Anaerobic vs aerobic excerises

I read that aerobic burns fat but messes your metabolism.

Anaerobic and aerobic are the two ways your body makes energy. Aerobic uses oxygen in the conversion and has high energy potential, where Anaerobic does NOT use oxygen, and is less efficient (though has other benefits). Different exercises will use these respiratory methods to create the energy needed to complete the work you are doing. The difference in the exercises is (essentially) the difference between cardio and HIIT or strength training. Both should be included, but will vary in proportions depending on your goals.

Thanks for explaining the differences. My main question is which is better overall for weight loss. I read that both are better. For example, anaerobic builds muscle and therefore increases your metabolism but aerobic burns more fat.

Not sure what you reading but put it down and google the terms discussed here.

anaerobic activity does not builds muscle. Resistance training combined with slight calorie surplus and right amounts of protein build muscle. Period!

anaerobic activity produces lactic acid. So perfoming an exercise where you purposely stop the intensity so your body never quite goes into the aerobic phase (such as HIIT) is done to promote your lactic threshold. Something completely different than fat loss.

The theory behind HIIT is that you are building up your lactic levels so you continue burning glycogen (or the lactic byproduct) even after you lighten the intensity in your activity. Aerobic activity allows you to burn fat as well as glycogen.

But the simple skinny for burning fat for weight loss? Just eat at a calorie deficit (below your TDEE). Activity (aerobic or anerobic) will burn more calories which means you could either a. eat more and still be under your TDEE b. don't eat those exercise calories back and loose weight faster.

Thanks for explaining the differences. My main question is which is better overall for weight loss. I read that both are better. For example, anaerobic builds muscle and therefore increases your metabolism but aerobic burns more fat.

Should also separate something right now in starting your journey.

Diet is for weight loss - done right just fat loss, done wrong includes muscle mass loss.
Exercise is for heart health and body improvements - done right can help fat loss, done wrong can help muscle mass loss.

Exercise for purely the fact of burning more calories means you can take a reasonable deficit (eat less than you burn) but still get to eat more, compared to not doing the exercise.

But resistance training will also help retain muscle mass, along with eating enough protein and taking reasonable deficit. Even though it doesn't burn that many calories by itself, so you won't get to eat that much more.

Aerobic vs anaerobic focus just depends on your time available.
If you have 20 min and that's it, do some intervals, going anaerobic as Stoshew talked about, and then recovery aerobic. Repeat until done. That causes a decent calorie burn so you can eat more, and causes some better body improvements for the limited time.
But it is not whole body resistance training, and if not careful could encourage muscle mass loss somewhere.

I agree, put down whatever you are reading - it's confusing because better or worse depends on application.

Because you have to look beyond just the brief time of the workout, but what changes in the whole day.

For instance, the "fat-burning zone" as the fad badly called a slow pace aerobic workout, is very appropriate for recovery, but if you only have 20 min it's a waste of time basically if you can do more.
As is HIIT workouts again as fad being given to all kinds of workouts, is appropriate as a good strong short workout, but terrible for recovery if body is needing to repair already.