Why Strength Training is better

Why does it seem that these posts are always an either/or situation? Here's an idea - do both. Both strength training and cardio have things going for them. So, don't just lift weights and don't just run.
I do days of lifting, days of running and days where I do running mixed in with other things like pushups, situps, lunges and crunches.

I agree with above (and not just because I also believe the Phillies/Eagles RULE)...I think a healthy, balanced approach ( I know, boring) is the right mix. I do 6 days of cardio and 3 weight training, but on my weight days I only do 2/3 of the normal cardio I do on non-weight days. For someone who was fat doing the strength build up my upper body, while the cardio helped reduce my gut, fat, legs...so a good mix.

Did you actually read the article? This isn't for general health or fitness, it's pure FAT LOSS.

Like everyone else I read the first sentance, discard it and then just spew my opinions. Isn't that proper message board etiquette?

Ok, I read through the first few pages yesterday and I have a question, related but slightly off course - assuming the article (which I have read and agree with, so if your answer to my question is "The OP/article's wrong", no offence but I don't want to be attacked) is correct and cardio can actually sabotage fat loss - am I sabotaging myself?

I walk to and from work (mostly to save money) which is 4 miles a day at about 3.5 mph up and down some serious hills. My HRM tells me I spend about 1/3 of that in 'Fat Loss' mode (less than 120bpm) and about 2/3 in 'Fitness' mode but I've never understood why working harder would mean I'm no longer losing fat. That first 1/3 is normally when I'm walking downhill or on the flat, and then my heart rate gets really pumped when I'm putting my all into attacking those hills. Technically I'm lifting my weight up those hills (and don't my calves/hams/glutes feel it) but since I hate cardio (really, really hate it) I don't particularly want to put in all that effort if it's not helping me lose fat, as that's my current goal.

BTW, I do lifting at home too, so I'm not just a cardio do-er, but ooooohhhhhh. Just confused on the matter. Any light shed would be helpful. Don't like working out uninformed.

As far as the HRM thing, my trainer told me that when your heart rate goes into fitness mode you are working on your endurance more than you are burning fat and during that phase your body burns carbs, not as much fat. I always wear my HRM, do some HIIT and then I do the elliptical like once a week with a large incline and high resistance to keep my heart rate in that fat burning zone. I lift 3 times a week for at least an hour and always make sure my heart rate comes down in between sets.
And I agree with PSU.

Oh, and whoever said the Phillies rule!!!

Ok, I read through the first few pages yesterday and I have a question, related but slightly off course - assuming the article (which I have read and agree with, so if your answer to my question is "The OP/article's wrong", no offence but I don't want to be attacked) is correct and cardio can actually sabotage fat loss - am I sabotaging myself?

The article that references the study mentions that both sets of people were on low calorie diets. From looking at your diary you're not eating low calorie. All the weight training books that advocate strength over cardio still tell you to have aerobic fitness (I think NROLFW states if you can't ride a bike for a couple of hours at a leisurley pace you need to fix that) It's when you're doing low calorie, all cardio that you start to sabotage fat loss.

Also I've seen it stated on here that there is no 'fat loss' stage your heart rate gets to. But I'm not 100% sure on that.

Thanks - that makes me feel a lot better! I try and make sure I never go below my BMR (which also gives me a margin for error and over-eating) and have been hitting my macros pretty well recently. I'm just never sure what they mean by 'low calorie diets' as I am eating at a deficit.

I've always been a walker and am chuffed because according to my HRM when I bought it a couple months ago, my fitness levels are pretty good, so right now it's more important for me to target that extra layer of fat that's making my clothes not fit! But it's good to know even those who advocate lifting over cardio wouldn't throw cardio out completely ) I've read NROLFW but for some reason found it really hard going, though I use a lot of the principles.

So maybe I should now re-word my question to "Why does my HRM think below 120 bpm is going to make me burn fat and above 120 bpm is going to make me more fit - and are the two mutually exclusive???"

Thanks again Lozze :flowerforyou:

To answer your question, in a zone where your heart rate is between 55% and 75% of max you are primarily using fat for fuel. Over that and you begin to utilize more glycogen and less fat on an increasing % the higher your HR. HRM companies love to talk zones and it's mostly part of thier marketing schtick. In the Lyle McDonald articles someone posted way back on pge 2 or 3 he addresses the whole "zone" thing. Bottom line is that in what your HRM calls the fat burning zone, there is very little EPOC (Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption). EPOC will contunie to burn calories after the workout is done.

So, if you walk for 1 hour you will burn say, 600 calories during and none after. If you run for 30 minutes you will burn say, 400 calories and 200 more from EPOC (numbers aren't precise, just illustrative). If you do HIIT for 20 minutes you will burn 300 calories during and an additional 300 from EPOC. So all 3 workouts give you roughly the same burn yield. As you do things with more intensity to are training your cardio system and increasing your VO2 max which is the body's ability to process oxygen during exercise. If you are trainng to race or just like to improve your times and fitness, great. If not, it is somewhat unessesary and the low intensity zone will yield you heatlh and longevity benefits. The one caveat is that low intensity cardio takes more time than high intensity.

I do HIIT and Steady State in my cardio. Love HIIT because in 25 minutes on a Tuseday Morning I'm done! Get my heart rate up to max and back several times. I love my long bike rides where I stay between 70% and 80% max HR they take a long time but they are awesome fun and the trails are georgous. I get benefit from both. Bear in mind HIIT should only be done 2 max 3 times per week due to it's effect on your central nervous system.

To the OP, great post on max fat loss! I'm living proof. Stepped up the strength 3 weeks ago. haven't lost a lb but have lost 1.5% BF doing Stronglifts 5X5.