Strength training burns more calories than cardio.

Options
1234689

Replies

  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    The title and post is too much of an over-simplification. You need to take into account the intensity of someones workout, rest days required, fitness levels, current weight etc etc etc.

    So....it might, then again...it might not.

    I really do not think people do strength training for the calorie burning effects in any event, but for body composition. At least, I know I do.

    Don't trouble the bro's with such petty detail... Facts and stuff? Pah! Who needs 'em?

    After all they read the science. (They didn't really understand it... but they read it.... !)
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    I always get the feeling these threads are nothing more than a couple of guys whipping it out to see who has the bigger ****.

    If you like to run, run. If you like to lift then lift. If you want to become fit do both.

    A good point, eloquently made.

    (And obviously, mine is bigger. We're talking cleavage, right?)
  • eschwab855
    eschwab855 Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    I don't strength train for the calorie burn, I strength train for the strength training.
    that is a great answer sir
  • Prahasaurus
    Prahasaurus Posts: 1,381 Member
    Options
    Do weights. Do cardio. Do what makes you happy, and makes you feel good. FFS, stop trying to make everyone do it *your* way.

    This, times 1 million.....

    The most important thing is for each person to devise a plan that works for them. The psychological aspect of training is the most important. This is what ensures the person stays with their plan.

    If cardio works for someone, even though weight training combined with HIIT may be a more efficient fat burning plan, BUT THEY HATE WEIGHT LIFTING AND HIIT, what is the point??? The 20% gain will be completely lost when the person stops exercising and gives up.

    And a motivated person seeing results from their exercise program, any results, will typically be even more motivated to stick with their dietary goals, which is more important for weight loss. There is this positive feedback loop, psychological again, that bleeds over from exercise to diet.

    Sure, learn about all of your options. But the most important thing is to select a program that works for you. Period.

    --Prahasaurus
  • LTGPSA
    LTGPSA Posts: 633 Member
    Options
    Maybe that is why I feel hungry enough to eat my own shoe ...

    ^^LOL...now that's hungry! :smile:
  • Bobby_Clerici
    Bobby_Clerici Posts: 1,828 Member
    Options
    For me, the burn is what it is for both cardio and strength training.
    I do each daily HARD!
    My burn rate for cardio is higher - WHO CARES? There is nothing to debate. The only question about you are your goals.
    Is your tracking method producing good fruit?
    And I can't imagine just doing one or the other. For optimal health, DO BOTH!
    Good luck to everybody - ALL IS POSSIBLE!:drinker:
  • CatchMom11
    CatchMom11 Posts: 462 Member
    Options
    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.

    Although the hrms might not show it as accurately as it should... It's true. It's confusing, so for me, it depends on how it's worded as to how well I understand it. The best way I've had it explained to me is: Muscle burns more calories from fat. Therefore, if you strength train and THEN do your cardio, you are burning more calories than had you did your cardio and then strength trained. You can ask any trainer or fitness expert and they will agree.

    It's all confusing because everyone explains it differently.
  • LeggyKettleBabe
    LeggyKettleBabe Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    Cardio does not ensure a healthy heart. GOOD LORD.
  • 5onia
    5onia Posts: 2
    Options
    I workout with a Personal trainer -as exercise other than walking the dog has not been a factor in my life since leaving school, so I was pretty clueless! My trainer has me doing a real mix of cardio and strength training, and all I can say is it works. Also, and I think importantly, I find it more enjoyable doing both, and no 2 workouts are the same so it is much more fun :)
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Cardio does not ensure a healthy heart. GOOD LORD.

    Nothing guarantees good health (James Fixx - "The Joy of Running" & other books - died at an early age from a heart attack) but there have been sufficient studies conducted that clearly demonstrate that runners (and presumably people doing other forms of regular cardio) are at a lower risk of dieing prematurely from heart attack and stroke, have lower incidence of high blood pressure and diabetes and tend to have lower cholesterol. (Plus we get to smell bad in the fresh air rather than some dank gym)

    All the running and weight lifting in the world won't protect you from a previously undetected heart defect, runners have dropped dead approaching the finish line at marathons but I'll keep tying up my runners and hitting the pavement because I like the odds.
  • futuremalestripper
    futuremalestripper Posts: 467 Member
    Options
    I love how studies are done and then factors are removed so the desired result is achieved.
    It is soooo subective and so unreliable because of that. If you can take articles like this as fact, power to you.
    For every bad article, there is an equallly bad article stating the exact opposite. I refer to it as junk.
  • Sheila_Ann
    Sheila_Ann Posts: 365 Member
    Options
    bump for later reading..thanks
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    Well that's if you are building muscle which is practically impossible to do on calorie deficit (there are some exceptions). And in truth a pound of muscle only burns about 6 calories per day.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9688626

    Well sure if you're laying bed all day. But how many more calories will that pound of muscle burn if you're an active individual? Most likely a lot more than 6!
  • xipow
    xipow Posts: 58
    Options
    I don't think you have to choose, why can't your routine be a combination of all three. When I strength train I don't take breaks and I do circuits which gives me the intensity and sweat of cardio. The reason why I didn't use to like doing strength training is because I didn't sweat much and in my mind that made me feel like I wasn't working hard. But how can I expect to sweat if I take a million breaks after every set. Some days I do intervals on the treadmill other days I might go for a longer run. The intervals actually help build my endurance and vice versa. I don't think there is any magic formula, its using all of the tools together.

    I like to work on two muscle groups at a time. For example I do dead lifts for my quadriceps and while I rest my quads I do Cable Rows for my Latissimus dorsi. By the time I am done with three sets of each I am sweating and breathing hard. Then I go to Squats for Glutes/Quadraceps, alternating with Standing Upright Row for Trapezium. This way I don't feel like I am wasting the time between sets resting and my heart rate stays up.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I love how studies are done and then factors are removed so the desired result is achieved.
    It is soooo subective and so unreliable because of that. If you can take articles like this as fact, power to you.
    For every bad article, there is an equallly bad article stating the exact opposite. I refer to it as junk.

    Are you saying there is some type of conspiracy by "them" to systematically alter study results according to some hidden agenda?

    Or describing the accepted research practice of controlling other variables so that change can more likely be attributed to the variable that is the focus of the study?

    Or unhappy with the fact that our bodies and the world is complex and so there will often be disagreement about the significance of study results?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    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.

    Although the hrms might not show it as accurately as it should... It's true. It's confusing, so for me, it depends on how it's worded as to how well I understand it. The best way I've had it explained to me is: Muscle burns more calories from fat. Therefore, if you strength train and THEN do your cardio, you are burning more calories than had you did your cardio and then strength trained. You can ask any trainer or fitness expert and they will agree.

    It's all confusing because everyone explains it differently.

    I don't agree.
  • xipow
    xipow Posts: 58
    Options
    bump
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    you don't need to burn a lot of calories to lose weight
    you just need to eat less aka....at a deficit

    I don't do cardio because it serves no purpose to me. Being strong and more muscular is far more useful in my life and line of work.

    the site gives you a calorie goal, stay under it = weightloss
    unless you are going over in calories by 1000 you don't need to burn 1000 calories

    if you run because you love it, cool......but instead of running for an hour you could just eat less......

    seems to me people focus too much on burning calories and less on managing diet.........diet is forever.......but at some point our lifting and running days will be over

    Without exercise, a diet-only program has a long term success rate of less than 10%, probably less than 5%. True, diet is THE single most important factor in weight loss by far, but the exercise is essential for permanent results. Diet may be "forever", but I can almost guarantee that, if the "lifting and running days" end, body fat will increase.
  • xipow
    xipow Posts: 58
    Options
    I love you, Mr. Incredible!:flowerforyou:

    You know I'm retired from hero work.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,618 Member
    Options
    Well that's if you are building muscle which is practically impossible to do on calorie deficit (there are some exceptions). And in truth a pound of muscle only burns about 6 calories per day.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9688626

    Well sure if you're laying bed all day. But how many more calories will that pound of muscle burn if you're an active individual? Most likely a lot more than 6!
    More than 6, but the analogy of burning equal the amount and more after is HIGHLY exaggerated. Working out with weights burns calories, as does any movement. To suggest an increase of one or two pounds of muscle equates to a notable increase in resting metabolic rate would be inaccurate. Muscle has a low metabolic rate compared to other metabolic tissues at rest. It is estimated that sedentary muscle mass burns about 6 kcals per pound/day or 0.25 calories an hour per pound. This number obviously increases with activity relative to the intensity, but looking it at from a metabolic perspective (METS) that number still does not reach 50 kcal per pound. If it did, a 185 lb person would need 3885 calories to sustain their muscle tissue which represents only about 40% of bodyweight.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Categories