Conditioning vs cardio
Jayj180894
Posts: 286 Member
What burns more kcal?
0
Replies
-
Define conditioning.
Define Cardio2 -
The one that requires the exerciser to use more energy. That will vary by person and by specific activity, intensity, length of time, etc.0
-
Nordic skiing!0
-
Conditioning: Medcine ball slams, Weighted squats, kettle bell swings, glute kick backs, push ups, sit ups. 10 reps 5 sets.
Cardiovascular: slow jog 10/15min, elliptical 10/15mins, stationary bike 10/15 medium effort0 -
Jayj180894 wrote: »Conditioning: Medcine ball slams, Weighted squats, kettle bell swings, glute kick backs, push ups, sit ups. 10 reps 5 sets.
Cardiovascular: slow jog 10/15min, elliptical 10/15mins, stationary bike 10/15 medium effort
Cardio0 -
I just can't seem to find the amount of energy output for conditioning exercises and can't do full minutes yet0
-
Jayj180894 wrote: »I just can't seem to find the amount of energy output for conditioning exercises and can't do full minutes yet
Calisthenics1 -
Jayj180894 wrote: »Conditioning: Medcine ball slams, Weighted squats, kettle bell swings, glute kick backs, push ups, sit ups. 10 reps 5 sets.
Cardiovascular: slow jog 10/15min, elliptical 10/15mins, stationary bike 10/15 medium effort
Kettlebell swings are cardio... if jogging or elliptical are cardio. For that matter so are medicine ball slams.
The rest of your "conditioning" is strength training.2 -
As I understand it, cardio burns more in the short term. Weight lifting burns less initially but more over the long term. The downside with cardio is your body easily becomes acclimated and thus it becomes less effective over time. This is why HIIT has become so popular: it combines the best of both worlds, and all the switching up keeps you from becoming "used" to it.
That being said: the best exercise is the one you will stick to. Cardio, or lifting, or whatever exercise isn't going to do you any good if you hate doing them. So do what you like! You are more likely to succeed.2 -
Okay. I'm just guessing. But I gonna say: burpees!0
-
Yes burpees lol0
-
My heart rate is usually higher and I sweat more doing 10 squats ×4 than it does on the bike though0
-
Jayj180894 wrote: »My heart rate is usually higher and I sweat more doing 10 squats ×4 than it does on the bike though
How long are you on the bike...what kind of intensity are you riding at? Your heart rate lifting is only elevated for a very short time...beyond that, energy expenditure is not directly correlated to your heart rate, it is just used in algorithms to estimate energy expenditure using a HRM...that algorithm also assumes a steady state aerobic activity.0 -
Jayj180894 wrote: »I just can't seem to find the amount of energy output for conditioning exercises and can't do full minutes yet
That's because you are out of shape. The point of conditioning is to get into better shape, not to burn calories. It is supposed to be challenging.1 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »As I understand it, cardio burns more in the short term. Weight lifting burns less initially but more over the long term. The downside with cardio is your body easily becomes acclimated and thus it becomes less effective over time. This is why HIIT has become so popular: it combines the best of both worlds, and all the switching up keeps you from becoming "used" to it.
That being said: the best exercise is the one you will stick to. Cardio, or lifting, or whatever exercise isn't going to do you any good if you hate doing them. So do what you like! You are more likely to succeed.
How does doing hill repeats on a bike incorporate the best of the strength training world and prevent me from getting used to cycling?2 -
The intensity of your workout determines the amount of calories you burn. Walking fast will burn more calories than walking slow over the same distance and terrain. Naturally if you run that same course you'll burn even more calories. Whether you bike, run, speed walk, swim, or whatever you do, it's how hard you push yourself that determines how many calories you'll burn.0
-
WayTooHonest wrote: »As I understand it, cardio burns more in the short term. Weight lifting burns less initially but more over the long term. The downside with cardio is your body easily becomes acclimated and thus it becomes less effective over time. This is why HIIT has become so popular: it combines the best of both worlds, and all the switching up keeps you from becoming "used" to it.
That being said: the best exercise is the one you will stick to. Cardio, or lifting, or whatever exercise isn't going to do you any good if you hate doing them. So do what you like! You are more likely to succeed.
I've seen this statement a lot, yet I cannot find any research backing up the claim. Most of the time I see the claim linked to a bodybuilding site or connected to weight training. If you do any exercise without making adjustments as you progress, like continuing to run the same pace and distance despite it no longer challenging you, sure, the exercise will have less of an impact on you because you've gotten stronger. The same is true for weight lifting. If you can bench 80 pounds three times for four sets, and then never increase the weight, sets, or reps, you're not going to get stronger. The key, in my opinion, is to push yourself in whatever exercise you're doing.0 -
moonstroller wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »As I understand it, cardio burns more in the short term. Weight lifting burns less initially but more over the long term. The downside with cardio is your body easily becomes acclimated and thus it becomes less effective over time. This is why HIIT has become so popular: it combines the best of both worlds, and all the switching up keeps you from becoming "used" to it.
That being said: the best exercise is the one you will stick to. Cardio, or lifting, or whatever exercise isn't going to do you any good if you hate doing them. So do what you like! You are more likely to succeed.
I've seen this statement a lot, yet I cannot find any research backing up the claim.
I literally Google'd "cardio vs weight lifting calorie burn", and easily found posts linking to Duke University studies, Penn State, and many other universities & medical peer reviewed journals and studies.
For example:
"Minute per minute, cardio indisputably burns more calories than strength training, which could explain why compared to strength trainers, aerobic exercisers lose more weight in less time, according to a recent Duke University study.
"Still, cardio doesn't do much for your muscles. Case in point: In one Penn State study, dieters lost 21 pounds whether they performed cardio or strength training. But for the cardio group, six of those pounds came from muscle, while the lifters lost almost pure fat—and probably fit into their skinny jeans better because of it."
(Because a pound of muscle is more dense than a pound of fat, and therefore takes up less space.)
Also, Nerd Fitness is very reputable and tends to present evidence based information, and include links to their resources:
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/cardio-vs-hiit-vs-weights-rebooting-our-research/
But, the most important part of my original response it this:
"The best exercise is the one you will stick to. Cardio, or lifting, or whatever exercise isn't going to do you any good if you hate doing them. So do what you like! You are more likely to succeed."1 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »moonstroller wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »As I understand it, cardio burns more in the short term. Weight lifting burns less initially but more over the long term. The downside with cardio is your body easily becomes acclimated and thus it becomes less effective over time. This is why HIIT has become so popular: it combines the best of both worlds, and all the switching up keeps you from becoming "used" to it.
That being said: the best exercise is the one you will stick to. Cardio, or lifting, or whatever exercise isn't going to do you any good if you hate doing them. So do what you like! You are more likely to succeed.
I've seen this statement a lot, yet I cannot find any research backing up the claim.
I literally Google'd "cardio vs weight lifting calorie burn", and easily found posts linking to Duke University studies, Penn State, and many other universities & medical peer reviewed journals and studies.
For example:
"Minute per minute, cardio indisputably burns more calories than strength training, which could explain why compared to strength trainers, aerobic exercisers lose more weight in less time, according to a recent Duke University study.
"Still, cardio doesn't do much for your muscles. Case in point: In one Penn State study, dieters lost 21 pounds whether they performed cardio or strength training. But for the cardio group, six of those pounds came from muscle, while the lifters lost almost pure fat—and probably fit into their skinny jeans better because of it."
(Because a pound of muscle is more dense than a pound of fat, and therefore takes up less space.)
Also, Nerd Fitness is very reputable and tends to present evidence based information, and include links to their resources:
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/cardio-vs-hiit-vs-weights-rebooting-our-research/
But, the most important part of my original response it this:
"The best exercise is the one you will stick to. Cardio, or lifting, or whatever exercise isn't going to do you any good if you hate doing them. So do what you like! You are more likely to succeed."
I was researching "body acclimating to cardio" not a comparison of weight training to cardio, which is now what you're referencing. You cannot make the claim that the human body acclimates quickly to cardio and thus the exercise becomes less effective and then bring out a comparison study which has nothing to do proving your previous statement.0 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »As I understand it, cardio burns more in the short term. Weight lifting burns less initially but more over the long term. The downside with cardio is your body easily becomes acclimated and thus it becomes less effective over time. This is why HIIT has become so popular: it combines the best of both worlds, and all the switching up keeps you from becoming "used" to it.
That being said: the best exercise is the one you will stick to. Cardio, or lifting, or whatever exercise isn't going to do you any good if you hate doing them. So do what you like! You are more likely to succeed.
This is simply not true. There are some very marginal changes to energy expenditure as a result of improved efficiency of movement but they are nominal and usually offset by the fact that someone with a higher level of fitness is going to likely go a bit harder and longer than they were before.
Energy expenditure from cardiovascular exercise is still a matter of moving mass over distance...1 -
Jayj180894 wrote: »Conditioning: Medcine ball slams, Weighted squats, kettle bell swings, glute kick backs, push ups, sit ups. 10 reps 5 sets.
Cardiovascular: slow jog 10/15min, elliptical 10/15mins, stationary bike 10/15 medium effort
For a reasonably fit person, cardio. By a lot.
The only real calorie-burner you mention is KB swings, and even for that the burn is modest.0 -
If you do the exact same cardio every day, your body will become acclimated and over the long term, the same cardio will become less effective. Period. Which is why we add more time/resistance/etc. is to maintain or increase efficacy. That is simple truth, as I was informed by my physiatrist (sports med & physical rehabilitation doctor), my general practitioner, the physical therapists I work with. I know. Taking the advice of medical doctors and other highly knowledgable health professionals is crazy talk.
0 -
moonstroller wrote: »I've seen this statement a lot, yet I cannot find any research backing up the claim.
My apologies, your lack of clarity made it difficult for me to correctly respond. "I've seen this statement a lot, yet I cannot find any research backing up the claim." When two separate statements were made (weights vs cardio & cardio acclimation), and a person does not specify of what they are speaking, it renders me unable to respond correctly. My psychic abilities are apparently not working today.0 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »If you do the exact same cardio every day, your body will become acclimated and over the long term, the same cardio will become less effective. Period. Which is why we add more time/resistance/etc. is to maintain or increase efficacy. That is simple truth, as I was informed by my physiatrist (sports med & physical rehabilitation doctor), my general practitioner, the physical therapists I work with. I know. Taking the advice of medical doctors and other highly knowledgable health professionals is crazy talk.
If you run for 60 minutes every day, eventually you'll be able to cover more distance in those 60 minutes, which will increase the calorie burn. If somebody is currently running 3 miles in 60 minutes and they progress to where they're running 5 miles in 60 minutes, they'll burn more calories in that 60 minute period because they've run a farther distance. Running 5 miles is farther than running 3 miles.
If somebody runs 3 miles per day, eventually they'll be able to run those 3 miles in less time. The calorie burn will remain essentially the same because 3 miles is 3 miles.
If somebody runs 3 miles per day in 60 minutes and continues running 3 miles per day in 60 minutes, they will eventually experience a lower rate of perceived exertion (i.e., it will become easier for them), but they're still running 3 miles in 60 minutes and burning the same number of calories.
Perceived effort does not correlate to calorie burn. There are plenty of valid reasons for continued progression, but it has nothing to do with the calorie burn, per se.0 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »If you do the exact same cardio every day, your body will become acclimated and over the long term, the same cardio will become less effective. Period. Which is why we add more time/resistance/etc. is to maintain or increase efficacy. That is simple truth, as I was informed by my physiatrist (sports med & physical rehabilitation doctor), my general practitioner, the physical therapists I work with. I know. Taking the advice of medical doctors and other highly knowledgable health professionals is crazy talk.
Well, let's see...I'm a cycling enthusiast and have pretty much been doing the same things for years...ya know...cycling...If I ride 15 miles in an hour, I'm burning roughly the same calories that I burned 4 years ago riding those same 15 miles in an hour as evidenced by my tracking of this kind of stuff for almost 5 years...
like I said, you do have some marginal efficiency stuff going on, but it's nominal...energy expenditure is going to be roughly the same now as it was then.
The reason I add more time/miles/resistance/etc is to continue to improve my fitness level...you can't improve your fitness level if you're not consistently demanding your body do more.0 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »If you do the exact same cardio every day, your body will become acclimated and over the long term, the same cardio will become less effective. Period. Which is why we add more time/resistance/etc. is to maintain or increase efficacy. That is simple truth, as I was informed by my physiatrist (sports med & physical rehabilitation doctor), my general practitioner, the physical therapists I work with. I know. Taking the advice of medical doctors and other highly knowledgable health professionals is crazy talk.
You appear to be mixing up calorie burn and training stimulus.
In order to continue improving fitness, the body requires a planned program of variable training stimuli, based on fitness level and goals. That has been the cornerstone of athletic training since forever. Yes, if you do the exact same cardio every day, the cardio will become less effective AS A TRAINING STIMULUS.
Not as a calorie burner. Calories burned depends on weight and workload. If you are the same weight and doing the same workload, your calorie burn will be roughly equal--today, tomorrow, next month, etc. It may FEEL easier because, as training increases your aerobic capacity, that workload will now represent a lower percentage of your maximum. But, since the calorie burn is "baked into" the workload itself, that does not change (yes, mechanical efficiency will occur over time, but the effect is slight).
And even if the "acclimatization burns fewer calories" idea was true (which it isn't), it would not be significant because, with your increased fitness level, you could simply WORK HARDER and "restore" or even increase the previous calorie burn.
HIIT is an important training tool, and it might be a more efficient conditioning tool (for a select few people), but it is not a superior calorie burner. The people who see significant improvement in weight loss after starting a HIIT program are people who were following mediocre cardio programs. They could have just as easily gotten similar results from adding some tempo or common interval work.
I'm not sure if you are misunderstanding what your "health team" is saying or if they are giving "advice" that is behind the times. To be honest, most doctors and even physical therapists are not experts to this level of detail in exercise physiology. The misinformation goes beyond just the popular press, and many "fitness experts" just pass on what they hear/read from others without digging into the arcane details of the research. So even a conscientious GP could be led astray by what he or she would read or hear.2 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »If you do the exact same cardio every day, your body will become acclimated and over the long term, the same cardio will become less effective. Period.
The reason this is confusing is that "less effective" can mean two different things, and it isn't clear which one you mean - so people are assuming.
If I start as a couch potato, but go out and ride my bike for 30 minutes ever day at an average of 200 watts:
(1) I will burn 360 kCal per workout, always.
(2) I will get fitter for a while, until 200w stops being enough stimulus to improve.
Of course the reality of the situation is that if I'm a couch potato I won't be able to maintain that kind of output that long. But it's a good simplified example because bikes are a special case where you can measure exactly what goes in to the workout.2 -
Intensity and duration will be the determining factor for either.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »If you do the exact same cardio every day, your body will become acclimated and over the long term, the same cardio will become less effective. Period. Which is why we add more time/resistance/etc. is to maintain or increase efficacy. That is simple truth, as I was informed by my physiatrist (sports med & physical rehabilitation doctor), my general practitioner, the physical therapists I work with. I know. Taking the advice of medical doctors and other highly knowledgable health professionals is crazy talk.
Sounds like you are mixing progressive load and diminishing returns for muscle building with cardio efficiency. They are mutually exclusive. You can change from steady stat cardio to interval training for improved HRM and recovery though, but while cardio efficiency does improve over time of doing exercise changing the exercise at the same level of intensity does not change anything in the cardiovascular process. The change is in muscle adaptations.
0 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »If you do the exact same cardio every day, your body will become acclimated and over the long term, the same cardio will become less effective. Period. Which is why we add more time/resistance/etc. is to maintain or increase efficacy. That is simple truth, as I was informed by my physiatrist (sports med & physical rehabilitation doctor), my general practitioner, the physical therapists I work with. I know. Taking the advice of medical doctors and other highly knowledgable health professionals is crazy talk.
Conflating whatever those people mean by "less effective" with lower calorie burns as you seem to be doing is simply wrong.
If I'm moving my mass over the same distance my fitness level is irrelevant. Simple physics.
What actually happens as you gain fitness is you gain the ability to move the same mass over greater distance - higher calorie burns.
Go watch some sport, the winners are the ones able to produce the most power over the time-frame of the event. More power produced = more calories.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions