can lift heavy, this is no longer true.
nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Exactly, cardio exercise burns way more calories than weight lifting. You see many people promoting weight lifting on here versus cardio. If you have 30 minutes of exercise time it is your best bet to do cardio in increase weight loss. It makes maintaining a caloric deficit much easier.
I've lifted a lot of weights in my lift and at one point I was a very competitive cyclist. You burn many more calories in an hour of cycling or running than you would in an hour of lifting. Long term you will get some metabolic gain from increased muscle mass, but for most people on here trying to lose weight with limited time cardio is the answer.
You said you've done a lot of lifting. What are your 1rep maxes for the big lifts?
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf
Are you in the intermediate level of strength? Advanced? I'm going to have to say no you're not because of this claim you're making. Once you start getting solidly into intermediate then try and tell me that lifting doesn't create a huge caloric requirement.
I would have been advanced for the most part. Some maybe intermediate. Never tested myself on some of the lifts on the list. Lifting does create a caloric requirement, but compare that to the calories that an intermediate to advanced cyclist riding 20 mph or an intermediate to advanced runner doing 60 minutes at 6-8 minutes per mile. The cardio guys are going to burn more. A elite cyclist will burn 2k to 7k per day of training. Again, for most people on this website who have limited time to workout they are much better off to take the hour they can spare 3-4 times per week and do cardiovascular exercise then lift weights. Both are beneficial, but when trying to lose weight you are going to burn more in less time doing cardio.
Just a quick search yielded this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698
Lifting weights creates a small burn during the exercise and a small burn after to repair your muscles. However, you cannot compare that to an intermediate to advanced runner or cyclist.
Lifting heavy weights burns a lot of calories. I think it would be fairly comparable to intense cardio. The difference would come from the length of time each is done. For example, an elite cyclist may burn 2k to 7k per day, but they don't burn that in an hour. They burn it over several hours. Hour for hour, I would guess heavy lifting and intense cardio burn about the same.0 -
HIIT and weight training provide approximately 7% more. However, since HIIT and weight training both burn significantly fewer calories during the workout the total calories burned, including EPOC, is significantly less than that burned with a normal steady state exercise.Maybe I should be more specific. Consistent cardio provides very little EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) while HIIT and weight training provide significantly more EPOC.
Exactly, cardio exercise burns way more calories than weight lifting. You see many people promoting weight lifting on here versus cardio. If you have 30 minutes of exercise time it is your best bet to do cardio in increase weight loss. It makes maintaining a caloric deficit much easier.
Uh huh.. whenever I lift weights, I get bulky.. with cardio I slim down.
**edit: Which is why I like HIIT. I've seen more difference with HIIT workouts than bulking up at the gym and running to death on the treadmill. If you are a body builder or athlete, that route works but I don't want to be neither of those so HIIT works for me. Just my two cents0 -
Lifting heavy weights burns a lot of calories. I think it would be fairly comparable to intense cardio. The difference would come from the length of time each is done. For example, an elite cyclist may burn 2k to 7k per day, but they don't burn that in an hour. They burn it over several hours. Hour for hour, I would guess heavy lifting and intense cardio burn about the same.
No, heavy weight training has a MET equivalent of 6, with lighter session have a value of 3.
On the other hand fast cycling has a MET value of 12, with leisure cycling coming in at 8, fast running comes in at a whopping 16, with a slower run at 10.
Sure weights and HIIT have a higher EPOC effect than regular cardio (which does have an EPOC effect just a lower amount) but the total calories burned is generally more (sometimes substantially more) with cardio even factoring that in.
If a person is doing HIIT and weights because they think it is good for overall calorie burn they are spectacularly missing the point. These are both tools for helping to preserve LBM and in the case of HIIT to work towards maximal fitness.
Now I am going to say something really strange so everyone please don't stare.
How about
people
incorporate
weights
hiit
and some steady state
into their routine?
eta: edited out the animated gif as it was doing my head in
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions