Strength training burns more calories than cardio.

xipow
xipow Posts: 58
in Fitness and Exercise
A 45-minute strength training session followed by a 10-15 minute cardio workout (65%-75% of MHR) will burn more calories than a 60-minute cardio workout!

http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
«13456

Replies

  • epcorne
    epcorne Posts: 59 Member
    Great info. I like to blend the two together, but I always feel like I burn more fat doing cardio.
  • 1WorkoutAtATime
    1WorkoutAtATime Posts: 719
    yup, my HRM agrees
  • SweetSammie
    SweetSammie Posts: 391 Member
    Maybe that is why I feel hungry enough to eat my own shoe now that I've been strength training with a trainer then following it up with a little cardio... but MFP gives much less on the calories burned for strength training/weight training/ect. Hmm. I used to only eat about 1/2 to 2/3 of my workout calories, but I've been eating them ALL...
  • irisheyez718
    irisheyez718 Posts: 677 Member
    My HRM doesn't show that for me, it shows about 200 calories less than an hour of my Zumba class. BUT, I am much hungrier after strength training, and I definitely feel like I did more.
  • jazzy43
    jazzy43 Posts: 16
    Nice to know. I am going to share this with my "friends". Thanks for the info.
  • CinJay
    CinJay Posts: 157 Member
    thank you :)
  • LabRat529
    LabRat529 Posts: 1,323 Member
    A 45-minute strength training session followed by a 10-15 minute cardio workout (65%-75% of MHR) will burn more calories than a 60-minute cardio workout!

    http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/

    Eh. I disagree. And when I was wearing my body fit media thingy, it disagreed too. Running/fast walking and/or hiking burned a lot more for me than weight lifting did.

    That said... I LOVE weight lifting, I think it's the better choice if you can only choose one type of exercise, and I do think there might be something to the idea that you keep burning even after you lift.
  • cfregon
    cfregon Posts: 147
    I really think it depends on the person. It's up to the individual to judge by use of a HRM. For me, If I work hard enough cardio does wonders (especially in intervals, as the BLOG suggests), also, circuit training, which incorporates strength with cardio-awesome. Just like any health topic, it's dependent on the individual needs of the person....just a warning so not everyone all of a sudden jumps on the bandwagon without thinking about how it will work with their own bodies.

    Note this is a blog, not a research or scientific source. It cites a few studies, but not extensively.

    Thanks for the article though, it is something that might help a number of people who had limited exercise routines before. :)
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    I don't strength train for the calorie burn, I strength train for the strength training.
  • dsjohndrow
    dsjohndrow Posts: 1,820 Member
    Great article. Agree. But I still love to run!
  • tuffytuffy1
    tuffytuffy1 Posts: 920 Member
    Great article, thanks! I already to some HIIT and I do strength training as well. It took me until I was 43 years old to realize that I wasn't going to change my body with just the treadmill.
  • Elen_Sia
    Elen_Sia Posts: 638 Member
    I don't strength train for the calorie burn, I strength train for the strength training.

    THIS!
  • MinMin97
    MinMin97 Posts: 2,674 Member
    cool. Thanks for posting that. Actually, that is exactly what I have begun doing!

    Also, what diet suggestions do you make?
  • xipow
    xipow Posts: 58
    My HRM doesn't show that for me, it shows about 200 calories less than an hour of my Zumba class. BUT, I am much hungrier after strength training, and I definitely feel like I did more.

    I guess that your HRM and MFP do not consider the post workout calorie burn that comes with strength training. With strength training "you’ll burn calories at an accelerated rate for reportedly up to 38 HOURS after your exercise." according to
    http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/

    I also found this
    Post-Exercise Burn
    "While it is evident that cardiovascular exercise burns more calories than lifting weights, the amount of calories burned after weight training is higher," reports the CTER Eportfolio System website. Metabolism increases after cardiovascular exercise only lasts 30 to 60 minutes, whereas post weight training metabolism increases up to 48 hours.


    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/295718-does-lifting-weights-burn-more-calories-than-cardio/#ixzz1yRufVqob
  • Rays_Wife
    Rays_Wife Posts: 1,173 Member
    Very interesting blog, thanks!
  • PurpleEpiphany
    PurpleEpiphany Posts: 96
    For me the thing to remember is that strength training has better calorie burn potential in the long run. Yes, you build muscle by doing cardio, but not as quickly, and building muscle helps you burn more calories since (and I'm sure you've all heard this one before) muscle burns more calories than fat.

    I think both are important, but too often people overlook strength training for various reasons. Either they don't think they'll burn enough calories or (especially with women) they don't want to get too bulky (which for the record is not the case).

    Personally I pick a 'group' to focus on, do a circuit of weights (I go with my husband so switching back and forth, it usually takes about half an hour to get through six or so exercises), then go do about half an hour of cardio. That's been working really well for me, and I'm seeing much more 'inches' progress than weight, presumably due to building muscle. (But again, I'm losing inches, so definitely NOT bulking up.)
  • Spanaval
    Spanaval Posts: 1,200 Member
    HRMs cannot accurately measure calorie burn from strength training, only from aerobic activity.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Everybody knows that 60 minutes of hard running will only burn around 1000 calories while 45 minutes of weights with 5 minutes of HIIT burns over 1,000,000 calories for two days.
  • anubis609
    anubis609 Posts: 3,966 Member
    I don't strength train for the calorie burn, I strength train for the strength training.

    Yep!
  • TheNewo
    TheNewo Posts: 239 Member
    thank goodness it's only 10-15minutes of cardio.... I can only manage 20 after a good strength training session
  • xipow
    xipow Posts: 58
    Everybody knows that 60 minutes of hard running will only burn around 1000 calories while 45 minutes of weights with 5 minutes of HIIT burns over 1,000,000 calories for two days.

    1,000,000 ???
  • timboom1
    timboom1 Posts: 762 Member
    "While it is evident that cardiovascular exercise burns more calories than lifting weights, the amount of calories burned after weight training is higher," reports the CTER Eportfolio System website. Metabolism increases after cardiovascular exercise only lasts 30 to 60 minutes, whereas post weight training metabolism increases up to 48 hours.

    So is there an actual conclusion of which burns more in total? I read that I will be sore longer after strength training?
    Everybody knows that 60 minutes of hard running will only burn around 1000 calories while 45 minutes of weights with 5 minutes of HIIT burns over 1,000,000 calories for two days.

    Wahoo, my problems are finally solved. Pizza and beer tonight. It must be true I read it on the internet.

    Really though, do what works for you and what you want out of it, if you want to lose weight then just have a calarie deficit at the end of the day. If you burn a few more than you counted because of the "afterburn" it isn't going to kill you.
  • cavewoman15
    cavewoman15 Posts: 278 Member
    even if i do upper and lower body strength training on the same day, i don't think it lasts 45 minutes. maybe more like 35. however.. this is a good argument to lift before cardio. i usually do the other way around.

    thanks!!
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)
    It doesn't take an olympic level marathon runner. It only takes a year or so of fairly serious training and the ability to go out and run around 8 miles in an hour.

    The problem I have with this oft stated argument is that it assumes steady state running is slow. That is not the case if one takes the time to get trained in which case one can burn many more calories steady state running than they can either lifting or doing HIIT. It only takes around four minutes of extra steady state running to equal the amount of calories burned with HIIT, including the "afterburn". Add to that that one can run much longer and much more often steady state points to it being the superior method of burning lots of calories.

    HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    Everybody knows that 60 minutes of hard running will only burn around 1000 calories while 45 minutes of weights with 5 minutes of HIIT burns over 1,000,000 calories for two days.

    ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)

    That was sarcasm, right? I'm a little suspicious of this idea. I need to read the studies, but I don't know of an accurate way to measure metabolism that would allow you to make statements about the increased burn after you stop exercising. Cardio is certainly a more efficient way to burn calories, but my favorite is what I did today: easy running between strength training stations, 50 minutes of running and about 20 minutes of body-weight exercises. I feel like I get more benefit from the chin-ups, dips, etc when I'm already tired and have an elevated heart rate when I start them versus doing them without the running.
  • timboom1
    timboom1 Posts: 762 Member
    HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.

    So not 1,000,000 calories. :cry:
  • xipow
    xipow Posts: 58
    cool. Thanks for posting that. Actually, that is exactly what I have begun doing!

    Also, what diet suggestions do you make?

    Nothing you haven't heard. I suggest you avoid foods with a low glycemic index. Get your sugar from fruit. Choose vitamin dense foods like veggies over calorie dense processed. Avoid carbohydrates before sleep to promote Human Growth Hormone secretion and minimize glucose production if you want lipolysis. Do not exceed 600 cal per meal with several meals a day to avoid fat storage and maintain metabolism rate. Water is important. Consistency is better than intensity.
  • xipow
    xipow Posts: 58
    ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)
    It doesn't take an olympic level marathon runner. It only takes a year or so of fairly serious training and the ability to go out and run around 8 miles in an hour.

    The problem I have with this oft stated argument is that it assumes steady state running is slow. That is not the case if one takes the time to get trained in which case one can burn many more calories steady state running than they can either lifting or doing HIIT. It only takes around four minutes of extra steady state running to equal the amount of calories burned with HIIT, including the "afterburn". Add to that that one can run much longer and much more often steady state points to it being the superior method of burning lots of calories.

    HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.

    Any references that support your statements will make them less subjective.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    The olympic athletes where just examples. It's like there are these "newer" methods for weight loss that are supposedly more efficient. If a method promises better results, then we would have found it already. As I said below "Your body is smarter than you, you can't out trick it." Yes HIIT does have it's place in fitness, but it's not the be all end all. I think should be sport specific. Some want general fitness, some want to be endurance athletes, some want to be strength athletes. They should train for their sport. General fitness is "general" multiple forms of running is involved.

    Well, most people do want something specific: fat burning. The bottom line is that most studies comparing HIIT to steady state cardio find that HIIT is more "efficient" for burning fat. However, if you have lots of time to do steady state cardio, then you could obviously burn more overall calories that way.

    There is another side to the debate too though. It's not simply about the calories when it comes to exercise for those us concerned with body composition. HIIT will elicit a better GH response than steady state cardio. Whether that translates to a better body composition than steady state cardio is not definitively proven. But, if you look at sprinters versus marathon runners . . . .
  • pweinzap
    pweinzap Posts: 8
    ha I have yet to see a comment like this from you. I do agree with you though. Another thing that isn't considered is the fitness of the trainee. What comes to mind is an olympic style weight lifter and an olympic style marathon runner. The lifter has probably adapted great recovery and the stress isn't that much on him. Same for the runner, but the recovery ability he has lets him run faster at a more intense rate(high calorie burn)
    It doesn't take an olympic level marathon runner. It only takes a year or so of fairly serious training and the ability to go out and run around 8 miles in an hour.

    The problem I have with this oft stated argument is that it assumes steady state running is slow. That is not the case if one takes the time to get trained in which case one can burn many more calories steady state running than they can either lifting or doing HIIT. It only takes around four minutes of extra steady state running to equal the amount of calories burned with HIIT, including the "afterburn". Add to that that one can run much longer and much more often steady state points to it being the superior method of burning lots of calories.

    HIIT has its place in building fitness but it's sold as snake oil to those looking for a quick fix.

    Any references that support your statements will make them less subjective.


    Here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101527

    EPOC is very real of course. It has a direct relationship with the Intensity of exercise. HIIT/Intervals/whatever will indeed have a higher EPOC or "afterburn" than steady state cardio. However the significance of EPOC, regardless of the activity, compared to the amount of calories burned during the exercise is rather minimal.

Categories