Strength training burns more calories than cardio.

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 ;-)

I would say that an 8-10 RM squat weight would not be considered "heavy", but I suppose that's matter of opinion.

The mistake you are making, the fundamental mistake that is ALWAYS made in these discussions, is that you are assuming that an elevated heart rate always means that cardiovascular training is taking place.

In the case of heavy weight lifting, it is not. I can't say it any plainer than that.

Cardiovascular training occurs because of an increase in cardiac output, not because of an increase in heart rate per se. If heart rate increases, but cardiac output does not increase, or does not increase to a significant degree, then aerobic training is not going to occur. When you lift heavy weights, heart rate increases due to a significant rise in intrathoracic pressure and an increase in afterload. There is only a modest increase in cardiac output and oxygen uptake.

The literature reports that the VO2 for doing heavy squats (2RM -10RM) ranges from 2-4 METs. 2 METs is the equivalent of a mild stroll, 4 METs a brisk walk. In addition, the repeated bouts of isometric contraction in the working muscles, followed by a reactive hyperemia can lead to cellular adaptations that are similar to those achieved with cardiovascular training.

So, someone who is starting a lifting program, or someone with a modest VO2max can experience an initial increase in VO2max as part of the initial adaptation to the routine. Just as someone who is starting a cardio program will experience a measurable increase in muscle strength as they adapt to a cardiovascular modality. But the results of training are specific to the demands of the exercise activity--if the activity itself does not demand an increase in VO2, then no amount of ideological posturing can make that happen.

And numerous studies have been performed --I read my first one in 1985--that have shown that under controlled conditions, there was no increase in VO2 max when engaging in a strength-only workout program.

As I have said earlier, it IS possible to increase PERFORMANCE in an essentially cardiovascular event by adding strength training. The effects, however, are indirect. The improved performance comes primarily from improved mechanical efficiency, rather than any direct effects on what is normally considered the "cardiovascular system".

These performance improvements will be more noticeable for average or recreational exercisers, or for anyone with muscle strength deficits.

I always thought/was taught that the reason strength training, of any kind (not just lifting weights but advanced Pilates type exercise) burns more calories is because it burns calories for a longer period of time after the workout ends. It makes physiological sense. Truthfully I'd much rather do strength training than cardio anyway. Easier on my joints and I see results faster.

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 ;-)

I would say that an 8-10 RM squat weight would not be considered "heavy", but I suppose that's matter of opinion.

The mistake you are making, the fundamental mistake that is ALWAYS made in these discussions, is that you are assuming that an elevated heart rate always means that cardiovascular training is taking place.

In the case of heavy weight lifting, it is not. I can't say it any plainer than that.

Cardiovascular training occurs because of an increase in cardiac output, not because of an increase in heart rate per se. If heart rate increases, but cardiac output does not increase, or does not increase to a significant degree, then aerobic training is not going to occur. When you lift heavy weights, heart rate increases due to a significant rise in intrathoracic pressure and an increase in afterload. There is only a modest increase in cardiac output and oxygen uptake.

The literature reports that the VO2 for doing heavy squats (2RM -10RM) ranges from 2-4 METs. 2 METs is the equivalent of a mild stroll, 4 METs a brisk walk. In addition, the repeated bouts of isometric contraction in the working muscles, followed by a reactive hyperemia can lead to cellular adaptations that are similar to those achieved with cardiovascular training.

So, someone who is starting a lifting program, or someone with a modest VO2max can experience an initial increase in VO2max as part of the initial adaptation to the routine. Just as someone who is starting a cardio program will experience a measurable increase in muscle strength as they adapt to a cardiovascular modality. But the results of training are specific to the demands of the exercise activity--if the activity itself does not demand an increase in VO2, then no amount of ideological posturing can make that happen.

And numerous studies have been performed --I read my first one in 1985--that have shown that under controlled conditions, there was no increase in VO2 max when engaging in a strength-only workout program.

As I have said earlier, it IS possible to increase PERFORMANCE in an essentially cardiovascular event by adding strength training. The effects, however, are indirect. The improved performance comes primarily from improved mechanical efficiency, rather than any direct effects on what is normally considered the "cardiovascular system".

These performance improvements will be more noticeable for average or recreational exercisers, or for anyone with muscle strength deficits.

A far more interesting, informative and potentially educational post than your previous pontifications. The only exception is the thing about posturing. If you find that offensive, you may want to address that to the guy you see in the mirror. Thanks

So, in other words, the answer to my question is, you don't. You are welcome to your opinions.

:yawn:

Case in point.

Oh dear. Did the clever man baffle you with logic?

Much ado about nothing as Shakespeare would say. He also said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. A less eloquent person once said if it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck...you get the idea.

So in summary, strength training may lower your resting HR and enable you to run farther, faster, and with less exertion than before, but it is not due to cardiovascular improvement, only due to increased efficiency. That may indeed be the case, but direct/indirect...who cares? Personally I don't care if the mechanism is pixie dust.

It's like the argument that your muscles may be measurably larger stronger and your body composition may have improved, but it is not due to increased muscle mass. Once again who cares?

It's the end result most people are interested in, not the specific mechanics that brought about said result. If pure research is your aim, perhaps the mechanism matters to you more than most.

Bingo!

Well the more muscle you have the more calories are burned, so I agree if you stregth train and are building muscle...then over time you will definitely be burning more calories.

This is why men typically burn more calories than females in any single workout session because they typically have more muscle as compared to females.

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.

i really hope those who read this realize that hrms are only accurate for cardio burns, not strength training. Look it up.

ACK and RTFM of your HRMs:)

HRMs measurement are not as accurate as some people mean, too