Whoa whoa whoa!! You can't burn fat via exercise????

bcattoes

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!

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.

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.

bpotts44

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!

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.

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.

b0t23

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.

DavPul

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!

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.

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+.

farrell16

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.

bpotts44

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.

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.

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.

nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.

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.

Again, once you can lift heavy, this is no longer true.

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.

bpotts44

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.

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.

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.

nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.

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.

Again, once you can lift heavy, this is no longer true.

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.

bcattoes

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.

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.

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.

nope, weight lifting burns way more calories than cardio once you can lift heavy. Otherwise you are correct.

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.

Again, once you can lift heavy, this is no longer true.

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.

dixiewhiskey

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.

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.

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 cents

myofibril

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

bpotts44

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

I agree with what you are saying 100%. Cardio, especially intense cardio burns way more calories than weight lifting. Like you said, if you have the time then you are best served to do both. Those of us with limited time in order to create and maintain caloric deficit to lose weight will do so much quicker with cardio.

BigCed77024

ACTUALLY...Eating at a deficit doesnt help you lose fat..it helps you lose weight. You can actually INCREASE your body fat while losing weight (not realistic but it is possible). Exercise is VITAL to building muscle. A healthy combo of weights and cardio will make sure you are building the muscle you need.

dixiewhiskey

ACTUALLY...Eating at a deficit doesnt help you lose fat..it helps you lose weight. You can actually INCREASE your body fat while losing weight (not realistic but it is possible). Exercise is VITAL to building muscle. A healthy combo of weights and cardio will make sure you are building the muscle you need.

!

elijhasmomma

bump

myofibril

Those of us with limited time in order to create and maintain caloric deficit to lose weight will do so much quicker with cardio.

Sure that is true.

However, one has to ask themselves where is that weight coming from: fat or lean body mass? Many people say they want to lose weight but in reality they are actually looking to improve body composition (the ratio of fat to muscle) so they can look good (and get some functional day to day benefits such as increased strength but that is less common.)

The most efficient way of preserving LBM is resistance training. In fact if your calorie deficit becomes too steep which lots of cardio can contribute to then you will lose a much greater % of LBM to fat, particularly if protein intake is low.

That is why traditional fat loss routines are structured in the following order:

1) good diet (to create a suitable calorie deficit to strip fat)
2) resistance training / HIIT (to preserve muscle mass and maybe even increase it)
3) cardio (to ensure negative calorie balance but still allow you to eat more thereby increasing dietary adherence)

Cardio is usually treated as the wild card therefore in a fat loss routine generally.

bpotts44

Those of us with limited time in order to create and maintain caloric deficit to lose weight will do so much quicker with cardio.

Sure that is true.

However, one has to ask themselves where is that weight coming from: fat or lean body mass? Many people say they want to lose weight but in reality they are actually looking to improve body composition (the ratio of fat to muscle) so they can look good (and get some functional day to day benefits such as increased strength but that is less common.)

The most efficient way of preserving LBM is resistance training. In fact if your calorie deficit becomes too steep which lots of cardio can contribute to then you will lose a much greater % of LBM to fat, particularly if protein intake is low.

That is why traditional fat loss routines are structured in the following order:

1) good diet (to create a suitable calorie deficit to strip fat)
2) resistance training / HIIT (to preserve muscle mass and maybe even increase it)
3) cardio (to ensure negative calorie balance but still allow you to eat more thereby increasing dietary adherence)

Cardio is usually treated as the wild card therefore in a fat loss routine generally.

With extreme calorie deficients you will lose LBM, but typically at 1-2 lb/week the body is going to metabolize fat stores. Our systems evolved to efficiently use fat stores and not muscle unless very necessary.

chrisdavey

If you're doing resistance training for the calorie burn, you are doing it wrong.

DavPul

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

That's a fair and reasonable question. The answer for some is time constraints, as that would add 2-3 hours to the workout week, and for others it's the negative effect on strength and mass that steady state cardio brings. But for most it can be a great idea.

sbeezii

one pound to go?!


WAY TO GOOO!!

DavPul

If you're doing resistance training for the calorie burn, you are doing it wrong.

True story