Cardio > Strength training
Replies
-
"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".
It says aerobic is better for reducing body mass and uses that term separately from "fat mass". Does "body mass" mean "muscle mass"... "bone mass" .. "Water weight mass"? Water weight doesn't seem part of body mass in my mind, though. Maybe it is.
Body mass = total weight0 -
Mixing up ">" and "<" is a common error. Don't sweat it.
hehehe
Cardio doesn't come CLOSE to changing your body the way weight training does...not even CLOSE. And cardio is completely unnecessary to lose weight...you can just eat less food if you choose to.
Anyway, I do both, but lifting is my priority and always will be. To each their own...all exercise is good.0 -
Also, "they" say that EVERYONE should have 30 minutes a day of cardio... and I do 31 on the elliptical. It's about overall health for me, not just losing weight (in fact, that's no longer on my goals; toning up is -- which is why I love the strength training too). But I do feel I'd be doing my body a disservice, from a health standpoint, if I cut the cardio out.0
-
I enjoy both. I think a healthy mix brings desired results. That said, I don't call myself an elliptical queen for nothing! It gives me an exercise high.
Mine is divine, and with the right tempo music, I 'run' like the wind and love it! 0 -
What I am saying, which I think you are not disagreeing with is that a caloric deficit can be created by either cardio or strength training or just eating less, but to lose weight, you need to be in a deficit. Cardio may well create that more than strength training (depends on intensity, and ignoring long-term increase in TDEE from higher mucscle mass from RT). To ensure that the weight loss that comes from that deficit = fat loss (i.e. no muscle loss), RT is necessary.
more or less i agree, do you have an studies on long term RT/AT?
IMHO i think with increased LBM a persons appetite would natural increase to maintain current muscle and fat
i think what you're suggesting is with an increased LBM an increased metabolic rate would help to increase and promote even more fat loss
which makes sense but Iam not sure if its true0 -
I enjoy both. I think a healthy mix brings desired results. That said, I don't call myself an elliptical queen for nothing! It gives me an exercise high. Mine is divine, and with the right tempo music, I 'run' like the wind and love it!
High five!! YES!! :flowerforyou:0 -
I don't believe my diet has changed much at all. Before I used MFP to track my calories, I kept a notebook that did the same thing (only it was insanely tedious as I had to add everything myself which is why I thank God for MFP for making the calculations for me!). I still have the old pages from that notebook, and many of my recipes are the same as well. I periodically change the recipes to update changes in the brands that I use and such, but mostly things are the same with similar macro ratios.
I think the only "major" change was back in late 2007 and up to March 2008 when I was trying to do the P90X diet. That really screwed me up because the diet changed once a month! Once I started just aiming for a certain calorie goal and certain macro goals, that has pretty much stayed constant since summer 2008. It changed slightly with every 10 pound weight difference, but the ratios remained the same (if that makes sense to you? It sounds OK in my head).
Yeah i follow you!0 -
What I am saying, which I think you are not disagreeing with is that a caloric deficit can be created by either cardio or strength training or just eating less, but to lose weight, you need to be in a deficit. Cardio may well create that more than strength training (depends on intensity, and ignoring long-term increase in TDEE from higher mucscle mass from RT). To ensure that the weight loss that comes from that deficit = fat loss (i.e. no muscle loss), RT is necessary.
more or less i agree, do you have an studies on long term RT/AT?
IMHO i think with increased LBM a persons appetite would natural increase to maintain current muscle and fat
i think what you're suggesting is with an increased LBM an increased metabolic rate would help to increase and promote even more fat loss
which makes sense but Iam not sure if its true
It's true but not to the extent that most people make it out to be. Last I heard I believe something on the order of 6kcals/lb LBM. Considering that it takes a long time to gain say, 15 lbs of muscle, that's a whole 90 kcals added to your TDEE.
That doesn't make it negligible as it certainly adds up, but I think people often over-state it.
Regarding the study you linked, since energy expenditure wasn't tightly controlled and food intake was done using recall at various periods, I don't think I'd put a ton of stock into this.
I DO think that the study shows that larger energy deficits were created in the cardio only group. That seems intuitive to me as I would assume that your average cardio session probably burns more calories (this does not necessarily make it the optimal choice for fat burning as energy intake is a variable that can be used to create a deficit).
But energy expenditure is not the primary reason for advocating resistance training. The energy expense is a bonus feature, IMO.0 -
I
both. I've gotten my best results when alternating the two activities throughout the week. My favorite thing about strength training (heavy) is the way it has improved my running pace and strengthened my muscles, thereby helping me avoid running injuries.
:flowerforyou:
Just my little anecdote: I've done both alone and both together. It's easy for me to get skinny quickly on cardio alone (as OP suggests) but it's so much better for my performance and my appearance to do it with strength training. Didn't ever lose much weight on strength training alone, because it's hard to get a big burn and I can't seem to build enough mass to raise my metabolism high enough to compete with the burn from running. For me, personally, with my body type, I've felt more benefits doing strength training as a maintenance activity. I really enjoy it. I've been in maintenance for a long time now, so I don't do either to lose weight, I do them to feel strong and look good, so that's ok. (Obviously calorie deficit is key for either.)0 -
Anyone got the full report?
Anecdotally, compound movements at heavy weights do a better job of using up calories than lighter weights with isolation movements.
I did find a bit more detail, which says:
>>(three days per week of weight lifting, three sets per day, 8-12 repetitions per set), <<
That doesn't like that much and sounds like the weight may be too light for best results.0 -
all depends...it's been proven that both will shred fat faster.
Cardio burns fat but adding weights will build muscles and those muscles will burn fat (all the time)...
The best thing in my opinion at first to lose major fat is to do lots of cardio and some strength (weights) workouts.
After.... Go strength and add some cardio...To tone everything up.
Works fine for me.
article about the study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121215151506.htm
"Balancing time commitments against health benefits, our study suggests that aerobic exercise is the best option for reducing fat mass and body mass," said Cris A. Slentz, PhD, a Duke exercise physiologist and study co-author. "It's not that resistance training isn't good for you; it's just not very good at burning fat."
the problem with the study is this
Aerobic exercise was also a more efficient method of exercise for losing body fat. The aerobic exercise group spent an average of 133 minutes a week training and lost weight, while the resistance training group spent approximately 180 minutes exercising a week without shedding pounds.
The combination exercise group, while requiring double the time commitment, provided a mixed result. The regimen helped participants lose weight and fat mass, but did not significantly reduce body mass nor fat mass over aerobic training alone. This group did notice the largest decrease in waist circumference, which may be attributed to the amount of time participants spent exercising.0 -
gluck increasing lbm on a calorie deficit.What I am saying, which I think you are not disagreeing with is that a caloric deficit can be created by either cardio or strength training or just eating less, but to lose weight, you need to be in a deficit. Cardio may well create that more than strength training (depends on intensity, and ignoring long-term increase in TDEE from higher mucscle mass from RT). To ensure that the weight loss that comes from that deficit = fat loss (i.e. no muscle loss), RT is necessary.
more or less i agree, do you have an studies on long term RT/AT?
IMHO i think with increased LBM a persons appetite would natural increase to maintain current muscle and fat
i think what you're suggesting is with an increased LBM an increased metabolic rate would help to increase and promote even more fat loss
which makes sense but Iam not sure if its true0 -
-
It's true but not to the extent that most people make it out to be. Last I heard I believe something on the order of 6kcals/lb LBM. Considering that it takes a long time to gain say, 15 lbs of muscle, that's a whole 90 kcals added to your TDEE.
That doesn't make it negligible as it certainly adds up, but I think people often over-state it.
Regarding the study you linked, since energy expenditure wasn't tightly controlled and food intake was done using recall at various periods, I don't think I'd put a ton of stock into this.
I DO think that the study shows that larger energy deficits were created in the cardio only group. That seems intuitive to me as I would assume that your average cardio session probably burns more calories (this does not necessarily make it the optimal choice for fat burning as energy intake is a variable that can be used to create a deficit).
But energy expenditure is not the primary reason for advocating resistance training. The energy expense is a bonus feature, IMO.
100% with you0 -
TL;DR
but
'I don’t entirely agree with the author’s conclusions, but the study itself is interesting and I believe that, if anything, it suggests that those looking to reduce fat mass and improve the distribution of lean and fat mass should be lifting and keeping some conditioning work in the mix.'
kinda said the same thing as everyone else on this thread0 -
I keep seeing all these post about how strength training is more effective than cardio for Calorie burning.
NO, its not!
If your goal is to lose fat.
Cardio
If your goal is to build muscle
Strength train
http://jap.physiology.org/content/113/12/1831.abstract
"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."
Obviously diet is more important than cardio or strength training for weight loss.
A few things I disagree with here.
1. Cardio can burn more calories than strength training and it is therefore easier to create a calorie deficit. But it is the calorie deficit that enables you to lose weight
2. If you just perform cardio to create your calorie deficit you will lose more muscle mass than if you do heavy weights as well or instead of cardio. Therefore cardio is not better for losing fat.
3. Overweight/obese people already have a decent muscle mass to carry the extra weight around and don't need to increase that muscle mass (which requires a calorie surplus). They need to eat at a calorie deficit whilst weight training to enable them to retain that muscle mass.
That is not to say there aren't major benefits to cardio, but better fat loss is not one of them.0 -
^ Thank you for this. I haven't read this yet but I have a lot of respect for Matt Perryman. Curious what his view is.
EDIT: Ok I read it.
I like Matt's quote here and it certainly has merit:
"You could then say “Well with a tighter diet these folks would lean out by just lifting weights.” Let’s grant that this is true, although it need not be. Even so, there are people, and I include myself among them, who’d rather have the food and spend the time training harder. This need not even be a physiological effect, but rather an effect of “living what you want to be”, so to speak, and that’s a factor I’ve come to believe is far more important than any reductive measure of ‘efficiency’."0 -
i dont agree only because i lost the most fat ever when i was ONLY weight training for 5 years. I recently added in cardio just for my heart.0
-
I keep seeing all these post about how strength training is more effective than cardio for Calorie burning.
NO, its not!
If your goal is to lose fat.
Cardio
If your goal is to build muscle
Strength train
http://jap.physiology.org/content/113/12/1831.abstract
"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."
Obviously diet is more important than cardio or strength training for weight loss.
You are so so so so wrong and it is because of people like you that everyone else on MFP has to constantly ask the question, "cardio or weight training?"
If you want to lose WEIGHT (not just fat, muscle too) then only do cardio and diet. See what happens, people.
If you want to lose fat faster, build muscle, look AMAZING and live a healthy lifestyle, do a balance of cardio and resistance training.
And whatever you do, don't listen to this guy, he has no idea what he's talking about. The part of the article he has quoted says that aerobic training is effective for reducing "fat mass and body mass." BODY MASS is both fat and muscle. That isn't what you're trying to do in this weight loss "journey" you're on, is it? Lose muscle? You wanna look FIT, right! Not just "thin."
To reiterate. This guy (the original poster) = clueless.
Edit to add: Check out #1 on this article, and yes, they quote a study conducted so I'm not just throwing wiki articles at you:
http://health.yahoo.net/rodale/WH/fitness-fact-or-fiction0 -
i dont agree only because i lost the most fat ever when i was ONLY weight training for 5 years. I recently added in cardio just for my heart.
Same here, girl. I've lost more fat weight lifting than I ever have doing cardio. I do cardio for my heart and lung exercise only. Not to lose fat.0 -
What I am saying, which I think you are not disagreeing with is that a caloric deficit can be created by either cardio or strength training or just eating less, but to lose weight, you need to be in a deficit. Cardio may well create that more than strength training (depends on intensity, and ignoring long-term increase in TDEE from higher mucscle mass from RT). To ensure that the weight loss that comes from that deficit = fat loss (i.e. no muscle loss), RT is necessary.
more or less i agree, do you have an studies on long term RT/AT?
IMHO i think with increased LBM a persons appetite would natural increase to maintain current muscle and fat
i think what you're suggesting is with an increased LBM an increased metabolic rate would help to increase and promote even more fat loss
which makes sense but Iam not sure if its true
I am not aware of any long term studies - the ones I have seen have been short term in nature - probably because they usually focus in obese individuals...who would not be obese after a while.
The increase in LBM could quite possibly increase appetite. There are also studies I believe as to how much AT decreases appetite, but only looking at it for a short term period (not sure if there are any for RT) and as eating was ad lib it makes any assumptions hazy.
I was not necessarily suggesting any impact on future weight loss of increased LBM as I said I was ignoring it in my statement, as it is not that significant and so just made the statement to not get into a different debate as to how much it does impact it, especially with ad lib eating.
All I was saying was that a caloric deficit is needed to lose weight. That can be from AT or RT or both or for just eating less. I do not disagree that a greater deficit can probably be created from AT (subject to intensity). Making sure that weight loss = fat loss requires RT however. I do not think that is disagreeing with anything indicated in the (or any of the other) study(s).0 -
gluck increasing lbm on a calorie deficit.What I am saying, which I think you are not disagreeing with is that a caloric deficit can be created by either cardio or strength training or just eating less, but to lose weight, you need to be in a deficit. Cardio may well create that more than strength training (depends on intensity, and ignoring long-term increase in TDEE from higher mucscle mass from RT). To ensure that the weight loss that comes from that deficit = fat loss (i.e. no muscle loss), RT is necessary.
more or less i agree, do you have an studies on long term RT/AT?
IMHO i think with increased LBM a persons appetite would natural increase to maintain current muscle and fat
i think what you're suggesting is with an increased LBM an increased metabolic rate would help to increase and promote even more fat loss
which makes sense but Iam not sure if its true
They actually did I believe, and I have seen other studies that corroborate it - in significantly overweight/obese untrained men.0 -
Mixing up ">" and "<" is a common error. Don't sweat it.
^This.^
Also note that what people do and what works do not always align. Previous poster said that you continue to burn calories for up to 48 hours after strength training. I concur, and add that it is shows more results if you lift to failure.
Weight training builds muscle - muscle burns more fat than fat does. :-P
Obese/overweight people burn more doing cardio than those of a healthy weight. Because your own body is the weight you carry.during training.
Also note that you cannot tone your body with cardio alone.
Just because you don't like it/don't train like that does not mean that cardio is better.
You need both.0 -
I am not aware of any long term studies - the ones I have seen have been short term in nature - probably because they usually focus in obese individuals...who would not be obese after a while.
The increase in LBM could quite possibly increase appetite. There are also studies I believe as to how much AT decreases appetite, but only looking at it for a short term period (not sure if there are any for RT) and as eating was ad lib it makes any assumptions hazy.
I was not necessarily suggesting any impact on future weight loss of increased LBM as I said I was ignoring it in my statement, as it is not that significant and so just made the statement to not get into a different debate as to how much it does impact it, especially with ad lib eating.
All I was saying was that a caloric deficit is needed to lose weight. That can be from AT or RT or both or for just eating less. I do not disagree that a greater deficit can probably be created from AT (subject to intensity). Making sure that weight loss = fat loss requires RT however. I do not think that is disagreeing with anything indicated in the (or any of the other) study(s).
thanks for the input, 100% agree0 -
I lost weight with only cardio before and turned into a smaller version of the chubby me. Still fat. Small, but fat.
I cut way back on cardio and started lifting weights. That, plus a slight caloric deficit is finally getting my body to look the way i want it.0 -
You are so so so so wrong and it is because of people like you that everyone else on MFP has to constantly ask the question, "cardio or weight training?"
If you want to lose WEIGHT (not just fat, muscle too) then only do cardio and diet. See what happens, people.
If you want to lose fat faster, build muscle, look AMAZING and live a healthy lifestyle, do a balance of cardio and resistance training.
And whatever you do, don't listen to this guy, he has no idea what he's talking about. The part of the article he has quoted says that aerobic training is effective for reducing "fat mass and body mass." BODY MASS is both fat and muscle. That isn't what you're trying to do in this weight loss "journey" you're on, is it? Lose muscle? You wanna look FIT, right! Not just "thin."
To reiterate. This guy (the original poster) = clueless.
Edit to add: Check out #1 on this article, and yes, they quote a study conducted so I'm not just throwing wiki articles at you:
http://health.yahoo.net/rodale/WH/fitness-fact-or-fiction
Amy Van Deusen provided zero evidence for her claims0 -
Ditto, same story hereI lost weight with only cardio before and turned into a smaller version of the chubby me. Still fat. Small, but fat.
I cut way back on cardio and started lifting weights. That, plus a slight caloric deficit is finally getting my body to look the way i want it.0 -
TL;DR
but
'I don’t entirely agree with the author’s conclusions, but the study itself is interesting and I believe that, if anything, it suggests that those looking to reduce fat mass and improve the distribution of lean and fat mass should be lifting and keeping some conditioning work in the mix.'
kinda said the same thing as everyone else on this thread
wait, wah? :noway:
If you agree, what was the point of original post?
nevermind....it's a fire. I kinda want my 15 minutes back :laugh:0 -
TL;DR
but
'I don’t entirely agree with the author’s conclusions, but the study itself is interesting and I believe that, if anything, it suggests that those looking to reduce fat mass and improve the distribution of lean and fat mass should be lifting and keeping some conditioning work in the mix.'
kinda said the same thing as everyone else on this thread
wait, wah? :noway:
If you agree, what was the point of original post?
nevermind....it's a fire. I kinda want my 15 minutes back :laugh:
I didnt write that, that was the conclusion of the article0 -
Here's a novel friggin idea, since both have huge health benefits do both, eat healthy, and fat loss will happen as a result.
If you really despise one, don't do it. One isn't "better" than the other if you HATE doing it because most likely you won't be putting in your maximum effort anyways so you might as well do the one you love and give it your all.
:huh:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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