Cardio vs. Weight Training for Weight Loss – Part 2
Why Weight Training over Cardio for Weight Loss?
It really comes down to the inherent differences that separate aerobic (cardio) and anaerobic (resistance) activity. With aerobic work, you are keeping your heart rate elevated for an extended period of time, which essentially limits the intensity with which you can work. Anaerobic training on the other hand, couples periods of high intensity with lower intensity or rest intervals.
Here are the benefits of Weight Training for Weight Loss:
• Increased metabolic effect
• Increased EPOC effect (more calories burned after workout is over)
• Increase in lean body mass
• Increase in bone density
• Greater stimulus on central nervous system
• Easier to progress in levels
• Complete in interval style (less time with more results)
• Less repetitive motion
• Far less boring!
The list goes on, but it's safe to say building lean body mass alone makes resistance training the clear cut winner. Without an increase in LBM, you are just burning calories day in and day out. There has to be a long-term solution to weight loss and it is most definitely found in weight training.
If you're looking to spend less time working out and get far greater results, don't slash your cardio program completely, but instead rethink where your emphasis should be.
Long-term results don't come overnight, but they can last a lifetime!
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Trans fats may be more fattening than other types of fat | | Diet & Weight Loss Blog | | Turkey Time |
Posted by: Deb | Mar 28, 2009 5:06:46 PM
Just to add
Yes cardio certainly does fire up your appetite, which strength training doesn't seem to do. A bit of a dilemma when you are trying to cut down on calories consumed.
Posted by: Deb | Mar 28, 2009 5:04:25 PM
Maybe you need to hear from someone like me. I have been a serial dieter/exerciser/weight gainer all of my life. I have tried diets with cardio, diets with weight training, diets alone, cardio alone, weight training alone, and every combination you can think of. I can say unequivically that weight training is the way to super fast weight loss. I have quite a severe lower back problem, and for that reason wish that cardio was the answer. But it is not. I went from 10 stone 4 pound to 7 stone 12 pound in 8 weeks. I had built so much body muscle that my body kept burning everything I ate like a furnace. It got to the point that my friends and family were concerned about my weight loss, and even though I had stopped exercising because I now had the problem of losing too much weight, I just kept losing. Now who wants that problem? Millions of people. Cardio is excellent for burning calories, but this action stops not long after you stop the cardio session. Building muscle turns your body into a furnace that burns what you eat, as well as stored fat like a raging fire day in day out, even while you sleep, read, walk, breathe. I cannot understand the comments of those who are trying to suggest otherwise. I can only assume they have not experienced it for themselves, their career relies on the cardio myth, or they are reading the wrong material and believing it. The effects are soooo obvious and can not be disputed. Cardio is still a great supplement, good for bone heart, lymphatic system, detox, etc by getting the blood pumping fast, but it does not even come close to strength training for weight loss. I have done it all and seen the results, which were totally astonishing.
Posted by: weight lifting for beginners | Mar 24, 2009 4:49:48 PM
Very good site, excellent content, I will recommend to my group of readers in the university, I found very interesting article on the internet, including this.
Posted by: Jim Karas | Aug 12, 2008 11:46:17 AM
I have to totally agree with Steve.
As the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Cardio-Free Diet," I believe, and the research concurs, that the benefits of an interval based strength-training program FAR outweigh what can be accomplished (which is not much) with classic, steady state cardio.
Cardio is PROVEN to kill your joints, posture, immune system, lungs, body composition and a number of other factors. The only thing that Cardio DOESN'T kill is your appetite. You perform cardio, burn a few measly calories, and then eat twice as many post exercise. That's a recipe for weight gain, not weight loss.
But the interval strength training has to be done the right way. If you want to read my thoughts on that, then take a look at my book.
And FYI - Tufts University totally agrees with my theory and clearly states that one pound of muscle burns between 20-36 calories, per pound per day and that strength training can increase metabolism up to 15%. That's a huge number.
Jim Karas
Posted by: | Nov 10, 2007 1:07:57 PM
"That's the reason running to lose weight eventually leads to now where..."
Your quote
Posted by: Steve Cabral | Nov 9, 2007 4:46:03 PM
I have never stated that steady state cardio is a waste of time. I actually think it is a perfectly viable option. I have written dozens of articles stating its effectiveness on reducing inflammation, improving cardiovascular function, as well as highlighting a myriad of other benefits.
What I am stating is that weight training and intervals are a powerful method of burning body fat quickly and efficiently while maintaining lean body mass. That fact is indisputable...
If people choose to lose weight through steady state cardio vs. interval training I think that is great. As long as people are reaching their goals of health and fitness why does it matter if they choose one method over another?
It's not a contest of sprints, steady state, weights, or any other fitness modality... it's about helping people lose weight, feel great, and live a healthy life.
Posted by: | Nov 9, 2007 3:40:47 PM
If you will follow my thread you will notice that my concern is that there is a general assumption by the fitness writer that weight training and interval training are the magic bullets for weight loss and that steady state training is a waste of time.
I can present you with a plethora of research to the contrary.
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Nov 9, 2007 11:14:34 AM
I don't think Steve is claiming that exercise is the only way to lose weight. For many people, exercise is an important part of meeting their weight and health goals. Many are also interested in learning how to start an exercise program or how to make their exercise program more effective or efficient. That's why we invited Steve to write about the fitness perspective as part of our diet and weight loss blog.
For those who would rather focus on other aspects, such as diet, nutrition, or behavior modification, the blog also includes others writing on those topics.
Posted by: | Nov 8, 2007 5:25:06 PM
IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT WEIGHT TRAINING OR HIGH INTENSITY INTERVALS...
The National Weight Control Registry has 4000 members who have lost at least 30 pounds, and KEPT IT OFF for at least a year. Most members have lost about 72 lbs and KEPT IT OFF FOR 5 YEARS! 89% of the members use diet and physical activity for their weight loss intervention while 10% use diet only. 1% use exercise only for their weight loss.
Seventy-six percent of members report that an hour a day of walking at a moderate intensity is their main form of physical activity.
Posted by: Stephen Cabral | Nov 8, 2007 2:35:32 PM
While I agree that high intensity cardio does work for weight loss, it is not a long-term solution, but rather a great compliment to resistance training. You sound like you work in the fitness field so I'm sure you are familiar with how long cardio bouts can be catabolic.
Clearly, maintenance of lean body mass should be a high priority for long-term weight loss. I personally only believe in recommending lasting results-oriented programs to my readers and clients.
Thank you again for what you have added to the comment section.
5 Studies on how weight training benefits weight loss/RMR:
EPOC Elevated for 38 Hours Post Workout
Schuenke MD, Mikat RP, McBride JM
Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption: implications for body mass management.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Mar:86(5):411-7 Epub 2002 Jan 29.
Endurance Cardio vs. Interval Training
Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.
Impact of exercise intensity on body fitness and skeletal metabolism.
Metabolism. 1994 Jul (7): 814-8.
Interval and Resistance Training for Weight Loss
Geliebter A, Maher MM, Gerace L, Gutin B, Hymsfield SB, Hashim SA.
Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Sep; 66(3):557-63
Strength Training Group Lost More fat and Maintained More Muscle than Aerobic Group
Bryner RW, Ullrich IH, Sauers J, Donley D, Hornsby G, Kolar M, Yeater R.
Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate.
J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr; 18(2):115-21
Resistance Training Study May Aid Weight Loss
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80616.php
Posted by: | Nov 8, 2007 8:35:24 AM
Intensity is the overriding factor whether you are doing cardio or weight training to lose body fat. Weight training is not the magic bullet.
Posted by: | Nov 8, 2007 6:09:27 AM
Please site the studies you refer to showing the dramatic increases of weight training on RMR.
I will be glad to site the weight training studies referring to the minimal "15-30kcal and 4.5 to 7.0 kcal/lb per day" effect on EPOC/RMR which simply demonstrates the fitness-fad-fraud marketing of the magical powers of weight training for weight loss.
Posted by: Stephen Cabral | Nov 7, 2007 8:45:10 PM
Thank you for both of your comments.
Although I respect your opinions, I cannot agree with them. Your two comments don't coincide either(15-30kcal vs. 4.5 to 7.0 kcal/lb per day...)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but with dozens of new studies demonstrating that interval resistance training subjects burned more body fat in the same time frame than their cardio counterparts it is hard to believe otherwise.
Thank you again for your comments and I always appreciate an alternative point of view.
Posted by: | Nov 7, 2007 7:52:53 PM
Although muscle is the largest tissue in the entire body, its metabolic rate is much less than has been advertised in the media and suggested by many ill-informed fitness "experts". In fact, scientific estimation of the metabolic rate of muscle is about 10 to 15 kcal/kg per day, which is approximately 4.5 to 7.0 kcal/lb per day...
Posted by: | Nov 7, 2007 7:25:12 PM
There is no clear cut winner between strength and cardio; it all depends on the person...
Increased metabolic effect - not much: 15-30 EXTRA calories burned a day for every pound of muscle you gain -
• Increased EPOC effect - minimal excess post exercise oxygen consumption
• Increase in bone density - true for any weight bearing activity
• Greater stimulus on central nervous system - depends on the type of cardio you compare it with
• Easier to progress in levels - untrue
• Complete in interval style (less time with more results) - cardio may be completed in interval style as well
• Less repetitive motion - not if you cross-train with your cardio
• Far less boring - your opinion...
