Cardio vs Weights

Well if you want to reduce your Body Fat percentage you need to eat at a calorie deficit first and foremost. Excercise makes the deficit larger and easier, not to mention the other health benefits. Weights will burn calories and help you maintain muscle mass you cannot build muscle at a caloire deficit. Cardio will help you get to a deficit quicker and easier a good combination of both is best. When you get to the point you want to bulk (Build muscle you need to eat above your TDEE how much depends on how much excercise you are doing) which of course also means you will gain some fat along with the muscle.

Key question is around what you want to achieve?

You'll probably find that its a combination of the two, but your objectives defines the relative balance and what you do within each category.

I assume you're in this to look better nekkid.... no? If so, your best best is to manage both sides of the coin - fat and muscle.

The fat side is pretty simple. You need a calorie deficit. The most efficient means for establishing it is to eat less than you expend. That's why MFP is so wildly popular. Cardio is simply a tool that helps us obtain and maintain this deficit. It's a calorie waster.

Sure, there are additional benefits associated with cardio - improved cardiorespiratory health/fitness, improved recovery ability from intense exercise, etc. But in relation to physique development, by and large it's role is to facilitate the deficit you're running from diet.

The muscle side of the equation is a bit different. When we diet by invoking a calorie deficit, our bodies have a tendency to "let go of" some of our muscle. Some people seem to think it just falls off at crazy rates, and this isn't really true. Genetically speaking, our bodies have a minimum baseline of muscle that's going to stick around regardless, just so we have some active tissue that can tug on our bones and throw spears.

But yeah, muscle loss is a concern to the person who's trying to optimize their physique. We don't want to be reaching our goal weight looking like a lighter, still soft version of our former selves, right?

And the leaner you become, the greater the tendency for muscle to diminish.

There's really only two tools in the toolbox that are in our control and help mitigate muscle loss while dieting:

1) Nutrition - mostly eating sufficient protein

2) Resistance training

So that's a really long way of saying, no, generally speaking you don't want to wait until you've lost the weight to start resistance training. A balanced approach is likely your best bet, which it sounds like you've been doing already... so good for you.

Now how that resistance training should be structured totally depends on you, your level of fat, your experience, your equipment availability, your goals, etc.

Do both, you will be glad you did a year later.

I had the exact same question when I first joined up here. Basically to sum it up nice and simply:
If you want to be thin do cardio while eating at a deficit.
If you want to look good naked, do weight training, mix in some cardio, and eat at a deficit.

Losing weight happens from eating at a deficit. Cardio improves your health, Lifting gives strength, maintains muscle, and muscle burns more calories in your day to day life.

I would stick with your cardio/weight split. I started off with steady state cardio 3-4 days a week and whole body strength training 3-4 days a week. As I lost weight that has moved into HIIT cardio/C25K 3 days a week and 5x5 stronglifts 3 days a week. I take a day off everything once a week.

^^^All of this, just remember that the Packers suck, SKOL!!!!! LOL

Thanks for all the info.

Currently i'm eating clean and exercising almost every day (you can see both in my diary).

I don't have too much to lose, maybe 1 stone (14lbs) to start with and see how my body looks but I think I will probaly have to go for another after that and i've been doing weights and cardio as I didn't want to lose muscle while just doing cardio.

I only ask because I was reading a thread yesterday and I saw something being said about if you do both together it just counter acts each other which I didn't think sounded too convincing but thought i'd post anyway to make sure I wasn't being counter productive.

For the person who asked about my body type, I'm 5'10", 21 and 190lbs atm. I'm not sure of my BF% but i'm 27 on the BMI scale, first goal is to get to 25 to be in the healthy section. I have quite a big/broad skeletal frame so If I could cut this weight and get my BF down which is what I am trying to do I am going to try and put on some decent muscle.

When trying to optimize muscle growth (think bulking, as it's often referred to), doing high volume cardio can interfere with muscle gains.

Basically making a muscle grow requires specific changes in the cellular structure of the muscle fibers - this is related to anaerobic (oxygen-free sugar-burning) metabolism. Protein accumulates under these conditions, making it bigger.

Cardio triggers muscle fibers to adapt for aerobic (oxygen-burning) metabolism and endurance.

Now, the clash comes in because these variables are mutually exclusive - they tend to cancel each other out. You can't have a muscle that's optimized for being large/anaerobic and to be energy-efficient and endurance-oriented.

The analogy I use is comparing a big SUV to a compact economy car. The SUV is big, powerful, and has horrible gas mileage. The economy car is small and not very powerful, but it'll run for days on a tank of gas.

Energy balance is a part of this equation, but there are definitely underlying and conflicting molecular-level adaptations at work.

When training for muscle growth, you need to aim towards the big inefficient muscle. Anaerobic optimization is what allows protein to accumulate, making the muscle bigger and stronger - at the cost of aerobic endurance. Aerobic-trained muscles are going to be much smaller (smaller = efficient) and full of the enzymes and cellular junk necessary for that - which will be at the sacrifice of the contractile proteins that make up the bulk of a muscle fiber.

I should add that this effect is mainly observed in athletes that are trying to do too much at once. I'm not talking about a handful of 30 minute cardio sessions here; you can out-eat that. This does become a concern if you're one of those doing 2-3 hours worth of cardio several times a week.

Training's simply an extension of life... where it's all about compromises.

I did cardio only when I lost weight before and I was successful. This time I'm doing both and the weight isn't going down as quickly but there is a big difference in how my clothes fit. I did body measurments and my waste was down an inch....I had only lost 4 pounds but adding weights helped loose volume if not weight.

anyone who said to lose weight do cardio only is full of baloney.

Because running for 5 hours per week is leading to masses of weight gain...

Does depend on what one means by cardio in terms of activity. Running, cycling, rowing, swimming all burn a decent quantity of energy and have a muscle development effect.

I never said you will gain weight. I said cardio only isn't the only way to lose weight. A combination of watching what one eats, some cardio and weights. But, you cut that part out.

I only ask because I was reading a thread yesterday and I saw something being said about if you do both together it just counter acts each other which I didn't think sounded too convincing but thought i'd post anyway to make sure I wasn't being counter productive.

That is just....dumb. It's like saying that eating an apple and eating chicken in the same meal makes it bad for you. Oh wait, people do say stuff like that too!!

Personally I like things that mix it up, like interval training, or cardio that incorporates bodyweight (e.g. Insanity). Kinda the best of both worlds if you are just going for general fitness & looking better nekkid.

Just my 2 cents, I'd avoid using anyone's n=1 self experiment to help decide which direction you should go.