Heavy lifting vs cardio for weight loss??
Options
Replies
-
There's a little misinterpretation going on here that I hope I can verbalize in a different light. When you eat at a caloric deficit you with loose body "mass" not just fat but fat and muscle and possibly bone (if you're not getting the nutrients you need like calcium). By strength training, you force the body to maintain the muscle and bone (since your taxing them) and use other sources of energy like fat.
Second, the body has three types of fuel sources that being quick fuel (survival/fight or flight energy), proteins (muscle etc) and endurance fuel (fat). Quick fuel (Glycogen - stored in the liver basically sugar) is used first since the body can easily metabolize it and it's quickly replaced by eating. Fat is used primarily only when the glycogen is depleted but the body still needs large amounts of fuel. OR when the body has been programmed to recognize that it is performing a long taxing task requiring large energy amounts over long periods of time (ie running). However, if you body is not programmed and the task is new to it, it will use glycogen and or potentially muscle mass before it switches to fat because fat is harder for the body to metabolize as compared to simple proteins and sugars.
If you doing cardio only - your body will just use the glycogen unless you work out long enough which most beginners don't. So they kill themselves doing cardio and completely undo everything by eating right afterwards thus replacing the glycogen and not producing an energy deficit requiring the burning of fat.
The best method to ramp up your weight loss is to strength-train ( or HIIT) first to burn up the glycogen and follow that up with any type of cardio (walking, biking, running). This way the body says "we're under a heavy load - burn up the sugars." "Still working hard here Don't burn the proteins, we need that to rebuild." Still going but we need energy, switch to fat!"
Sorry but this is completely and utterly false - you do not burn glycogen first and fat second.
Virtually all the time you are exercising you are using a combination of both.
When you are at rest and have digested your last meal your are burning virtually all fat. Zero special "tricks" needed. At my multi hour cycling pace I'm burning approx. 50/50 carbs and fat for example.
If you had ever truly ever got to the point of using up all your glycogen (c. 2hrs of intense and unfuelled cardio) you simply would not be able to exercise anymore. Hitting the wall as marathon runners call it or bonking as cyclists call it. Crushing fatigue and mental confusion tells you when you have got there.
I sacrificed some accuracy for a more simplistic laymen terms explanation, but utterly false? No, not at all. Yes the body burns all three at once, but it metabolizes them at vastly different levels. If you have a better way to explain the Kreb's cycle, electron transport, and ATP synthesis without vapor-locking brain housing groups, I'm all ears.0 -
OP, lets simplify.
Cardio = good for heart and burns extra calories.
Lifting = good for growing muscle and keeping muscle mass when in calorie deficit
Fat Loss = only done when in calorie deficit.
So, if weight loss is your goal and the only options are cardio or lifting... then cardio.
However, you SHOULD be doing this:
1. Calorie deficit.
2. Lifting to keep as much muscle mass as you can.
3. If you are eating too much, cardio can help ensure the calorie deficit. Also, again, good for the heart. Might as well be healthy and skinny right?5 -
There's a little misinterpretation going on here that I hope I can verbalize in a different light. When you eat at a caloric deficit you with loose body "mass" not just fat but fat and muscle and possibly bone (if you're not getting the nutrients you need like calcium). By strength training, you force the body to maintain the muscle and bone (since your taxing them) and use other sources of energy like fat.
Second, the body has three types of fuel sources that being quick fuel (survival/fight or flight energy), proteins (muscle etc) and endurance fuel (fat). Quick fuel (Glycogen - stored in the liver basically sugar) is used first since the body can easily metabolize it and it's quickly replaced by eating. Fat is used primarily only when the glycogen is depleted but the body still needs large amounts of fuel. OR when the body has been programmed to recognize that it is performing a long taxing task requiring large energy amounts over long periods of time (ie running). However, if you body is not programmed and the task is new to it, it will use glycogen and or potentially muscle mass before it switches to fat because fat is harder for the body to metabolize as compared to simple proteins and sugars.
If you doing cardio only - your body will just use the glycogen unless you work out long enough which most beginners don't. So they kill themselves doing cardio and completely undo everything by eating right afterwards thus replacing the glycogen and not producing an energy deficit requiring the burning of fat.
The best method to ramp up your weight loss is to strength-train ( or HIIT) first to burn up the glycogen and follow that up with any type of cardio (walking, biking, running). This way the body says "we're under a heavy load - burn up the sugars." "Still working hard here Don't burn the proteins, we need that to rebuild." Still going but we need energy, switch to fat!"
Sorry but this is completely and utterly false - you do not burn glycogen first and fat second.
Virtually all the time you are exercising you are using a combination of both.
When you are at rest and have digested your last meal your are burning virtually all fat. Zero special "tricks" needed. At my multi hour cycling pace I'm burning approx. 50/50 carbs and fat for example.
If you had ever truly ever got to the point of using up all your glycogen (c. 2hrs of intense and unfuelled cardio) you simply would not be able to exercise anymore. Hitting the wall as marathon runners call it or bonking as cyclists call it. Crushing fatigue and mental confusion tells you when you have got there.
I sacrificed some accuracy for a more simplistic laymen terms explanation, but utterly false? No, not at all. Yes the body burns all three at once, but it metabolizes them at vastly different levels. If you have a better way to explain the Kreb's cycle, electron transport, and ATP synthesis without vapor-locking brain housing groups, I'm all ears.
No you didn't sacrifice accuracy, you went off into la-la land.
Both glycogen and fat are preferred fuel sources and muscle simply is not. Hugely inefficient and virtually never used as fuel.
Get yourself to a sports science lab and get hooked up to a gas analyser to measure your respiratory exchange ratio at different exercise intensities and let me know the results.
Unless people are into endurance cardio then it's a complete waste of time worrying about or trying to manipulate the fuel substrate used during exercise. Calorie deficit over time results in fat loss, no tricks or gimmicks required.
3 -
There's a little misinterpretation going on here that I hope I can verbalize in a different light. When you eat at a caloric deficit you with loose body "mass" not just fat but fat and muscle and possibly bone (if you're not getting the nutrients you need like calcium). By strength training, you force the body to maintain the muscle and bone (since your taxing them) and use other sources of energy like fat.
Second, the body has three types of fuel sources that being quick fuel (survival/fight or flight energy), proteins (muscle etc) and endurance fuel (fat). Quick fuel (Glycogen - stored in the liver basically sugar) is used first since the body can easily metabolize it and it's quickly replaced by eating. Fat is used primarily only when the glycogen is depleted but the body still needs large amounts of fuel. OR when the body has been programmed to recognize that it is performing a long taxing task requiring large energy amounts over long periods of time (ie running). However, if you body is not programmed and the task is new to it, it will use glycogen and or potentially muscle mass before it switches to fat because fat is harder for the body to metabolize as compared to simple proteins and sugars.
If you doing cardio only - your body will just use the glycogen unless you work out long enough which most beginners don't. So they kill themselves doing cardio and completely undo everything by eating right afterwards thus replacing the glycogen and not producing an energy deficit requiring the burning of fat.
The best method to ramp up your weight loss is to strength-train ( or HIIT) first to burn up the glycogen and follow that up with any type of cardio (walking, biking, running). This way the body says "we're under a heavy load - burn up the sugars." "Still working hard here Don't burn the proteins, we need that to rebuild." Still going but we need energy, switch to fat!"
Sorry but this is completely and utterly false - you do not burn glycogen first and fat second.
Virtually all the time you are exercising you are using a combination of both.
When you are at rest and have digested your last meal your are burning virtually all fat. Zero special "tricks" needed. At my multi hour cycling pace I'm burning approx. 50/50 carbs and fat for example.
If you had ever truly ever got to the point of using up all your glycogen (c. 2hrs of intense and unfuelled cardio) you simply would not be able to exercise anymore. Hitting the wall as marathon runners call it or bonking as cyclists call it. Crushing fatigue and mental confusion tells you when you have got there.
I sacrificed some accuracy for a more simplistic laymen terms explanation, but utterly false? No, not at all. Yes the body burns all three at once, but it metabolizes them at vastly different levels. If you have a better way to explain the Kreb's cycle, electron transport, and ATP synthesis without vapor-locking brain housing groups, I'm all ears.
No you didn't sacrifice accuracy, you went off into la-la land.
Both glycogen and fat are preferred fuel sources and muscle simply is not. Hugely inefficient and virtually never used as fuel.
Get yourself to a sports science lab and get hooked up to a gas analyser to measure your respiratory exchange ratio at different exercise intensities and let me know the results.
Unless people are into endurance cardio then it's a complete waste of time worrying about or trying to manipulate the fuel substrate used during exercise. Calorie deficit over time results in fat loss, no tricks or gimmicks required.
Once again, if you have a better way to explain it, I'm all ears.0 -
What are you people talking about?
Cardio burns tons more calories than lifting.
That said, one loses weight by eating less. As mentioned.
I wonder if this is entirely true over the long haul? I get that it burns more that you can immediately count and I know increased burn from muscle is minimal but it seems like I lose more weight with weight training all other things being equal. I'm testing that on myself right now. I could be completely delusional but I guess I'll find out.
ETA: Wondering if there's some kind of after burn or increased burn from muscle repair. Just curious based on my experience.0 -
Cardio will definitely shed the fat off, at least it did for me. Weight lifting will help tone you up but if your goal is to shed some fat then I would focus on the cardio.0
-
^ This.vivmom2014 wrote: »Calorie deficit reduces body fat. Strength training is always good for muscle preservation & definition. Cardio is great for heart health & earning more calories.
Congratulations on your wedding!
0 -
You could go for a twofer. Cardio with a resistance component...
Really OP eat at a deficit, cardio lets you do that while eating a little more. And if you want a certain look for your wedding then maybe see what other people who look like that are doing and then do that.0 -
sodapoppin28 wrote: »Cardio will definitely shed the fat off, at least it did for me. Weight lifting will help tone you up but if your goal is to shed some fat then I would focus on the cardio.
no your calorie deficit shed the fat...cardio got your heart and lungs and body somewhat more healthy.
Lifting burns calories as well but again not for weight loss...it's to help preserve as much muscle mass as possible while in a "CALORIE DEFICIT"...
It's like the quote says "you can't outrun a bad diet"....in other words doesn't matter how much cardio you do if you aren't in a calorie deficit you won't lose weight.0 -
LinzMargaret wrote: »
If I wanted to be 135 with tone (but just a little - still want to look soft and effeminate), should I be lifting heavy or doing more cardio to get rid of that layer of fat?
Women can't be effeminate. Only men can be.0 -
LinzMargaret wrote: »
If I wanted to be 135 with tone (but just a little - still want to look soft and effeminate), should I be lifting heavy or doing more cardio to get rid of that layer of fat?
Women can't be effeminate. Only men can be.
what does that have to do with this thread?
@LinzMargaret yes you should be doing some resistance training but not for fat loss that comes from your calorie deficit.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions