Cardio > Strength training
AnabolicKyle
Posts: 489 Member
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.
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.
0
Replies
-
I need to do both
0 -
I need both
I cant see in that were it considered just the time you spent training, or if it included time after (up to 48 hours) the initial training.
As you burn at a higher rate after strength training, where as cardio you only really burn while doing it.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
0 -
I do up to 3000 push ups a week.
3-4 body pumps
3-4 spin classes..
I mix it up some weeks with more cardio than strength and also the other way around more strength.
I will tell you the biggest difference in my body is the push ups.. So many compliments on my arms
since 9 weeks ago adding so many push ups to my weekly routine.0 -
Mixing up ">" and "<" is a common error. Don't sweat it.0
-
Do 5x5 with a 30 second rest and compare the total time with the same amount of time of cardio.
Iam assuming you're suggesting HIIT/crossfit style training is more effective at burning calories than Cardio alone. I wouldnt doubt it, the main problem with that is much harder to keep up the pace.
congratulations on weight loss.0 -
That's funny, I cardio-ed my life away and at the end I was still squishy. Started strength training and now I have thighs of steel. With that said there's benefits to both. Cardio for heart, lungs, and calorie deficit, strength for the same but also limbs, strength, and looks. I'll keep both.If your goal is to lose fat.
Cardio
If your goal is to build muscle
Strength train
And you kind of got your comment wrong:
To lose fat you need a calorie deficit. Cardio is great at that, but not necessary. To keep a higher ratio of fat loss compared to muscle, do strength training.
To build muscle, you need a calorie surplus. To not gain so much fat, you need strength training.0 -
[/quote]
[/quote]0 -
Actually, long term, it is.
Increased muscle mass = higher metabolic burn = more calories burned sitting on your butt.
Cardio burns more calories in the short term, but not in the long term.
That being said, I enjoy both, so don't get all cardio ninja on me.0 -
Actually, long term, it is.
Increased muscle mass = higher metabolic burn = more calories burned sitting on your butt.
Cardio burns more calories in the short term, but not in the long term.
That being said, I enjoy both, so don't get all cardio ninja on me.
Any research to back that up?
In theory that makes sense but iam assuming the more muscle you put on, would affect satiety.
just a counter point, not sure if its true or not.0 -
Actually, long term, it is.
Increased muscle mass = higher metabolic burn = more calories burned sitting on your butt.
Cardio burns more calories in the short term, but not in the long term.
That being said, I enjoy both, so don't get all cardio ninja on me.
QFT!!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.
Except people aren't saying the RT is burning more calories than AT. They are suggesting the RT is much more effective at maintaining your lean body mas.s. And the more lean body mass you have, the more calories you burn and the tighter your body will be. Also, unless you are obese, you will not build any new lean body mass. In overweight or normal weight individuals a caloric surplus will be reqiured as well as a good RT program to increase lbm but while your body is in a catabolic state, it won't happen.0 -
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 > cardio0 -
Actually, long term, it is.
Increased muscle mass = higher metabolic burn = more calories burned sitting on your butt.
Cardio burns more calories in the short term, but not in the long term.
That being said, I enjoy both, so don't get all cardio ninja on me.
Damn, Lea got to it before me again. :laugh:
Did cardio alone for a year, saw minimal results.
Been lifting 2 months plus minimal cardio (Zumba twice a week, because it's fun), seeing quite lovely results.
Science or broscience, I know what my body is responding to and what is working.0 -
For me I have done both. While cardio helped me lose fat it also helped me lose lean muscle at the same time. I dropped all cardio for 2 months, picked up the weights still dropped the fat while maintaining lean muscle.0
-
I barely do cardio outside walking
*Look at results
Not bad....not bad at all0 -
:laugh:Mixing up ">" and "<" is a common error. Don't sweat it.0
-
Mixing up ">" and "<" is a common error. Don't sweat it.
For the win. Glad you cleared that up!0 -
Yes cardio generally burns more in the actual session, which would make it easier to lose weight, but a combination of both would most likely be optimal for someone wanting to lose body fat.
By including strength training you hold onto more of your muscle, making more of the weight loss actual fat. I'm sure a lot of people here would agree that they don't want to lose muscle, or end up "skinny fat". It's not all about the number on the scale, people care about what they look like as well and I've seen so many complain that they've lost the weight they want but still look "squishy"0 -
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
study was about fat loss not weight loss0 -
for the record, the only cardio i do is basketball and i hate almost all cardio.
I love RT but for purely fat loss AT is more effective.0 -
Do both0
-
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
This just made my life....0 -
NO.0
-
Eating at a deficit helped me lose weight, cardio kept me from gaining it back, BUT strength training is giving me a bikini body that cardio never could.
Sorry cardio, you know I love you, but I'm not IN love with you.0 -
I used to agree with the OP until I became 128 pounds with 30% body fat and was still mushy as hell wearing a size 4 (I think the term "skinny fat" was used when the inventor of the word saw me).
I gained weight back to 150 pounds for various reasons a couple of years ago and then did the exact opposite of the OP and am now in the best shape of my life with better lab results at the doctor, more strength, and hella better looking...
But I guess that's just "broscience" because it is anecdotal and my life isn't in PubMed.0 -
Do intense, short workouts of both.0
-
I suggest including both. I have found myself focusing more on weight training, but I think that is because I just enjoy it more.
Also, when i was just eating at a deficit and doing cardio...I was losing the scale #, but not really inches. I lost 60lbs and went from just a size 22/24 to 18. Since around Nov/Dec..I've included and focused more and more on weight training and have gone from a size 18 to 14. Actually, I can squeeze into a size 12 now...but not officially claiming that NSV yet...lol.
Edited to correct typos0 -
But I guess that's just "broscience" because it is anecdotal and my life isn't in PubMed.
pretty much this^
jk
maybe you could indulge us a little more on how you lost the weight the second time and why you stopped at 128lbs the first time. or anything else relevant0 -
well. I looked like crap when I did cardio.
I smartened up and started lifting weights and I am much more pleased with the way I look.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
- 427 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