Is weight lifting 4 weight loss becoming the new Myth?

Far too much TL;DR going on here and I think that response is unnecessary, juvenile and rude. If you can't be bothered to read the entire post then your response is irrelevant, start your own thread instead.

I was thinking the same thing. Recently I read a post equally as long that was packed full of good scientific information and the OP was praised by all for it. I don't really understand the double-standard where length is concerned.

Ummm....If it was TL (Too Long): DR (Didn't Read), then how would someone know how well it was written? I agree that it was not written terribly well and was full of unsubstantiated declarations, but many people (not all) said they didn't read it because it was too long. If their problem is content or quality of writing, then TL;TD is not the appropriate response.

Far too much TL;DR going on here and I think that response is unnecessary, juvenile and rude. If you can't be bothered to read the entire post then your response is irrelevant, start your own thread instead.

From Urban Dictionary: "too long; didn't read." really means: (meant tongue in cheek don't get your knickers in a twist reading this, but yea I still think it is rude and childish).

1. The inability to accept, understand or pay attention to information when not separated by a header.
2. The ability to arbitrarily read 400 small posts but not a long one.
3. A sign of ADD or lack of reading capability.
4. A very cheap response and an indication of lack of wit.
5. 90% of the time: A lie.
6. A desperate attempt at a comeback used by people who just can't think of one.
7. Usually used by people who've been torn apart verbally but want one last attempt at looking witty.
8. Total failure at #7.
7. A sign that, not only is someone too lazy and stupid to read but, clearly, too lazy and stupid to even type out four words indicating such.
9. Collect every "tl,dr" post online, and you'll have a good estimate of the number of lazy idiots on Earth, who currently have Internet access.
10. Should really be:
"Too Lazy, Don't Read."

Thread hijacking is against the TOS. If you want to lecture people maybe start your own thread.

Just weight lifting alone whilst still eating the same isn't going to get you anywhere...I don't think there's any information out there suggesting that.

I believe pretty much everyone should know by now, as well as the "experts" that a calorie deficit is what's required to lose weight. Now without exercise, such as lifting, you will be losing muscle and fat. What alot of people are trying to say is that lifting whilst losing weight will preserve muscle as it's not that what you need to lose.

Cardio will burn your muscles off along with the fat.

I think you've confused yourself with everything you have read.

Athletes train for 5 hours because that is their job/career....everyday people that have worked an 8-10 hr day on top of other general everyday chores/duties will find running for more than a couple of hours daily too much.The body can only take so much.

Cardio is good for the heart, but cardio alone won't lose you any weight if your diet isn't in a deficit.

Cardio will what? Burn your muscles off along with the fat??

That's a new one...

when I a deficit you burn both muscle and fat. If you only do cardio that ratio is whatever it is. If you add strength training you are signaling to the body that the muscle is needed for more than just fuel. At this point the body changes what it burns to be more fat and less muscle.

It's kinda if you don't use it you'll lose it.

Yeah, what I'm saying is, I don't think this is true. At least, not for moderate amounts of cardio. Marathoners, sure.

No, it will burn your muscles along with fat. Might not burn all of them, but you'll lose some muscle while doing just cardio. Plenty of threads have been started on here about being 'skinny fat' because the person did nothing but deficit and cardio.

From what I understand, you lose muscle when you diet, no matter what you do. If I lose 65 lbs, there is no way that's going to be pure fat.

Far too much TL;DR going on here and I think that response is unnecessary, juvenile and rude. If you can't be bothered to read the entire post then your response is irrelevant, start your own thread instead.

I was thinking the same thing. Recently I read a post equally as long that was packed full of good scientific information and the OP was praised by all for it. I don't really understand the double-standard where length is concerned.

It's not a double standard. They are completely two different things. One is actually full of good solid information backed by science and research, the other is just some guy saying, "it seems to me that weight lifting is bad..." Blah, blah, blah. It isn't interesting, there is no draw, it is extremely poor writing...I feel like I'm reading air. It's just nothing. The content is useless. I learn nothing, I gain nothing. It's just a big black hole from which I can never get that time back. A scientific study that dives into detail can be extremely illuminating and could completely change how I exercise or what I eat for the rest of my life.

So, it's not a double standard at all. They are different things, completely.

Ummm....If it was TL (Too Long): DR (Didn't Read), then how would someone know how well it was written? I agree that it was not written terribly well and was full of unsubstantiated declarations, but many people (not all) said they didn't read it because it was too long. If their problem is content or quality of writing, then TL;TD is not the appropriate response.