Cardio only burns calories?
Options
roseym10
Posts: 103 Member
I was on Youtube and stumbled onto an ad that I watched part of. Once I realized it was to sell supplements I clicked out of it but before I did the spokesperson made the statement "Cardio burns calories, not fat". What does that even mean? Was he saying that doing cardio doesn't put you in fat burning mode? I didn't keep watching to get more explanation since I didn't want to hear the supplement sales pitch. I'm wondering if this was going in the direction of needing to strength train to burn fat. I'm a cardio queen, don't really care for strength training, but I wanted to get some of you smart people's opinion on the statement that was made.
0
Replies
-
Apologies for the essay, and there's a TL;DR toward the end, but:I was on Youtube and stumbled onto an ad that I watched part of. Once I realized it was to sell supplements I clicked out of it but before I did the spokesperson made the statement "Cardio burns calories, not fat". What does that even mean? Was he saying that doing cardio doesn't put you in fat burning mode? I didn't keep watching to get more explanation since I didn't want to hear the supplement sales pitch. I'm wondering if this was going in the direction of needing to strength train to burn fat. I'm a cardio queen, don't really care for strength training, but I wanted to get some of you smart people's opinion on the statement that was made.
If a marketer said it, don't worry about what it means - at least that would be my advice. What they say needn't actually mean anything useful. IMO, this stuff (calorie balance) is pretty straightforward, and marketers need to make it seem more mysterious and complicated so we think we must buy their thingie, or we'll fail. That's BS.
"Fat burning mode" is not a thing. Or, at least it's not some special thing. All day long, every day, our bodies spend energy to do stuff: To merely stay alive, to move around doing our job and home chores and such on top of being alive, to exercise on top of daily life movement (if we choose to do some intentional exercise). Calories are the metric for measuring energy, just like miles (or kilometers) are for measuring highways. So, all day long we're burning calories.
Depending on what we're doing, we may burn more calories per minute (doing something vigorous, loosely), or fewer calories (sleeping, for example). The calories we burn can come (loosely) from carbohydrate-like stuff (glycogen in muscles, for example) or from fat (recently eaten, or from our body fat mass). This isn't an on/off switch from one type of fuel to another. It's nearly always a mix, with different proportions of fat burn and carb burn (as a percentage of the calories then being burned per minute).
Still oversimplifying, when we're doing more vigorous things, we burn higher calories per minute, and a higher percentage of those calories tend to come from things like the glycogen (because it's physiologically quick to access). When we're doing something extremely non-vigorous (like sleep) we burn fewer calories per minute, but more of them come from fat.
To lose body fat on net, which most of us think of as "lose weight", we need to eat fewer calories than we burn, on average, over some reasonable period of time. It doesn't much matter how we burn the calories, it doesn't matter which fuel source we're using at any given moment . . . if we eat less than we burn, our body will need to burned stored fat to make up the difference. We needn't care whether that "make up" thing happens when we're exercising or when we're asleep. The body can figure that out.
Very, very generally - way, way oversimplifying - cardio tends to burn more calories per minute than strength training. That can be useful to create that calorie deficit, i.e., to keep us happily in a condition where we can eat a satisfying amount, but still lose weight at a satisfying rate. Weight training tends to burn fewer calories per minute**, but help us hang onto more of our existing muscle while losing weight, in lucky (hardworking) cases even add some new muscle mass (a slow thing). Having more muscle is useful in daily life, and many people think they look nicer with a little more muscle ("toned").
But it's messy in practice: Some forms of "cardio" involve more useful stress to muscle than others, some forms of strength training burn more calories per minute than others, etc. It's not two strictly separate categories. Serious high-volume cyclists tend to get bigger, stronger thigh muscles, for example, even if they don't lift.
One thing I know: Exercise we enjoy (or at least tolerate) so do regularly is absolutely more beneficial for both weight management and fitness than theoretically better exercise that we procrastinate, put off, skip whenever we have an excuse, and generally don't do.
In a general sense, for health and fitness, it's good to do some cardiovascular exercise, and some strength exercise. If you can, the right answer is "some of both". Calories and weight loss aren't the only things that matter.
Me, I'm like you: I don't much like strength training. I do force myself to do some, because I want the benefits, but it's not optimal, in my life. I do a literal boatload of cardio (as an on-water rower) because I love it so much I'd do it weren't good for me (but it is). Cardio doesn't default to weight loss: I did a lot of it for over a decade, and stayed class 1 obese, because it takes a lot of vigorous exercise to even burn one decent peanut butter sandwich on nice whole grain bread. I worked out lots, 6 days most weeks, but just ate the sandwich (or equivalent calories). I stayed fat.
Once I took my eating patterns in hand, and improved them in the right ways, I lost weight, reached a healthy weight, and have been at a healthy weight for 6+ years since . . . doing about the same amount of exercise, of the same types, as I did when I was obese.
** If a heart rate monitor (HRM) says otherwise, that's mainly because HRMs aren't very good at estimating strength training calories: During strength training, heart rate can go up for reasons that don't involve burning extra calories. Also, some people will talk about higher "afterburn" (EPOC, or excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) from strength training. They mean that we burn more calories all day after strength training, or by having more muscle mass . . . not totally untrue, but the number of calories involved is pretty small in the big picture, once one does the math.
TL;DR: "Cardio" and "strength" are not clearly defined exercise categories. Oversimplifying:
Cardio-like things burn more calories per minute, but are a slow route (at best) to muscle gain. Strength-like things are good for improving muscle-to-fat ratios (gradually, over time) but tend to burn fewer calories per minute.
For optimal fitness, a mix of both is a good plan. For weight loss, exercise (either type) is strictly speaking optional: All that's needed is getting calorie intake below calorie expenditure on average over time, and weight loss happens. Exercising (either type) while losing weight lets a person eat more while losing the same amount of weight, and preserve more pre-existing muscle.
12 -
Technically the difference between teh two statements is simple: a calorie is a unit of energy. Fat is a type of energy.
So yes, you burn calories. Where you are getting the calories from is either fat (small stores in the cells, topped up from adipose) or glucose (small stores in the cells, topped up via insulin process) -
Glucose has 4 calories per gram, fat has 9. You're burning calories (units of energy) wherever you have got them from.2 -
Glucose isn't it's own macro but is part of carbohydrates.
Carbs and protein are both 4 calories per gram.
Fat is 9 calories per gram.
And alcohol is 7 I think.
Just putting that out there in case anyone doesn't know.
It'll be a hidden gem! 😀5 -
You have been in "fat burning mode" since the day you were born!
It's normal and doesn't have to be forced. In reality your body doesn't have modes. You don't flip from burning carbs to burning fat - both are being used virtually all of the time but in different proportions.
Remember we wouldn't store surplus energy as fat if it was difficult to use!
The blend of carbs and fat being used for energy is primarily down to your actvity/exercise levels. At rest the vast majority of your energy is coming from fat. When you exercise the proportion of carbs used rises but when I did a test in a sports lab carbs didn't become the majority source until I hit 130bpm.
There's plenty of good resons to include strength/resistance training in your life but that supplement salesman is an idiot.4 -
It's just a misleading sales pitch for a useless product. I remember having seen a German paper on the amount of energy from fat and glycogen, relative to intensity ages ago. It tried to debunk fat burning mode. It was something like this:
For the same period of time of course:
If you do very low steady state cardio you'll burn less energy overall as the intensity is lower. Most of that energy will come from fat stores.
If you do higher intensity cardio you'll burn more energy, but more of it comes from glycogen. Overall though, more energy was burned, and even more so: more fat.
Now there's a caveat here of course: you might not be able to keep up higher intensity cardio for the same amount of time. I don't mean sprinting or threshold/tempo runs, but just somewhat faster than the fabled fat burning mode. But still.
Mind you, my body has problems accessing energy from fats from a very low intensity onward. It's been tested in a lab. And my body finds exercise extremely difficult, so that most running, even the slowest running possible is close to the anaerobic threshold (my Garmin watch goes crazy about it and tells me to do more low aerobic exercise). Sometimes a hike might burn primarily glycogen. But you know what? I was able to lose bodyfat at exactly the predicted rate, maybe even a bit faster. And I was doing a shitload of running and strength training, taking average equations into account for that. I suppose my body decided to refill glycogen stores first, and take energy from fats outside of exercise, straightening the dis-balance out. I eat a fairly high carb diet though, and not too much fats. So glycogen stores are easily replenished.0 -
Cardio - lose weight
Resistance - maintain/gain muscle
Both are recommended to have good physique (avoiding that skinny fat look)0 -
Thanks everyone for the comments, they were extremely helpful to me2
-
As others have said, ignore the ad but both cardio and weights are best for optimal health. When my mom started strength training in her 70s, her osteoporosis doctor wished she'd started decades earlier.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/strength-training-builds-more-than-muscles0 -
Cardio - lose weight
Resistance - maintain/gain muscle
Both are recommended to have good physique (avoiding that skinny fat look)
Cardio = increase cardiovascular fitness
Weight loss comes from being in a calorie deficit, with or without cardio. You can do cardio and gain weight too, if you eat in a calorie surplus.7 -
I was on Youtube and stumbled onto an ad that I watched part of. Once I realized it was to sell supplements I clicked out of it but before I did the spokesperson made the statement "Cardio burns calories, not fat". What does that even mean? Was he saying that doing cardio doesn't put you in fat burning mode? I didn't keep watching to get more explanation since I didn't want to hear the supplement sales pitch. I'm wondering if this was going in the direction of needing to strength train to burn fat. I'm a cardio queen, don't really care for strength training, but I wanted to get some of you smart people's opinion on the statement that was made.
Calories are a unit of energy....fat is a type of energy. The human body constantly cycles between two primary types of energy, glucose and body fat. Lower intensity activity and rest typically uses more fat as fuel in the mixture and higher intensity exercise burns a higher ratio of glucose. However, this is all pretty irrelevant without the context of calorie consumption.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Your body requires XXXX amount of energy and this is based on your stats and overall activity (including day to day stuff and exercise). The more you do, the more energy your body needs to maintain the status quo. When you consume a balance of energy, you maintain your weight. When you consume energy that is insufficient for your needs, your backup generator kicks on and you start losing body fat to make up for the energy deficiency. It's like your bank account...if your expenses exceed your income, you have to dip into your savings...that goes on for a long enough time and you eventually deplete your savings.
Regardless of the sales pitch, resistance training is important to overall fitness and health. In the absence of resistance training, you lose muscle...as you age, this becomes worse which is why there are so many feeble people out there that are still relatively young and should be more physically competent than they are.
For women in particular it is important to maintaining bone density as well. Most health bodies recommend full body resistance training 2x per week for general health and well being, along with 150 minutes of light to moderate cardiovascular exercise or 75 minutes per week of moderate to high intensity cardiovascular exercise per week, or some combination of both. You're not doing yourself any long term favors by only being a cardio queen.1 -
Cardio = increase cardiovascular fitness
Weight loss comes from being in a calorie deficit, with or without cardio. You can do cardio and gain weight too, if you eat in a calorie surplus.
Cardio = burn calories = lose weight. Please don't add unnecessary info like eating calories surplus, we are trying to keep things neutral and looking at what cardio generally does, which is burn calories.0 -
Cardio burns calories. More calories per minute as compared to not doing cardio. And more calories per minute as compared to heavy weight lifting.
Light cardio activity, for example a MET 3.0+ level moderate walk, doesn't, necessarily, burn more calories than an intense circuit training session. So how do you deal with that if cardio = weight loss and weights = strength?
And how do you deal with all the people who DO cardio, for years, and gain weight? Or the people who strength train and lose weight?
Cardio improves your cardiovascular health and is, generally speaking, good for you in appropriate quantities.
Strength training improves your strength and, is generally speaking, good for you in appropriate quantities.
And your weight trajectory in the mid to long term is going to be determined by your caloric balance regardless of whether you engage in either, both, or neither of the above.
Current health recommendations suggest, strongly, that you should be doing both cardio and strength training and keeping your weight level to reasonable levels...2 -
Cardio = increase cardiovascular fitness
Weight loss comes from being in a calorie deficit, with or without cardio. You can do cardio and gain weight too, if you eat in a calorie surplus.
Cardio = burn calories = lose weight. Please don't add unnecessary info like eating calories surplus, we are trying to keep things neutral and looking at what cardio generally does, which is burn calories.
'we'?
Well, I personally believe that it's wrong to equate cardio and weight loss. Yes, cardio burns calories. So do many other things, like simply being alive. That doesn't mean we necessarily lose weight while doing those things. Cardio does not necessarily lead to weight loss.
And personally I also feel very strongly about 'debunking' this idea that cardio equates to weight loss since it contributes to the false idea that some people have that you need to exercise to lose weight. Cardio is not required for weight loss, which can give hope to those looking to lose weight and not able to exercise.4 -
Cardio = increase cardiovascular fitness
Weight loss comes from being in a calorie deficit, with or without cardio. You can do cardio and gain weight too, if you eat in a calorie surplus.
Cardio = burn calories = lose weight. Please don't add unnecessary info like eating calories surplus, we are trying to keep things neutral and looking at what cardio generally does, which is burn calories.
Cardio = burn calories = lose weight? Not by default.
I did boatloads of cardio (literally, as an on-water rower) for well over a decade, and stayed around the same class 1 obese bodyweight - quite intense workouts 6 days most weeks. Cardio does not cause weight loss, unless it creates a calorie deficit.
I had a nice low resting heart rate, a quick drop from peak heart rate to baseline levels after intense exercise, and good cardiovascular endurance, though - i.e., the things that come from good cardiovascular fitness, caused by cardio.
I lost weight when I ate a sensible bit less (as measured in calories), doing the same exercise. Now I maintain a healthy weight (6+ years now) doing the same exercise.
Do you propose people stop doing cardio if they aren't trying to lose weight? That would be poor advice, IMO.
"We" are trying to be accurate and complete, which is why "we're" disagreeing with you.
Even strength training burns calories. So does sleeping, for that matter (just not very many).
For weight management, we just need the right personal calorie intake for our all-types activity. That's true whether we choose to count the calories or not.2 -
Cardio = increase cardiovascular fitness
Weight loss comes from being in a calorie deficit, with or without cardio. You can do cardio and gain weight too, if you eat in a calorie surplus.
Cardio = burn calories = lose weight. Please don't add unnecessary info like eating calories surplus, we are trying to keep things neutral and looking at what cardio generally does, which is burn calories.
That is a really narrow-minded and flawed thought process. Should people stop exercising once they hit their goal weight as you seem to think its only benefit is weight loss?
Of course not!
I did 418 hours of cardio (cycling) last year and (deliberately) maintained my weight.
Cardio is for fitness, cardiovascular and general health - plus enjoyment of course.2 -
No need to get so upset about what other people think. If you firmly believe cardio is not necessary for weight loss then believe your own tale.0
-
No need to get so upset about what other people think. If you firmly believe cardio is not necessary for weight loss then believe your own tale.
I don't think anyone's upset? I'm certainly not. I just think you're giving inaccurate advice.
I do think cardio isn't necessary for weight loss.
From time to time, there have been severely disabled people here on MFP, people who sadly had such extreme physical limitations that they could not exercise at all. They were able to lose weight.
There are people here (numerically more than those with extreme disabilities) who successfully lose weight without doing cardio, because they don't want to do cardio, or say they don't have time, or something like that. Some do no cardio, but do strength training; some do no exercise of either type. I don't think that's the best approach, for many reasons, but it can work.
Cardio improves weight loss (lets a person eat more at the same weight loss rate, perhaps does some other little physiological things that are useful to weight loss (in addition to improving CV fitness)).
Strength training also improves weight loss (helps retain more muscle while losing fat).
One can lose weight without doing either.3 -
Cardio = more food if you're already in a deficit.
4 -
No need to get so upset about what other people think. If you firmly believe cardio is not necessary for weight loss then believe your own tale.
I firmly believe that cardio is essential for optimum health and that everyone who CAN do cardio (and strength train) SHOULD do cardio (and strength train.)
However, exercise is not NECESSARY for weight loss. Only a calorie deficit is required for that.
And disagreement does not equal being upset.6 -
No need to get so upset about what other people think. If you firmly believe cardio is not necessary for weight loss then believe your own tale.
I "firmly" believe it because I lost from obese down to healthy weight range without doing any "cardio" exercise.
This isn't about what people think. It's about what's provably true. Plenty of people lose weight without engaging in vigorous exercise that significantly raises their heart rate. It's just a simple, demonstrable fact.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions