New Study on Cardio Versus Weightlifting
MikePfirrman
Posts: 3,307 Member
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180824101138.htm
Perhaps implications that cardio is more effective for weight loss (or at least increases one hormone thought to be important for weight loss). Probably just more indication you shouldn't neglect one side -- cardio or lifting. Seems like, for the study, the intensity of the cardio was decently hard. More than most do. 60 minutes of intense cardio at 70% of max oxygen consumption. Not sure what that would mean for HR.
Perhaps implications that cardio is more effective for weight loss (or at least increases one hormone thought to be important for weight loss). Probably just more indication you shouldn't neglect one side -- cardio or lifting. Seems like, for the study, the intensity of the cardio was decently hard. More than most do. 60 minutes of intense cardio at 70% of max oxygen consumption. Not sure what that would mean for HR.
4
Replies
-
Since weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit, it seems pretty obvious that cardiovascular exercise can burn more calories. I go to the gym to lift heavy things 3x per week, and probably burn 100 kcal on each trip. When the air quality permits, I ride 75 to 100 miles a week on a road bike, probably burning 10x the number of calories as in the gym.12
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Since weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit, it seems pretty obvious that cardiovascular exercise can burn more calories. I go to the gym to lift heavy things 3x per week, and probably burn 100 kcal on each trip. When the air quality permits, I ride 75 to 100 miles a week on a road bike, probably burning 10x the number of calories as in the gym.
Aside from the shear calories. I'm not a scientist, but what they found is that a hormone that is supposed to assist with metabolism along with (potentially) helping you gain muscle is increased with cardio but not with weightlifting. They aren't talking about just calories in the study at all. But yes, I agree with you on a calorie standpoint.
I've heard a lot of bro science that weightlifting helps you burn for hours after a lift, etc., etc. I also know a lot of lifters that won't do cardio, for fear it saps part of their power. Perhaps this study incentives cardio more than before for some if it holds to be true.3 -
Focusing on the micro details is a foolish exercise. There's no need to complicate the process with a study of an obscure hormone.
Keep it simple and burn more than you eat.4 -
I'm running out of calories for today - I am headed to the pool for an hour of laps, not the weight room.8
-
According to the meter on the Keiser spin bikes, I can burn 700+ calories in an hour when I am competing against another guy for top calorie burn and highest aver W.
Swimming is about the same. 1500 in 140 minutes.
I have no idea what an accurate count would be for lifting weights. But I do try to focus on rotating super sets of 3 lifts so I do not actually rest between sets for long.2 -
"Seems like, for the study, the intensity of the cardio was decently hard. More than most do."
A 60 min Zone 2/3 (70% max HR) workout is not something that someone new to aerobic exercise should just jump into. For those with some conditioning, this would just be a good workout. Might be a bit more than most people do on a day-to-day basis, but far from a lofty and out of reach goal.2 -
"Seems like, for the study, the intensity of the cardio was decently hard. More than most do."
A 60 min Zone 2/3 (70% max HR) workout is not something that someone new to aerobic exercise should just jump into. For those with some conditioning, this would just be a good workout. Might be a bit more than most people do on a day-to-day basis, but far from a lofty and out of reach goal.
I agree, but it does take time to get there. If anything, I need to (personally) lift more. I do this type of workout 3 times a week (my slow, "easy" days on the rower). Three other days, the workout is much more intense (more like 90% HRM). But I would say, while not a lofty goal, most people that lift usually run one mile (or use the elliptical as a warmup), then lift. Many obese folks would have to work a while to achieve this. I'd be also curious to know if there's an amount of cardio less than this that also elevates this hormone for future follow up studies.
The two guys that work for me are both heavy lifters (one is my son). Just using them as examples, because I think they are pretty typical. Both are not overweight at all. Both can deadlift at elite levels (along with other lifts). Both detest cardio. I mean REALLY hate it. Despite my son was a soccer player in high school and can still run a sub 6 minute mile. He just hates it.
What this hormone can help with is diabetes, obesity and, I believe, even disease prevention potentially. If your genetics is prone toward a certain disease, keeping your metabolism functioning normally is very important. Kicking up a hormone that does just that (to me) is huge. I'm not sure, but I think this hormone also assists with muscle development. That is something that might even interest the people that are at the other end of the spectrum -- too much lifting, not enough cardio.
4 -
What time in the weight room does is build lean muscle mass and can create the physical base to keep exercising.
I know I burn more calories on the bike. As another said, and we have the same Kaiser bikes, I can burn an “indicated” 700-1000 calories/hour on the bike vs maybe 200 in the weight room. And yes, I believe it’s a bit optimistic.
But I’m building my core so I can keep riding and building strength for climbing the few hills we have in this prairie state.
Also, lean muscle takes more energy when you are not working, meaning you burn a bit more just sitting on the sofa.
2 -
I am an example of one who has chosen to either lift or do cardio (but NOT both at the same time) in order to achieve his fitness goals.
FWIW, I lost 40# over 18 months just lifting (3-5 days/wk) and doing very little cardio, which I attribute mainly to calorie control using MFP; not to any purported cal burn (hormone assisted or not) that may or may not be associated w/lifting or cardio.
I stopped lifting entirely about 6 months ago and have ONLY been doing what for me is an easy and low intensity level of cardio by rowing an average of 10k meters/day which burns about 550 cals/day at a rate if about 700 cals/hr.
This amount of rowing is very rare even among the C2 users who log their workouts on the C2 database and puts in w/in the top 5% worldwide based on distance rowed per day.
I am quite capable of rowing faster and w/more intensity (up to a,rate of 1100 cal/hr) but that is unnecessary and, in fact, contrary to my objectives, because, if I rowed faster & w/more intensity, my cardio-respiratory system would be taxed (and arguably improved) but I would burn far fewer cals with greater exhaustion (as happens whenever I do a Tabata routine on the rower).
In any event, I chose to give up lifting and switch to rowing because my prior lifting activity already raised my strength to the advanced and/or elite levels for men my age/wt (based on the Strength Level database and the Killustrated charts) and because, at my maintenance cal level of 1850 cal/day, I was feeling hungry and neded to burn more cals in order to eat more.
Rowing is most convenient for me because I can do it at home at anytime 24/7 and provides me w/a full body workout that no other form of cardio (except swimming) can provide.
So, for now, I just row the 10k meters/day in order to eat up to an additional 550 cals a day (up to 2400 total) which allows me to maintain my weight at 152-153 w/o feeling any hunger but still maintain my strength at or near my prior strength levels (which I test periodically by lifting but not working out at prior wright levels).
Based on this, I see no problem just doing whichever activity best fits your needs/goals, be it lifting or cardio, provided you exercise proper cal control (which I have done) in the process.3 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »"Seems like, for the study, the intensity of the cardio was decently hard. More than most do."
A 60 min Zone 2/3 (70% max HR) workout is not something that someone new to aerobic exercise should just jump into. For those with some conditioning, this would just be a good workout. Might be a bit more than most people do on a day-to-day basis, but far from a lofty and out of reach goal.
I agree, but it does take time to get there. If anything, I need to (personally) lift more. I do this type of workout 3 times a week (my slow, "easy" days on the rower). Three other days, the workout is much more intense (more like 90% HRM). But I would say, while not a lofty goal, most people that lift usually run one mile (or use the elliptical as a warmup), then lift. Many obese folks would have to work a while to achieve this. I'd be also curious to know if there's an amount of cardio less than this that also elevates this hormone for future follow up studies.
The two guys that work for me are both heavy lifters (one is my son). Just using them as examples, because I think they are pretty typical. Both are not overweight at all. Both can deadlift at elite levels (along with other lifts). Both detest cardio. I mean REALLY hate it. Despite my son was a soccer player in high school and can still run a sub 6 minute mile. He just hates it.
What this hormone can help with is diabetes, obesity and, I believe, even disease prevention potentially. If your genetics is prone toward a certain disease, keeping your metabolism functioning normally is very important. Kicking up a hormone that does just that (to me) is huge. I'm not sure, but I think this hormone also assists with muscle development. That is something that might even interest the people that are at the other end of the spectrum -- too much lifting, not enough cardio.
It's interesting where people find motivation. But it sounds like you've found some, don't let any naysaying take it from you.
2 -
CarvedTones wrote: »I'm running out of calories for today - I am headed to the pool for an hour of laps, not the weight room.
Carved.... just an idea..... why not lift some heavy stuff, and cool off swimming. It is the South.... hot as all kitten in N. Florida today. Lol2 -
psychod787 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »I'm running out of calories for today - I am headed to the pool for an hour of laps, not the weight room.
Carved.... just an idea..... why not lift some heavy stuff, and cool off swimming. It is the South.... hot as all kitten in N. Florida today. Lol
My point was that I needed a few hundred calories to break even and I can burn that in an hour swimming. I really need to make some adjustments though. I started using Pacer and accepting most calculated calories from it and other sources over a low base as I think the burn estimates are too high. I was getting tired of editing all the exercise entries. But I am still too conservative and drifting lower. My big giant calorie eraser is SUP paddling, which I will do tomorrow to wipe out some pushed forward calories.2 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180824101138.htm
Perhaps implications that cardio is more effective for weight loss (or at least increases one hormone thought to be important for weight loss). Probably just more indication you shouldn't neglect one side -- cardio or lifting. Seems like, for the study, the intensity of the cardio was decently hard. More than most do. 60 minutes of intense cardio at 70% of max oxygen consumption. Not sure what that would mean for HR.
I'm just going to guess that it isn't quite as simple as 'one is better than the other.' If that were the case, wouldn't it already be apparent and we would not need to do a study to find it out?
Both burn calories. One might burn more calories than the other, and that might be advantageous if you are trying to lose weight. But people lose weight without running, and many people train for marathons and hardly lose a pound.2 -
You have to be extremely wary about extrapolating macro conclusions from micro results such as this. It’s not that the study is bad, it just too early to tell if it means anything. Some of the biggest misconceptions in exercise have come from overgeneralization of small amounts of micro data.10
-
You have to be extremely wary about extrapolating macro conclusions from micro results such as this. It’s not that the study is bad, it just too early to tell if it means anything. Some of the biggest misconceptions in exercise have come from overgeneralization of small amounts of micro data.
I agree with you. I'd like to see more follow up studies on this topic, though, for sure. I'm way more cardio focused than lifting (though I row, so it's arguably functional strength). My goals going into next year are more lifting. This study won't change that view. I'm more interested in this from the standpoint of metabolic damage/prevention, not for me personally (I've been on maintenance nearly five years).1 -
why are these studies ALWAYS 10 young men and they try to widely extrapolate results...my research methods and dissertation supervisors would have laughed me out of the office, that they even got any statistically reliable information surprises me7
-
deannalfisher wrote: »why are these studies ALWAYS 10 young men and they try to widely extrapolate results...my research methods and dissertation supervisors would have laughed me out of the office, that they even got any statistically reliable information surprises me
Look at WHERE and HOW things are published. A lot of studies are self-published AKA, no reputable institution would touch it! Also, unless the raw data is also available, there's a good chance that there's a very limited amount of data which would be a red flag of a very flawed study (very few studies can be done with limited data - basically only possible when it's a very narrow subject that's being done such as studying the long term effcts of extreme social isolation as a child, "wild children", as there less than 20 known cases in the world).0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »why are these studies ALWAYS 10 young men and they try to widely extrapolate results...my research methods and dissertation supervisors would have laughed me out of the office, that they even got any statistically reliable information surprises me
Because old men are too cranky to get roped into such a study
1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »why are these studies ALWAYS 10 young men and they try to widely extrapolate results...my research methods and dissertation supervisors would have laughed me out of the office, that they even got any statistically reliable information surprises me
Many/most studies done at Universities, students work cheap, males easier to recruit for studies of this sort.
People on the path of least resistance, as with so many things in life.
2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »why are these studies ALWAYS 10 young men and they try to widely extrapolate results...my research methods and dissertation supervisors would have laughed me out of the office, that they even got any statistically reliable information surprises me
Many/most studies done at Universities, students work cheap, males easier to recruit for studies of this sort.
People on the path of least resistance, as with so many things in life.
They specifically mentioned why they used men -- they said that with menstrating women, their hormones will be impacted and influence the findings. I would think, though, there's a way to get around this or add 10 women and cross study them as well. I do like that they took the same men and each did a round of cardio and each did a round of weights. Would like to see more on this subject.
As they mention in the study, this particular hormone is being looked at as a possibly diabetes medicine/therapy. If it can be produced by the body naturally with cardio instead of weightlifting, it's a valid topic for study.
0 -
I notice the study specified "high volume [resistance exercise]" rather than low-volume heavy lifting. I wonder if there would be a difference between the two. I don't know enough about plasma bile acids and the hormones mentioned to know what affect they have on the body other than the little I could glean from the science-speak in the study. Can anyone chime in with an ELI5? (I'm no science major)
Just from reading the study, it seems like a topic that is still in its infancy. Not likely something that's going to have meaningful impact for someone trying to lose weight.0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »why are these studies ALWAYS 10 young men and they try to widely extrapolate results...my research methods and dissertation supervisors would have laughed me out of the office, that they even got any statistically reliable information surprises me
Many/most studies done at Universities, students work cheap, males easier to recruit for studies of this sort.
People on the path of least resistance, as with so many things in life.
I know when I did research for undergrad - the IRB was starting to push back on subject groups solely of college students because of these issues (in 2004) - they asked me to review my recruitment and see if it could be expanded (but since it was looking at prevalence of eating disorder signs in rotc students I couldn’t)2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
I know when I did research for undergrad - the IRB was starting to push back on subject groups solely of college students because of these issues (in 2004) - they asked me to review my recruitment and see if it could be expanded (but since it was looking at prevalence of eating disorder signs in rotc students I couldn’t)
Talk about bringing back memories.
I was always tape tested. Funny since I was maxing the PT test while a cadet. I'd run 2mi in 13:00, 70 push ups and 80 sit ups in the two minute timed exercises.
Yet they would still tape me.
I had an 18.5" neck, 48: chest and a 32" waist at 190-195#
They wanted me to weigh 170 give or take... IIRC.
Good times, LOL.
0 -
Calories are burn d through work. Weight lifting can and does burn calories. But you can't compare what is often done on the weight room with continuous stress of most cardio.
I do not know how many - a lot- people I have seen who start bench pressing with a warm up set at 205 or 225, but seem to be okay with carrying 50 lbs of body fat. Not the case with strong runners or swimmers. But this latter group doesn't take 3-5 minute naps between sets.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
I know when I did research for undergrad - the IRB was starting to push back on subject groups solely of college students because of these issues (in 2004) - they asked me to review my recruitment and see if it could be expanded (but since it was looking at prevalence of eating disorder signs in rotc students I couldn’t)
Talk about bringing back memories.
I was always tape tested. Funny since I was maxing the PT test while a cadet. I'd run 2mi in 13:00, 70 push ups and 80 sit ups in the two minute timed exercises.
Yet they would still tape me.
I had an 18.5" neck, 48: chest and a 32" waist at 190-195#
They wanted me to weigh 170 give or take... IIRC.
Good times, LOL.
I still get taped pretty much every PT cycle - 8yrs active duty and 5yrs reserves...regardless of the fact that I could go and do a half marathon today or training for a marathon - that I come close to maxing my PT test...thankfully, the navy switched to a single waist measurement 2 years ago - if you fail that, they do the rope and choke (waist/neck)
and there is nothing like having an E5 look at you when you come in overweight and telling you that you should "cut back on the burgers and other crap"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions