cardio or weights?

Her goal was to lose fat. As the study suggests, given her time constraints she should focus on cardio. As long as her deficit is not too extreme and she gets enough protein she will lose much more fat than muscle. If her goal is to lose fat without losing any lean body mass then of course weights twice a week will help prevent it.

To lose weight, you don't need either. You just need a caloric deficit, which you can achieve by moderating your food intake. No cardio or weight training required.

However, you clearly want to lose fat, and there is a difference between weight loss and fat loss. For optimal fat loss, you need a caloric deficit to drop pounds, along with adequate protein intake and strength training to maintain your lean body mass so that most or all of the pounds you lose are in the form of fat and not muscle.

Cardio is not a necessary part of the fat loss process. If your goal is to improve your cardiovascular fitness/health, do it. If you have performance goals that involve "cardio" activities like running or cycling, do it. If you enjoy cardio, do it. But if your only goal is fat loss, you don't need it.

Game, set and match.

yep

^ This is a balanced view.

To lose weight, you don't need either. You just need a caloric deficit, which you can achieve by moderating your food intake. No cardio or weight training required.

However, you clearly want to lose fat, and there is a difference between weight loss and fat loss. For optimal fat loss, you need a caloric deficit to drop pounds, along with adequate protein intake and strength training to maintain your lean body mass so that most or all of the pounds you lose are in the form of fat and not muscle.

Cardio is not a necessary part of the fat loss process. If your goal is to improve your cardiovascular fitness/health, do it. If you have performance goals that involve "cardio" activities like running or cycling, do it. If you enjoy cardio, do it. But if your only goal is fat loss, you don't need it.

Game, set and match.

yep

^ This is a balanced view.

I agree with most of that..but I cannot apply it...so it may not be true for all individuals. I believe cardio serves a few functions that are yet to be proven by science...as the science in this field is completely non-existent. All "bodybuilders"(at least that want to get on stage) do cardio. They actually taper cardio up, as calories fall, and sometimes taper calories up to accommodate cardio...depending on how lean they are. Cardio is an experimental variable in a situation where all else is constant (diet, strength..etc)....But the more cardio we do, the more we can eat, and also perhaps (maybe) the more "full" we look. I'm not sure about the rest of the community, but i certainly retain better fullness with cardio...minus salt, minus water...

Her goal was to lose fat. As the study suggests, given her time constraints she should focus on cardio. As long as her deficit is not too extreme and she gets enough protein she will lose much more fat than muscle. If her goal is to lose fat without losing any lean body mass then of course weights twice a week will help prevent it.

What studies?

If you read my first post on this thread you should be able to find it.

Most recent studies show the opposite. Indeed there has been a spate of television programs showing this.

Indeed, one study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine tracked the results of 58 sedentary overweight/obese men and women who participated in a 12 week course of supervised aerobic exercise. The results were positive in terms of increased endurance and decreased systolic and diastolic pressure but not at all glowing in terms of weight loss. The mean weight loss was only a bit over seven pounds in three months, with most of the group losing barely half of that amount.

Indeed if one has to choose which cardio to do, it would be HIIT over SSCV/LISS. A study done at Laval University investigated the impact of aerobics versus high intensity anaerobic exercises on body fat using young adults and the findings were quite eye opening. Participants took part in either a 20 week endurance training regime of sustained aerobics or a 15 week high intensity intermittent training protocol. Despite the fact that participants doing the aerobic exercises expended over twice as much energy as the anaerobic group- (120.4 MJ as opposed to 57.9 MJ), those in the anaerobic group lost significantly more body fat than the cardio exercise group.

Cardio does reduce insulin sensitivity and the risk of diabetes as a result, it does increase bone mass and decrease the risk of osteoporosis but it is NOT efficient for holding on to muscle. Its fairly obvious why as well. The muscle held is inefficient, it needs more calories to exist. The body will get rid of muscle when it is not required regularly in daily use.

The reverse is why muscle is grown when it is used more than the body can cope with - to help it do the task it is required to do and actually burn less calories whilst doing so (think about it, the stronger you get, the easier a task gets, you don't pour with sweat like you once did).

The other thing you need to remember is that THE CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM WORKS TO SUPPORT THE MUSCULAR SYSTEM AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Needless to say, a high intensity set of squats to even close to the threshold of muscular failure leaves even the most conditioned of athletes gasping for air. You can’t work muscles at high intensities without significantly elevating your heart rate.

If you are serious about getting into great shape or looking for a more efficient way to improve your health and fitness, high intensity training might be a better fit for you over cardio. So get off the treadmill and pick up the weights if you really want ‘the look’ and don't forget to watch what you eat as neither aerobic nor anaerobic exercise can negate the ill effects of an unhealthy diet.