Strength training burns more calories than cardio.
Replies
-
I felt that this article is fair and balanced.
http://www.lanimuelrath.com/blog/calories-burned-by-muscle-vs-fat-another-myth-exploded/
I like this part especially.
Keep in mind, there are multiple reasons for challenging your musculature.
First, resistance training protects the muscle you DO have – whether you are in weight maintenance or seeking weight or fat loss.
Second, muscle is what gives shape to your physique – your appearance is largely a reflection of your muscle mass.
Third, functionality of your body, strength, and protection of joints is largely a function of muscle strength. To not use it means to lose it. And if you lose it you don’t have it to use.
Even though the high numbers of “50 calories a pound” are not accurate, as muscle IS more metabolically active than fat, you have the potential for a negative energy balance, which can result in weight loss - or fat loss – due to your metabolic rate by year’s end. And that can add up.
As it turns out, the metabolic expenditure of our muscle mass is best accessed with their active use. This means doing muscle-challenging exercise that puts said muscle into contraction action.
And that allows us to access the metabolism rate boosting EPOC, or excessive post- exercise oxygen consumption.0 -
It is not clear just how much more calories muscle burns than other tissue. This writer found the following.
"Muscle burns fat-
Muscle is a highly metabolic tissue; it burns five times as many calories as most other body tissues pound for pound. The addition of 10 pounds of muscle to your body can burn 600 calories per day. You would have to run 6 miles a day, seven days a week to burn the same number of calories. Ten extra pounds of muscle can burn a pound of fat in one week; that's 52 pounds of fat a year." http://adorablerags.com/DrB/Metabolism.html0 -
It is not clear just how much more calories muscle burns than other tissue. This writer found the following.
"Muscle burns fat-
Muscle is a highly metabolic tissue; it burns five times as many calories as most other body tissues pound for pound. The addition of 10 pounds of muscle to your body can burn 600 calories per day. You would have to run 6 miles a day, seven days a week to burn the same number of calories. Ten extra pounds of muscle can burn a pound of fat in one week; that's 52 pounds of fat a year." http://adorablerags.com/DrB/Metabolism.html
Dr B also sells cats. From what I read, he knows much more about cat breeding than physiology or metabolism.0 -
Lol, yeah I think I'll stick with actually peer reviewed clinical studies rather than rely on an article from a cat person.It is not clear just how much more calories muscle burns than other tissue. This writer found the following.
"Muscle burns fat-
Muscle is a highly metabolic tissue; it burns five times as many calories as most other body tissues pound for pound. The addition of 10 pounds of muscle to your body can burn 600 calories per day. You would have to run 6 miles a day, seven days a week to burn the same number of calories. Ten extra pounds of muscle can burn a pound of fat in one week; that's 52 pounds of fat a year." http://adorablerags.com/DrB/Metabolism.html
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
It is not clear just how much more calories muscle burns than other tissue. This writer found the following.
"Muscle burns fat-
Muscle is a highly metabolic tissue; it burns five times as many calories as most other body tissues pound for pound. The addition of 10 pounds of muscle to your body can burn 600 calories per day. You would have to run 6 miles a day, seven days a week to burn the same number of calories. Ten extra pounds of muscle can burn a pound of fat in one week; that's 52 pounds of fat a year." http://adorablerags.com/DrB/Metabolism.html
Dr B also sells cats. From what I read, he knows much more about cat breeding than physiology or metabolism.
indeed. there's no knowledge base for his claims. no evidence. this could as easily come from my blog. i'm a Dr after all....0 -
Well, let's forget the fact that it could take months at a calorie surplus to approach adding 10 pounds of muscle to your frame, and won't happen at all on a deficit, and just look at the ridiculous number of muscle burning 60 calories per day per pound. If the average American burns around 2000 calories a day, then that would put average American bodyweight at roughly 40 pounds, assuming 30% body fat. So unless every American is the size of a 4 year old, I would call those numbers false.It is not clear just how much more calories muscle burns than other tissue. This writer found the following.
"Muscle burns fat-
Muscle is a highly metabolic tissue; it burns five times as many calories as most other body tissues pound for pound. The addition of 10 pounds of muscle to your body can burn 600 calories per day. You would have to run 6 miles a day, seven days a week to burn the same number of calories. Ten extra pounds of muscle can burn a pound of fat in one week; that's 52 pounds of fat a year." http://adorablerags.com/DrB/Metabolism.html
Maybe that's how many calories cats burn...:huh:0 -
I tried strength training with a PT ended up paying for a gym membership I couldn't use as it aggravated old back injuries from 1st of 8 car accidents I was in. Can't lift more than 5lb weights so sticking to bellydance
[/quo
8?0 -
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
Cardio works the most important muscle of them all, your heart. I don't understand how anyone can't find it useful
Holding a person's breath also works the heart.
Shall we test that theory out... ?0 -
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
Cardio works the most important muscle of them all, your heart. I don't understand how anyone can't find it useful
Holding a person's breath also works the heart.
Shall we test that theory out... ?
0 -
That's interesting, but true or not, my primary concern is my heart health and no amount of strength training exercises the cardiovascular system, unfortunately.0
-
Not really true. Heavy strength training works the cardiovascular system quite a bit.That's interesting, but true or not, my primary concern is my heart health and no amount of strength training exercises the cardiovascular system, unfortunately.0 -
Not really true. Heavy strength training works the cardiovascular system quite a bit.That's interesting, but true or not, my primary concern is my heart health and no amount of strength training exercises the cardiovascular system, unfortunately.
+1. I do both cardio and strength. My cardio endurance and performance has increased due to my strength training. Both are good so let's not make false claims about strength training not working the cardiovascular system.0 -
resistance training while protecting the muscles also is good for the bones and keeps them robust.0
-
Thank you for posting this..........I lost my way but I am back on track!!! I was doing cardio and weight (low weights) 3 times a week and then got on this BURN THE FAT thing and started walking/running 4-5 x's a week for 30-50 Min. No weights. I have been doing this faithfully for a month. Along with reduced a calorie diet. Well let me say I was overweight but wasn't sagging.
Low and behold after I took a shower I looked @ myself naked in the mirror and OMG I was Jiggling like a sheet blowing in the wind! I was horrified!!! GREAT! I said to myself real bright! I should've NEVER went astray from the weight training.....Now I have to try and catch up...Get all this sag tight and toned.....So I appreciate you posting this to remind me the errors of my way. Anyone who is doing weight training or resistance I would appreicate some support, so please friend me. I need support with the weight stuff....Thanks! :happy:0 -
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.
those statistics are lovely......but everyone has the option to be 100% successful0 -
Not really true. Heavy strength training works the cardiovascular system quite a bit.That's interesting, but true or not, my primary concern is my heart health and no amount of strength training exercises the cardiovascular system, unfortunately.
+1. I do both cardio and strength. My cardio endurance and performance has increased due to my strength training. Both are good so let's not make false claims about strength training not working the cardiovascular system.
The claims are not "false". Performance improvement does not automatically equal an increase in aerobic fitness level. Resistance training can improve cardio performance, but not by improving cardiovascular fitness.
For most people, the performance improvement is the important thing and they don't really care about the details, but this topic requires a bit more precision.0 -
Completely wrong. Weight training is phenomenal for your heart, and will improve cardiovascular endurance as well. Only HIIT provides better cardio benefits... run of the mill steady state cardio is mediocre at best, unless done for large periods of time.That's interesting, but true or not, my primary concern is my heart health and no amount of strength training exercises the cardiovascular system, unfortunately.0 -
That's interesting, but true or not, my primary concern is my heart health and no amount of strength training exercises the cardiovascular system, unfortunately.
To test your theory I recommend 8 sets of heavy barbell back squats to failure. Use a weight that you can do for only 8-10 reps per set. Rest a minute or two between sets. Once you catch your breath and your heart rate returns to normal, please post the results of this experiment.
I am confident you will find your cardiovascular system was just "exercised" tremendously. In fact I am confident if you do this twice a week for a few months, increasing weight as you become more fit, your regular cardio will have much improved. You will probably have trouble walking for a few days afterwards. As always, please seek the advice of a physician before embarking on a new training regimen ;-)0 -
If you were allowed to do only one exercise the rest of your life, I think you would be hard pressed to find a more effective single exercise than the squat for overall fitness, strength, cardio, abs, posture, body composition, and even a longer healthier life.
That might be a topic for another thread.0 -
bump0
-
Not really true. Heavy strength training works the cardiovascular system quite a bit.That's interesting, but true or not, my primary concern is my heart health and no amount of strength training exercises the cardiovascular system, unfortunately.
+1. I do both cardio and strength. My cardio endurance and performance has increased due to my strength training. Both are good so let's not make false claims about strength training not working the cardiovascular system.
The claims are not "false". Performance improvement does not automatically equal an increase in aerobic fitness level. Resistance training can improve cardio performance, but not by improving cardiovascular fitness.
For most people, the performance improvement is the important thing and they don't really care about the details, but this topic requires a bit more precision.
Wow, you come here and make all kinds of claims that seem to be based on your opinion. Got any peer reviewed studies to back that up?0 -
One additional thought (for some reason the edit function isn't working on my previous post). Why would the hair need to be split as to whether strength training increases performance or actual carsio vascular fitness. If one is strength training, biking and/or running what difference does it make if they are improving thier cardio fitness through strength. And if they are not, and just strength training, the data indicates that it improves thier cardio fitness. So, unless you are trainnig to be a competitive marathoner or bike racer, functyionally, what difference does it make?0
-
Marking to read later0
-
i really hope those who read this realize that hrms are only accurate for cardio burns, not strength training. Look it up.yup, my HRM agrees0 -
it doesn't make any difference. But if you are training to run at any distance past a sprint then running is needed in quantity because many of the aerobic adaptations needed are in the working muscle (legs) and not just in the heart. If one is not training to race then the aerobic adaptations in the legs may be irrelevant and any exercise that raises the heartrate is good.. So, unless you are trainnig to be a competitive marathoner or bike racer, functyionally, what difference does it make?0 -
Bump for later also.0
-
This has nothing to do with fitness. That's a sport specific training concept. It's like trying to tell a regular person that bench pressing 200 pounds won't improve their strength because competitive powerlifters bench press 500+ pounds. It's irrelevant to the average non-athlete.
it doesn't make any difference. But if you are training to run at any distance past a sprint then running is needed in quantity because many of the aerobic adaptations needed are in the working muscle (legs) and not just in the heart. If one is not training to race then the aerobic adaptations in the legs may be irrelevant and any exercise that raises the heartrate is good.. So, unless you are trainnig to be a competitive marathoner or bike racer, functyionally, what difference does it make?0 -
I agree Scott. Some run because, like you, they love the sport and want to improve and compete. That great! Some of us just do it for health & fitness, like me. I like improving my times a little but beyond that I'm doing it for the fitness and the burn.
it doesn't make any difference. But if you are training to run at any distance past a sprint then running is needed in quantity because many of the aerobic adaptations needed are in the working muscle (legs) and not just in the heart. If one is not training to race then the aerobic adaptations in the legs may be irrelevant and any exercise that raises the heartrate is good.. So, unless you are trainnig to be a competitive marathoner or bike racer, functyionally, what difference does it make?0 -
One additional thought (for some reason the edit function isn't working on my previous post). Why would the hair need to be split as to whether strength training increases performance or actual carsio vascular fitness. If one is strength training, biking and/or running what difference does it make if they are improving thier cardio fitness through strength. And if they are not, and just strength training, the data indicates that it improves thier cardio fitness. So, unless you are trainnig to be a competitive marathoner or bike racer, functyionally, what difference does it make?
It makes a difference to those who want to understand the underlying physiology determining why the changes are taking place. It means being able to structure a workout program that is focused on achieving goals rather than leaving it to random chance.
A lack of knowledge of the fundamental principles of exercise physiology leads to .....well leads to stuff like what you are reading in these comments. .0 -
Not really true. Heavy strength training works the cardiovascular system quite a bit.That's interesting, but true or not, my primary concern is my heart health and no amount of strength training exercises the cardiovascular system, unfortunately.
+1. I do both cardio and strength. My cardio endurance and performance has increased due to my strength training. Both are good so let's not make false claims about strength training not working the cardiovascular system.
The claims are not "false". Performance improvement does not automatically equal an increase in aerobic fitness level. Resistance training can improve cardio performance, but not by improving cardiovascular fitness.
For most people, the performance improvement is the important thing and they don't really care about the details, but this topic requires a bit more precision.
Wow, you come here and make all kinds of claims that seem to be based on your opinion. Got any peer reviewed studies to back that up?
No opinion, just the basic fundamentals of exercise physiology.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions