Weights vs. Cardio for fat loss...

jacksonpt · January 2013

The bottom line is that cardio people are going to recommend cardio, and the lifters are going to recommend strength training. Ultimately it's up to you who to believe (pssst, only 1 of them is right), but I'd go with the people who support their arguments the best. Especially if they include references.

maab_connor · January 2013

did cardio, lost some weight, was tough to keep up, plateaued a lot, started lifting weights and the rest came off plus now I can eat more.

What do you mean plus you can eat more because you're doing weights?

muscle burns calories just sitting there, not being used. just to exist, it needs us to ingest more calories. so, those who have higher muscle mass, get to eat more food.

akhilton · January 2013

Cardio for me, cycling, running and hiking....

Mainly because I HATE the gym!

tigerblue · January 2013

Why does everyone seem to think cardio is not also muscle building? My legs are solid muscle from running, any weight bearing excercise is also building your muscles, strengthening your bones, AND improving your heart. Yes, you need to do something for the top half also, but just wanted to state cardio and muscle building are not necessarily 2 different things.

I have to agree here, at least somewhat. I am no fitness expert, but I am a fairly I intelligent person. Here is what I have observed: My sons have been swimming competitively since they were about 5. They did not start strength training until they were teens, although they did some moderate body weight training all along. they both did hours of cardio as young kids. and both of them had chest, shoulder and ab muscles like you wouldn't believe. And this was before they were strength training. So their cardio workouts were definitely building muscle. Perhaps it was because they were young and growing. But they did build muscle doing primarily cardio.

Thanks everyone for so much insight into this without everyone getting mean about it! I plan to take your suggestions.

_Wits_ · January 2013

Calorie deficit for fat loss.

Weights for muscle retention. (We lose muscle when when diet. This is sad.)

Cardio for cardio fitness, and to help maintain calorie deficit while eating more.

This.

_reno_ · January 2013

Why does everyone seem to think cardio is not also muscle building? My legs are solid muscle from running, any weight bearing excercise is also building your muscles, strengthening your bones, AND improving your heart. Yes, you need to do something for the top half also, but just wanted to state cardio and muscle building are not necessarily 2 different things.

Depends on what type of exercise / cardio you are doing.

Biking up hill in a big gear or running up hill with a weighted pack are going to spike your heart rate, and build muscle.

jogging at a moderate pace on flat ground is going to do some minimal "conditioning" (which may make you sore) but not build much muscle

Shock_Wave · January 2013

Weight loss diet for fat loss

Blood doping for cardio

Steroids for weight lifting.

This is how the pro's roll!!

scottb81 · January 2013

did cardio, lost some weight, was tough to keep up, plateaued a lot, started lifting weights and the rest came off plus now I can eat more.

What do you mean plus you can eat more because you're doing weights?

muscle burns calories just sitting there, not being used. just to exist, it needs us to ingest more calories. so, those who have higher muscle mass, get to eat more food.

One peanut per day for every point of muscle you gain. Unfortunately, if you lose fat at the same rate you only get to eat half a peanut per day.

gauchogirl · January 2013

I lost more WEIGHT (the number only) with longer, more often, cardio, but I went down more SIZES, and looked better, with shorter, but consistent, WEIGHT WORK (heavy weights).

Candy1629 · January 2013

There are home workout DVD's that incorporate strength/weight training in the cardio workouts. I love Jillian Michaels, Bob Harper and the Biggest Loser workouts.

AnvilHead · January 2013

...But I don't see how you're going to maintain continuous adaptations necessary to continue hypertrophy if you're not progressively applying a hypertrophy inducing stress (steady-state cardio at low or medium intensity for example, I would expect minimal gains if any, and only initially).

For example, if you go to the gym and start lifting, you generally get bigger muscles as you adapt to the training stress. But if you do the same lifts and loading for a period of time, those adaptations stop at some point because you've adapted to the training stress.

With weight training, you can increase load to create new demands. I'm not aware of a convenient way to do this with cardio such that you're inducing hypertrophy (certainly you can, and probably should, increase training demands with cardio but are they hypertrophy related?). And if there is a way, can you do it continually?

I'm going to suspect that it's not practical to do so or at the very least, it's atypical of most methods of cardio....

Along those same lines, I'd posit that the training stress for weight-bearing cardio (i.e. running) actually decreases over time - as you lose weight, the load that the legs are forced to carry progressively decreases. I can definitely see muscular endurance increasing as distance is progressively increased - that's logical - but a decrease in load is counterproductive to continued hypertrophy. It would be akin to starting out squatting 200x5, "progressing" to 175x30 and wondering why your legs aren't getting bigger.

JenniBaby85 · January 2013

I do both, and it's not only working "well" for me, but it's working the BEST for me. Best wishes! :flowerforyou:

haroon_awan · January 2013

Any personal trainer will tell you that if you want to look good naked, you need to do weight training.

Why looks better naked:
a boxer or sprinter (who both have large amounts of muscle), OR
a long distance runner (who has low muscle, but great endurance)

SideSteel · January 2013

...But I don't see how you're going to maintain continuous adaptations necessary to continue hypertrophy if you're not progressively applying a hypertrophy inducing stress (steady-state cardio at low or medium intensity for example, I would expect minimal gains if any, and only initially).

For example, if you go to the gym and start lifting, you generally get bigger muscles as you adapt to the training stress. But if you do the same lifts and loading for a period of time, those adaptations stop at some point because you've adapted to the training stress.

With weight training, you can increase load to create new demands. I'm not aware of a convenient way to do this with cardio such that you're inducing hypertrophy (certainly you can, and probably should, increase training demands with cardio but are they hypertrophy related?). And if there is a way, can you do it continually?

I'm going to suspect that it's not practical to do so or at the very least, it's atypical of most methods of cardio....

Along those same lines, I'd posit that the training stress for weight-bearing cardio (i.e. running) actually decreases over time - as you lose weight, the load that the legs are forced to carry progressively decreases. I can definitely see muscular endurance increasing as distance is progressively increased - that's logical - but a decrease in load is counterproductive to continued hypertrophy. It would be akin to starting out squatting 200x5, "progressing" to 175x30 and wondering why your legs aren't getting bigger.

Agreed.

shellux · January 2013

Bump for later

TR0berts · January 2013

I have to agree here, at least somewhat. I am no fitness expert, but I am a fairly I intelligent person. Here is what I have observed: My sons have been swimming competitively since they were about 5. They did not start strength training until they were teens, although they did some moderate body weight training all along. they both did hours of cardio as young kids. and both of them had chest, shoulder and ab muscles like you wouldn't believe. And this was before they were strength training. So their cardio workouts were definitely building muscle. Perhaps it was because they were young and growing. But they did build muscle doing primarily cardio.

Thanks everyone for so much insight into this without everyone getting mean about it! I plan to take your suggestions.

Two things:

1. "although they did some moderate body weight training all along." Thus, they did, in fact, do strength training.

2. "Perhaps it was because they were young and growing." Yes. As they grew, their overall body weight increased, meaning that the loading they had while performing their cardio increased.

So, yes, primarily cardio - in this case - was good for building muscle. But, once they stop growing - and if they stop strength training - they won't see any real muscle gain again. They'll keep what they have, but they won't gain.

Sarauk2sf · January 2013

Why does everyone seem to think cardio is not also muscle building? My legs are solid muscle from running, any weight bearing excercise is also building your muscles, strengthening your bones, AND improving your heart. Yes, you need to do something for the top half also, but just wanted to state cardio and muscle building are not necessarily 2 different things.

Mostly because of the studies that show a loss of lean body mass with a caloric deficit and cardio only. If you are not in a calorie deficit, running or other forms of cardio may add some muscle. The initial growth will probably slow way down after a very short time.

Here is one of the many studies. The subjects were on a VLCD which is not ideal for FFM preservation but were obese, which makes FFM preservation at a VLCD less problematic. They were untrained individuals and so would have got some 'newbie gains' as well.

http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full

"In summary, the addition of high volume aggressive resistance training to a VLCD was associated with a significant weight loss while preserving LBW and RMR. The preservation of LBW and RMR during the consumption of a VLCD did not occur with a standard treatment control aerobic training program. These results indicate that high volume resistance training may be beneficial for patients who use a VLCD to lose large amounts of weight at least for periods up to 12 weeks. Future clinical studies need to determine its efficacy in long term weight loss programs and the maintenance of this weight loss for extended periods of time."

So if you eat less than 800 cal a day you will lose LBM without resistance training. That is not the same as what was being said earlier in this thread, that fat loss will always be accompanied by muscle loss. Personally, no matter what the study says I have a hard time believing anyone is going to add lean body mass on 800 cal a day which is what would be required to maintain RMR while losing fat.

For example a person might lose 100 lbs of fat on a 800 cal a day diet. In order to maintain RMR that person would at the same time have to gain 40 lbs of muscle. Is that possible on a 800 cal a day diet? No.

I was posting it as an example - please see my comment explaining it - the fact that they are obese also is a factor that would lead to less loss of LBM. Also, where exactly did I say or insinuate that they gained LBM? The resistance trained folks maintained - the cardio group lost - that is the point