Cardio > Strength training

Options
135678

Replies

  • gigiangelique
    gigiangelique Posts: 233 Member
    Options
    shouldn't you do both?
  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    Why does it ALWAYS have to be one or the other? Why can't people accept that BOTH are necessary for overall health and fitness?

    did anyone in this thread suggest not to do both?
    For strength training I lift weights. For cardio I lift weights faster.

    LOL
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    If the goal is simply weight loss, then yes, intervention including cardio has a slight advantage at the end of the day. I'd rather retain the maximum amount of lean body mass, however. I like to compare this debate with how some people emphasize the sole metric of scale weight too much in terms of progress. Similarly, I believe there are some who place too much importance on large calorie burns towards body composition.
  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,302 Member
    Options
    One major flaw in OP.

    If you want to lose WEIGHT, not FAT, then do cardio till the cows come home.

    If you want to lose FAT, not necessarily WEIGHT, do strength training.
  • iceman7840
    iceman7840 Posts: 110
    Options
    I get great benefits from doing both and think they compliment each other nicely.

    At the beginning of my journey it was straight cardio for six months and I was getting decent losses. It wasn't until I added strength training that the weight started melting off. I don't think I would have had the endurance to do a lot of the strength training without all the cardio at the beginning and since I added strength training, my cardio has gotten much more efficient.
  • billsica
    billsica Posts: 4,741 Member
    Options
    I think its more of a triangle.
    Cardio - Strength - Calorie deficit

    Its like the triforce

    piq_41219_400x400.png
  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    Caloric deficit > either for weight loss. Strength training to make weight loss = fat loss.

    ohh Hai

    study looked at fat loss & weight loss. Carido was more effective in "fat" loss.
  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    One major flaw in OP.

    If you want to lose WEIGHT, not FAT, then do cardio till the cows come home.

    If you want to lose FAT, not necessarily WEIGHT, do strength training.

    plz take a look at the study
  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,302 Member
    Options
    Oh wow, its Anabolic Kyle dude.

    Dude the study is Effects of aerobic and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults


    Its on obese adults who are totally not going to have same initial results as a fit person. OP was misleading.

    I would like to extend my Gas Guzzler Muscle and Corolla Fat analogy at this time.
  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    Oh wow, its Anabolic Kyle dude.

    Dude the study is Effects of aerobic and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults


    Its on obese adults who are totally not going to have same initial results as a fit person. OP was misleading.

    I would like to extend my Gas Guzzler Muscle and Corolla Fat analogy at this time.

    good-good-let-the-jimmies-rustle-through-you.png


    strong cited material!

    ten out of ten
  • CakeFit21
    CakeFit21 Posts: 2,521 Member
    Options
    Oh wow, its Anabolic Kyle dude.

    Dude the study is Effects of aerobic and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults


    Its on obese adults who are totally not going to have same initial results as a fit person. OP was misleading.

    I would like to extend my Gas Guzzler Muscle and Corolla Fat analogy at this time.

    I was just going to point out the same thing: study was done on overweight/obese individuals.
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    Options
    Im sure this has been posted MANY more times than this but here was a couple other threads about this same topic.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/822437-new-study-aerobic-exercise-best-for-fat-loss
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823737-aerobics-best-for-fat-loss?hl=cardio+fat+loss&page=2
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/820940-running-not-weights-burns-fat
  • YoungDoc2B
    YoungDoc2B Posts: 1,593 Member
    Options
    Why does it ALWAYS have to be one or the other? Why can't people accept that BOTH are necessary for overall health and fitness?

    did anyone in this thread suggest not to do both?
    For strength training I lift weights. For cardio I lift weights faster.

    LOL

    Actually, a couple people. Any other fights you'd like to pick?
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    Options
    One major flaw in OP.

    If you want to lose WEIGHT, not FAT, then do cardio till the cows come home.

    If you want to lose FAT, not necessarily WEIGHT, do strength training.

    plz take a look at the study

    You said

    "balancing time commitments against health benefits, it appears that aerobic training is the optimal mode of exercise for reducing fat mass and body mass, while a program including resistance training is needed for increasing lean mass in middle-aged, overweight/obese individuals."

    So cardio reduces Fat Mass, AND body mass, whilst resistance training increases Lean Mass.

    Would anyone just want to do cardio if it reduced non-fat mass too?
  • RECowgill
    RECowgill Posts: 881 Member
    Options
    This is almost entertaining.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Caloric deficit > either for weight loss. Strength training to make weight loss = fat loss.

    ohh Hai

    study looked at fat loss & weight loss. Carido was more effective in "fat" loss.

    “The two modes of exercise consistently differed in their effects on body composition. Body weight and fat mass significantly decreased in both AT and AT/RT but not in RT, suggesting that aerobic exercise is more effective in changing these measures. However, the change in lean body mass in both RT and AT/RT was significantly greater than that in AT, a finding supported by similar observations for the measure of thigh muscle area. Having the benefit of both modes of exercise allowed AT/RT to decrease body fat percent significantly more than either AT or RT, due to decreased fat mass combined with increased lean body mass. Similarly, there was an apparent additive effect of the two modes of exercise on waist circumference, as AT/RT significantly decreased waist circumference more than AT or RT.”
  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    Why does it ALWAYS have to be one or the other? Why can't people accept that BOTH are necessary for overall health and fitness?


    Actually, a couple people. Any other fights you'd like to pick?

    must of missed it
  • wendybird5
    wendybird5 Posts: 577 Member
    Options
    cardio > strength training for weight loss

    strength training > cardio for body image/bodyfat %


    When people say, "I want to lose weight." They really mean, "I want to lose fat."

    strength training > cardio

    This!
  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    Caloric deficit > either for weight loss. Strength training to make weight loss = fat loss.

    ohh Hai

    study looked at fat loss & weight loss. Carido was more effective in "fat" loss.

    “The two modes of exercise consistently differed in their effects on body composition. Body weight and fat mass significantly decreased in both AT and AT/RT but not in RT, suggesting that aerobic exercise is more effective in changing these measures. However, the change in lean body mass in both RT and AT/RT was significantly greater than that in AT, a finding supported by similar observations for the measure of thigh muscle area. Having the benefit of both modes of exercise allowed AT/RT to decrease body fat percent significantly more than either AT or RT, due to decreased fat mass combined with increased lean body mass. Similarly, there was an apparent additive effect of the two modes of exercise on waist circumference, as AT/RT significantly decreased waist circumference more than AT or RT.”

    I would agree both is better than one,

    "The AT and AT/RT groups reduced total body mass and fat mass more than RT "

    edit

    this was my only point to your original post
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Caloric deficit > either for weight loss. Strength training to make weight loss = fat loss.

    ohh Hai

    study looked at fat loss & weight loss. Carido was more effective in "fat" loss.

    “The two modes of exercise consistently differed in their effects on body composition. Body weight and fat mass significantly decreased in both AT and AT/RT but not in RT, suggesting that aerobic exercise is more effective in changing these measures. However, the change in lean body mass in both RT and AT/RT was significantly greater than that in AT, a finding supported by similar observations for the measure of thigh muscle area. Having the benefit of both modes of exercise allowed AT/RT to decrease body fat percent significantly more than either AT or RT, due to decreased fat mass combined with increased lean body mass. Similarly, there was an apparent additive effect of the two modes of exercise on waist circumference, as AT/RT significantly decreased waist circumference more than AT or RT.”

    I would agree both is better than one,

    "The AT and AT/RT groups reduced total body mass and fat mass more than RT "

    You are missing the point. Cardio created/increased the deficit more than RT - I never said it did not. But RT maintains LBM, making the weight loss = fat loss. Which is what I said.

    (actually, in this case it appears to have increased LBM as they were obese/untrained - same logic however)

Categories