My lesson for the day, resistance training v cardio

So I, as I suspect MANY others also, have always been under the impression that 30 mins on the treadmill is a great way to burn calories when compared to resistance training. I thought that getting the heart rate 'in the zone' was required. Resistance training is fine for building muscle but it wouldn't come close to the treadmill in terms of burning calories...boy was I wrong!

After seeing a few comments in the past day or so along the lines of "Resistance training and lifting burns far more calories throughout the day than cardio ever will" I decided to look into it as it just didn't sound right. It was the opposite of what I have repeatedly heard.

Post-research, I think I am a little wiser. Cardio is absolutely great for heart health and WILL burn calories but it somewhat pales in comparison to what resistance training can do.

Nuts, I like the treadmill and loathe resistance training! In fact I was supposed to get started with resistance training this week but postponed it until Monday. Looks like I will be having to try to overcome my dislike of it and pick up those weights...
«1

Replies

  • pcw65
    pcw65 Posts: 31 Member
    Saying 'resistance training burns a lot of calories' does not translate to 'I will no longer do cardio'.

    To be clear...I am not advocating a replacement of one with the other. It is a case of me realizing that resistance raining has much more impact on calories than I had previously thought. Cardio is obviously important for BOTH calorific burn as well as heart health and I will be doing both.

  • jeanona
    jeanona Posts: 162 Member
    edited February 2018
    Azdak wrote: »
    Tallawah_ wrote: »
    Personally I find it quite ridiculous that people are putting so much effort into proving one is 'better' than the other. There are many routes to the goal, the point is to do something repeatedly for the rest of your life. The precursor to doing something repeatedly for the rest of your life is that you kinda enjoy it. It almost doesn't matter what it is as long as you regularly put maximal effort into it and as you get better you put more effort in.

    All 'research' I've seen to date has its own hidden agenda or has so many pre-requisites as to be pretty irrelvant in the real world.

    Trust your instincts and stick with the treadmill if that's what you love.

    I agree that this is one of the stupidest arguments in the forums.

    I started a thread on the calorie burning effects of strength training a couple of weeks ago (obviously missed by the OP during his research).

    The consistent numbers I have seen for calories burned doing a “traditional” lifting program (e.g. free weights/machines, sets, reps) was in the 300-350 calories/hour range. There will be a boost to that because of the “afterburn”, but that varies widely. Most studies I have seen put it in the 50-175 total calories range—but it is very hard to accurately measure.

    Someone running at a modest speed of 6mph and of average weight (175lbs) will burn 400 calories in 30 min of running, 800 in an hour. It’s obvious which is the higher burn.

    Of course, that’s not the whole story. As I stated in another comment, personal preference is as important or more important than any definition of “best” exercise as determined under the artificial conditions of a research lab.

    Resistance training conserves/builds lean mass. That is essential to long-term health and long-term weight control. It is by far the strongest argument someone on “team strength training” can make in the “best exercise” argument.

    Bottom line however: exercise calories at best contribute about 20% to a successful weight loss effort. Diet consistency accounts for 80%. So all of this debate is over the smallest part of a successful program.

    Is it essential though?

    I personally know a lot of older folks in their 70s and 80s who don’t do any form of resistance training but yet are very fit and healthy. They keep very active with walks, gardening, household chores, looking after grand or great-grand kids and generally maintain their health very well.
  • StevefromMichigan
    StevefromMichigan Posts: 462 Member
    h1udd wrote: »
    As it turns out you can do both resistance AND cardio ... reap the benefits, do both

    ^^^^^This. A well balanced program should include both.
  • StevefromMichigan
    StevefromMichigan Posts: 462 Member
    Imo, most people would get more calorie burn doing cardio. You will benefit from resistance training in the sense that it helps maintain muscle mass - maintaining muscle as you lose weight will keep your bmr higher than if you lose muscle.

    Agreed.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    jeanona wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Tallawah_ wrote: »
    Personally I find it quite ridiculous that people are putting so much effort into proving one is 'better' than the other. There are many routes to the goal, the point is to do something repeatedly for the rest of your life. The precursor to doing something repeatedly for the rest of your life is that you kinda enjoy it. It almost doesn't matter what it is as long as you regularly put maximal effort into it and as you get better you put more effort in.

    All 'research' I've seen to date has its own hidden agenda or has so many pre-requisites as to be pretty irrelvant in the real world.

    Trust your instincts and stick with the treadmill if that's what you love.

    I agree that this is one of the stupidest arguments in the forums.

    I started a thread on the calorie burning effects of strength training a couple of weeks ago (obviously missed by the OP during his research).

    The consistent numbers I have seen for calories burned doing a “traditional” lifting program (e.g. free weights/machines, sets, reps) was in the 300-350 calories/hour range. There will be a boost to that because of the “afterburn”, but that varies widely. Most studies I have seen put it in the 50-175 total calories range—but it is very hard to accurately measure.

    Someone running at a modest speed of 6mph and of average weight (175lbs) will burn 400 calories in 30 min of running, 800 in an hour. It’s obvious which is the higher burn.

    Of course, that’s not the whole story. As I stated in another comment, personal preference is as important or more important than any definition of “best” exercise as determined under the artificial conditions of a research lab.

    Resistance training conserves/builds lean mass. That is essential to long-term health and long-term weight control. It is by far the strongest argument someone on “team strength training” can make in the “best exercise” argument.

    Bottom line however: exercise calories at best contribute about 20% to a successful weight loss effort. Diet consistency accounts for 80%. So all of this debate is over the smallest part of a successful program.

    Is it essential though?

    I personally know a lot of older folks in their 70s and 80s who don’t do any form of resistance training but yet are very fit and healthy. They keep very active with walks, gardening, household chores, looking after grand or great-grand kids and generally maintain their health very well.

    Some form of resistance training is optimal, yes. Especially for older people (I'm middle aged, so I'm thinking ahead myself). Sarcopenia (muscle loss) and bone health are two worries for seniors. Resistance training helps with both of those.