LIAR!

Azdak

i didnt read all this but u lose w eight from cardio and strength training dont make u lose weight

You can lose weight (fat) through weight training and cardio alone. I don't think it's the ideal plan for most people, but it is definitely possible. It's absolutist (and inaccurate) statements like this that keep this silly debate alive.

phjorg1

It was said before, but I'll make the point again. Your heartrate while doing resistance training has NOTHING to do with calories burn while resistance training. Absolutely nothing, there is zero relation that can possibly be made.

Why you ask? simple, lifting weights does not use oxygen. It's anaerobic. No oxygen means heartrate has zero bearing, since the purpose of counting heartbeats is to do a formula based upon oxygen usage.

It's straight up biological fact people. Anyone claiming that your heartrate can be used to calculate calories from lifting is straight up full of it. No such thing exists, or can ever exist. It's impossible.

The ONLY real rule is the more weight and bodyparts used, the more calories burned. As an example, Someone squatting 300lbs for 15 reps with a 100 heartrate will burn a poopton more calories than someone squatting 100lbs for 20 reps at 120 heartrate. so higher heartrate, far less calories burned.

phjorg1

i didnt read all this but u lose w eight from cardio and strength training dont make u lose weight

you lose weight by eating less than your body burns. just cause you do exercise does not necessarly make this basic principle true.

Azdak

It was said before, but I'll make the point again. Your heartrate while doing resistance training has NOTHING to do with calories burn while resistance training. Absolutely nothing, there is zero relation that can possibly be made.

Why you ask? simple, lifting weights does not use oxygen. It's anaerobic. No oxygen means heartrate has zero bearing, since the purpose of counting heartbeats is to do a formula based upon oxygen usage.

It's straight up biological fact people. Anyone claiming that your heartrate can be used to calculate calories from lifting is straight up full of it. No such thing exists, or can ever exist. It's impossible.

The ONLY real rule is the more weight and bodyparts used, the more calories burned. As an example, Someone squatting 300lbs for 15 reps with a 100 heartrate will burn a poopton more calories than someone squatting 100lbs for 20 reps at 120 heartrate. so higher heartrate, far less calories burned.

Because of the shorter duration of the set when lifting heavier weights, there is some research that indicates that is not true.

In the April 2011 edition of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Christopher Scott et al, investigated the energy-expenditure of a single set of a strength exercise (bench press) performed at various percentages of 1 RM--ranging from 37% to 90% of 1 RM.

The total number of direct calories burned was inversely proportional to the weight being lifted. Dr Scott has published research in which he claims to be able to calculate the energy burned via anaerobic pathways during resistance training. So they were able to break down TEE into the aerobic, anerobic, and EPOC components.

The most surprising finding was not that the 37% of 1 RM workload burned more calories than the 90% 1 RM load--that is to be expected given that the average reps completed were 36.5 vs 4.5. It was the fact that there was no significant difference in EPOC either.

From the authors' summary:

When data from the separate protocols were compiled and
examined, lifting to muscular fatigue resulted in greater
energy expenditure for 1-set of muscular endurance-type
lifting (60.2614.5 kJ) as compared with 1-set of the strengthtype
lifts (43.2612.5 kJ, p = 0.001).Work also was greater for
muscular endurance (462 6 131 J) as opposed to strength
(253 6 93 J, p = 0.001). In application, the use of exercise in
the promotion of weight loss would be one where the
greatest amount of energy is expended. Our results suggest
that the best resistance training program to promote energy
expenditure might be lifting at a lighter percentage of a 1RM
to fatigue. Whether resistance training protocols that employ
20–40 repetitions to muscular failure will be accepted by
those who want or need to lose weight remains to be seen.
Moreover, multiple (large) muscle group exercises as
opposed to isolation exercises with smaller muscles would
likely need to be chosen when designing a weight loss
program that focuses on resistance training (e.g., bench press
vs. triceps extension; leg press vs. leg extension).

Like any single study, one cannot draw absolute conclusions from this one, but the detailed analysis of energy pathways used is not often found and it definitely makes for interesting reading.

This study also corroborates the results we have seen in our medical weight loss program--i.e. that obese, relatively untrained individuals respond very well -- often much better-- to higher volumes of lower-intensity resistance training than they do to "heavier" resistance training. Heavy training has it's use and benefits, but they are farther down the road.

geebusuk

I presume that study only considers energy burnt while lifting, not for the following day or two?

It does stand to reason for me that to lift more 'volume' in total will burn more calories at the time.

But, it also seems to stand to reason that cardio will be better still for a calories burnt figure in this manner.

I always thought the idea of lifting for a better body was that your body carried on burning calories after to repair it's self - and that thus doing heavy compound lifts were the most effective as you have a lot of muscles that need a lot of repair.

mdarrall

But don't forget that after a strength workout, your body has to burn calories to rebuild. While the calories on your monitor are based on your heart rate and weight, it might even out in the end.

And yes; you have to allow for some instrument and measurement error in these. The algorithms are pretty good, but still...

Azdak

I presume that study only considers energy burnt while lifting, not for the following day or two?

It does stand to reason for me that to lift more 'volume' in total will burn more calories at the time.

But, it also seems to stand to reason that cardio will be better still for a calories burnt figure in this manner.

I always thought the idea of lifting for a better body was that your body carried on burning calories after to repair it's self - and that thus doing heavy compound lifts were the most effective as you have a lot of muscles that need a lot of repair.

This study did measure EPOC, which is the afterburn effect you are referring to. They measured it until the subjects energy expenditure returned to resting levels. When someone says that a given exercise can raise metabolism for "hours" after a workout, the use of the term "hours" can be misleading. Even in the studies that show an "afterburn" effect (and not all of them do), the actual calories burned per hour is so low that it would be indistinguishable from what you might burn during regular activity.

The issue of muscle repair is something else. I read a study once that suggested that inducing high levels of DOMS via lots of eccentric loading had a small benefit for weight loss, however the study had subjects doing 8 sets of 8 exercises (unless that was a typo), which seemed impractical.

The real point is not to contest which is "best", but to understand that there are different approaches that might be appropriate for different people at different stages of their program. Or that there can be a number of effective paths to success.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tomcornhole

Who cares? Unless you are eating back exercise calories.