Thoughts on this article? Weight training Vs. Cardio [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on this article? Weight training Vs. Cardio


DonGlock26
05-21-2005, 09:39
Now, let's return to the supposed calorie-burning benefits of strength training. We'll start with a ridiculous review of two strength-training books that was published in The New York Times last year. The Times story quoted one author, Adam Zickerman, at some length. In his book, Power of 10: The Once-a-Week Slow Motion Fitness Revolution, Zickerman says that a single 20-minute strength-training workout burns as many calories as 25 miles of running. As he told the Times: "Three extra pounds of lean muscle burns about 10,000 extra calories a month, just sitting around."

You've probably read similar claims, which often sound like this: "Every pound of new muscle burns an additional 50 to 100 calories a day." Or "Muscle burns calories even while you sleep."

If you believe any of this, you might also want to try doing long runs in your sleep. It would sure beat that damnable alarm clock buzzing on weekends.
While some personal trainers promote the calorie-burning power of muscle, most reputable experts don't. In her book Ultimate Fitness: The Quest For Truth About Exercise And Health, Gina Kolata talked to Claude Bouchard, Ph.D., a world authority on virtually all things related to obesity. His response: Sorry, but muscle actually has a relatively low metabolic rate at rest.

Bouchard is likely familiar with the article "Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body," from a 2001 issue of Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. This article gave me new respect for my kidneys, which burn 182 calories per day for every pound they weigh, and for my brain, which clocks in at 110 calories for every pound it weighs. But my muscles, damn them, are lazy. They burn six calories per pound, barely edging out fat's two-calorie burn. In other words, if you lose one pound of fat and replace it with one pound of muscle, your net gain in calorie burning is four calories a day. Enjoy the celery stick.



What Works
If you're interested in boosting your metabolism to lose weight, aerobic training such as running and walking (and bicycling, swimming, Nordic skiing, snow shoeing, step climbing, elliptical training) is a better investment than strength training. Here's why, with all figures taken from the authoritative "Compendium of Physical Activities." Let's say you have time to exercise for 40 minutes a day. You weigh 150 pounds, and you can do either 40 minutes of modest running (8:30 pace) or 40 minutes of moderate strength training. The tally:

Physical-activity energy expenditure (PAEE): The running will burn 522 calories, the strength training 136, largely because strength training involves too much sitting and resting between lifts. Advantage: Running, by 386 calories.

Excess post oxygen consumption: EPOC was once thought to give your metabolism a decent boost, but the experts have grown more conservative in their estimates. Most now believe that EPOC burns an extra 20 to 30 calories, about the same between aerobic and strength-building exercise, with both dependent on the length and intensity of your workout. Advantage: Running still leads by 386 calories.

Basal metabolic rate: As noted earlier, BMR isn't easy to change, and increased muscle seems to boost it by just four to six calories per pound. Also, it isn't easy to create muscle, a dirty little secret that's rarely discussed. Eating spinach and lifting weights don't guarantee you biceps like Popeye. Women in particular won't find it easy to build muscle, due to their low testosterone levels. Still, I'm in a charitable mood, so I'll give strength training 30 extra calories a day, because you might be diligent enough to add several pounds of muscle, and that muscle will burn a few extra calories every time you chase the kids, the bus, or a basketball. Advantage: Running's lead has slipped to 356 calories per workout.

And there it stands: If you want to boost your metabolism to lose more weight, run (or walk) around the block as much as you can.

But first, eat less. The experts from the American Dietetic Association and the American College of Sports Medicine all agree, generally advising a 500- to 1000-calorie-a-day reduction. Without this--that is, with exercise alone--few people succeed in their weight-loss efforts. Weight loss works best when you: (1) Eat less; (2) Add exercise to increase your daily calorie deficit; (3) Keep exercising to keep the pounds off.

The more you exercise, the better. The National Weight Control Registry has followed more than 5,000 people who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for more than six years. Their secret? They burn almost 400 calories a day in exercise, mostly by walking. This takes an hour or more a day, but by running you can cut that time almost in half.

When you're done, spend a few minutes on strength-training exercises. Strength training really is good. It adds variety to your workouts, rarely causes injuries, and can build extra muscle to go with the enhanced aerobic fitness that comes from continuous exercise.

And then there's the part about looking sleeker and sexier, and who can argue with that?


http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-197-200-0-7753,00.html


I have heard the "50 cals a day per pound of muscle" alot as of late, so I decided to look into it.


Well, what do you guys think? I'm leaning towards some weight training and lots of cardio. But, I have a slow metabolism.

garythenuke
05-21-2005, 15:07
The funny thing is that if you read a strength magazine you will find an article sighting all sorts of scientific articles touting the benefits of weight training for weight loss. Here we have an article in the not-too-unbiassed Runner's World. Understand that I actually subscribed to Runner's world and have run several races and Triathlon's. But obviously this magazine wants to make people run and buy the expensive cushioned shoes of their advertisers.


I have never been injured serously lifting weights. I have been injured running. If your goal is to be a skinny bone creature, then by all means run, run, and run. The best looking bods in my opinion are the 400 and 800m folk. They look, to me, to have the best balance between stamina and lean functional strength.


The main thing is to do something. Whatever you can do the longest and most consistently will work the best. I do not sit around during my weight workouts. I do my set, adjust the weight, and when the spots go away I do another set. Long slow workouts actually bore me.


The people I see sitting around on the bench for a long time between sets are those who are either too weak to do the weight they are trying, or are at the gym to pick up on members of the opposit sex. The first group I have sympathy for and will try to encourage to keep going. The second group I would like to see out of the gym. Perhaps this why I train in my back yard.

I may just have too short an attention span to be an endurance athlete. I used to ride hours on my bike and run for somewhere in the neighborhood of an hour with longer runs on the weekend. Now, though, I have too much on my mind and I have too much to do to spend 8 hours a week training. The great thing about weight lifting is that I can put my body into useable condition in about 3 to 4 hours a week.

If you like to run, do it. Running injures me and bores me. If you like to lift, do it. The main thing is to do something.

To answer the original question, I do not believe that running is head and shoulders above wieght training for dropping fat.


Contrary to the article, I like to do some cardio after my strength workouts as opposed to doing some strength training after my run.

DonGlock26
05-21-2005, 17:35
Gary,


Thanks for your reply. Here's why I posted this article. If I weigh 200 pounds and 150 is lean muscle. Then, I should be burning 7500 calories a day. There is no way I'm eating that much. I have lifted weights for years and I use to run for weight control. I switched to walking and elliptical as I got older. I'm just wonder- ing what's true and what is hype. I have seen 30 to 50 calories mentioned. Perhaps very active people burn 50 calories a day and commoners like me burn 30. That's still 4500 cals. I wish I could eat that much.;)



Cheers,;c

Don

garythenuke
05-21-2005, 18:03
Honestly Don I think the 50 calories per day per pound of muscle is total BUNK. When I was in college, the decathletes were eating about 7500 calories a day. I have a hard time seeing anyone who is not in a military basic training program burning (or eating) more than that. That is a TON of calories.

When I was riding and running "semi" copetitively, I would put down about 5000 calories a day. Any more than that is actually work!


I think the average calorie requirement for most people is alot less than they think. For you and I who weigh "roughly" 200 pounds on any given day, 2000 calories on a non training day really is about enough.


The best exercise I have ever found for reducing weight is absolutely guaranteed. Anyone can do it, and it absolutely positively cannot fail. For only $99.99 plus S&H, I'll send it to you.


Seriously, the best weight control exercise is the "two handed push back". All you do is take both hands and push youself back from the feed trough three bites early. That is guaranteed to melt the pounds off. Sorry Tony Little.....


Gary

DonGlock26
05-21-2005, 19:07
That's kinda what I figured.





Thanks,

Don

Glock19Fan
05-21-2005, 22:29
Most magazines are like (most) gun magazines. The author will say anything, as long as he has some connection to the company (Sanow ;Q ).

IMO, the best way to loose weight is to increase your excersize and decrease your calories.

Burning 500 extra calories and consuming 500 less calories a day for one week should burn around two pounds of fat. I dont have easy access to a track, but I am doing more lifting in the weight room, and I am cutting back on calories. Probably not nearly 500 of each, but more than I was.

I have also found that the more exersize you do, it seems like your metabolism increases. Run the mile 3-4 times a week for a week or two, and before too long the mile wont be that hard, neither will other excerizes.

I wouldnt rely on anything that is reported in the magazines. Its like the "get rich quick" crap. It probably wont work. Stick with the known stuff. Cut back calories, and burn more. Thats pretty much guarenteed to help cut weight.

SDBettas
05-22-2005, 06:24
A combination of strength and cardio workout, is the quickest way to drop the pounds. Strength training before cardio workout, helps deplete glycogen in the blood, and makes the subsequent cardio workout more effective at burning fat. Perhaps their 50 cal per day estimate is not right, but there are benefits that far outway no strength training at all.

NDGlock
06-08-2005, 09:37
I like to split cardio and weight training by doing cardio in the AM and weights in the evening.

I do cardio w/abs before breakfast. This jacks the metabolism which allows me to intake the calories for the evening lift. It also cuts me up pretty good this way.

So, I may be doing a ying/yang for cutting/gaining but overall, I get a clean, methodical gain of muscle mass. It isn't the quickest route to gaining mass but you stay athletic and agile.

robwebbg22
06-08-2005, 12:41
I have to believe that the 20 minutes is actual lifting time not workout in the gym time. Everybody I know that looks good with a atletic/ripped muscle body does some cardio with it. My cardio consist of 4 times a week doing treadmill work (22 minute sessions). Fast walk building up every 2 minutes an increasing the incline. WOrk up to a 15 percent grade an back down again. Granted I dont eat 7,500 calories a day!! But it works for me.

hapuna
06-08-2005, 15:16
Don,
I really think that the answer is in resetting the metabolic rate. I think the dieting thing can create a real problem with making your metabolism worse and causing you to gain weight back when you try to eat normally.
I haven't tried it yet but I think there is a book called "The 3 hour diet" that just works to reset the metabolism. I think everything you do after that will all be good.:)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060792299/002-0019913-0877667?v=glance

Check out the synopsis. I haven't tried it yet but I think it may have some merit.

Here is a webmd interview about it also.
http://my.webmd.com/content/chat_transcripts/1/108026.htm

robwebbg22
06-08-2005, 15:37
TRUE TRUE TRUE!!!! Get a diet or change your eating habits for life not just 6 months. Cut out all the extra suger. Really do we need to eat 12 crispy kreme dognouts for breakfast?? Cut out the sweets an eat healty its as simple as that I treat pineapple as dessert now. Go without all the sugar an fruits will be wonderful tasting pineapple strawberrys peaches etc... all are good for you an taste great!! Hapuna has a great point thats what i learned in exercise phsyciollagy classes.

DonGlock26
06-08-2005, 17:16
Originally posted by hapuna
Don,
I really think that the answer is in resetting the metabolic rate. I think the dieting thing can create a real problem with making your metabolism worse and causing you to gain weight back when you try to eat normally.
I haven't tried it yet but I think there is a book called "The 3 hour diet" that just works to reset the metabolism. I think everything you do after that will all be good.:)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060792299/002-0019913-0877667?v=glance

Check out the synopsis. I haven't tried it yet but I think it may have some merit.

Here is a webmd interview about it also.
http://my.webmd.com/content/chat_transcripts/1/108026.htm


Thanks!;c

garythenuke
06-08-2005, 17:46
Don,
When you were discussing diet, I do not think you were talking about a starvation diet. When I mentioned my perfect exercise, I was certainly not talking about a celery and grapdfruit diet. What I meant, and what I am sure you took away for the discussion, was a diet of skipping the ice cream after dinner, skipping the double mocha fudge latte in the morning, and skipping that extra helping of pie.

Doing this will in no way whatsoever hurt your metabolism. People who run into long term metabolic trouble are those who try to lose weight through starvation alone. You are cutting out junk calories and working out. You do not need any fancy fad new age metabolism resetting diet. Save your money. Everything you need to know about diet you learned in junior high health class. The hard part is putting it into practice. There is nothing new.

Best of luck, keep us posted.

Gary

DonGlock26
06-09-2005, 13:32
Thanks. I find that I do best with watching what I eat, walking an hour a day 6xwk, and 2 days of weight training. Eating 5-6 small meals a day is hard for a working guy.

XD40FAN
06-13-2005, 17:14
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DonGlock26
Eating 5-6 small meals a day is hard for a working guy. /QUOTE]

Yeah it is! I am having a difficult time eating breakfast, lunch, dinner, and post-workout meal!

Breakfast is the hardest for me. Mostly because of a rushed schedule andlack of desire to eat that early in the day.

robwebbg22
06-14-2005, 17:42
Power bars or atkin bars or there are about 5 or 6 other brands that should do the trick. I like atkin bars smores on the fly for breakfast.-+
`
`3

FTD
07-13-2005, 15:41
Originally posted by DonGlock26
Now, let's return to the supposed calorie-burning benefits of strength training. We'll start with a ridiculous review of two strength-training books that was published in The New York Times last year. The Times story quoted one author, Adam Zickerman, at some length. In his book, Power of 10: The Once-a-Week Slow Motion Fitness Revolution, Zickerman says that a single 20-minute strength-training workout burns as many calories as 25 miles of running. As he told the Times: "Three extra pounds of lean muscle burns about 10,000 extra calories a month, just sitting around."

You've probably read similar claims, which often sound like this: "Every pound of new muscle burns an additional 50 to 100 calories a day." Or "Muscle burns calories even while you sleep."

If you believe any of this, you might also want to try doing long runs in your sleep. It would sure beat that damnable alarm clock buzzing on weekends.
While some personal trainers promote the calorie-burning power of muscle, most reputable experts don't. In her book Ultimate Fitness: The Quest For Truth About Exercise And Health, Gina Kolata talked to Claude Bouchard, Ph.D., a world authority on virtually all things related to obesity. His response: Sorry, but muscle actually has a relatively low metabolic rate at rest.

Bouchard is likely familiar with the article "Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body," from a 2001 issue of Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. This article gave me new respect for my kidneys, which burn 182 calories per day for every pound they weigh, and for my brain, which clocks in at 110 calories for every pound it weighs. But my muscles, damn them, are lazy. They burn six calories per pound, barely edging out fat's two-calorie burn. In other words, if you lose one pound of fat and replace it with one pound of muscle, your net gain in calorie burning is four calories a day. Enjoy the celery stick.



What Works
If you're interested in boosting your metabolism to lose weight, aerobic training such as running and walking (and bicycling, swimming, Nordic skiing, snow shoeing, step climbing, elliptical training) is a better investment than strength training. Here's why, with all figures taken from the authoritative "Compendium of Physical Activities." Let's say you have time to exercise for 40 minutes a day. You weigh 150 pounds, and you can do either 40 minutes of modest running (8:30 pace) or 40 minutes of moderate strength training. The tally:

Physical-activity energy expenditure (PAEE): The running will burn 522 calories, the strength training 136, largely because strength training involves too much sitting and resting between lifts. Advantage: Running, by 386 calories.

Excess post oxygen consumption: EPOC was once thought to give your metabolism a decent boost, but the experts have grown more conservative in their estimates. Most now believe that EPOC burns an extra 20 to 30 calories, about the same between aerobic and strength-building exercise, with both dependent on the length and intensity of your workout. Advantage: Running still leads by 386 calories.

Basal metabolic rate: As noted earlier, BMR isn't easy to change, and increased muscle seems to boost it by just four to six calories per pound. Also, it isn't easy to create muscle, a dirty little secret that's rarely discussed. Eating spinach and lifting weights don't guarantee you biceps like Popeye. Women in particular won't find it easy to build muscle, due to their low testosterone levels. Still, I'm in a charitable mood, so I'll give strength training 30 extra calories a day, because you might be diligent enough to add several pounds of muscle, and that muscle will burn a few extra calories every time you chase the kids, the bus, or a basketball. Advantage: Running's lead has slipped to 356 calories per workout.

And there it stands: If you want to boost your metabolism to lose more weight, run (or walk) around the block as much as you can.

But first, eat less. The experts from the American Dietetic Association and the American College of Sports Medicine all agree, generally advising a 500- to 1000-calorie-a-day reduction. Without this--that is, with exercise alone--few people succeed in their weight-loss efforts. Weight loss works best when you: (1) Eat less; (2) Add exercise to increase your daily calorie deficit; (3) Keep exercising to keep the pounds off.

The more you exercise, the better. The National Weight Control Registry has followed more than 5,000 people who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for more than six years. Their secret? They burn almost 400 calories a day in exercise, mostly by walking. This takes an hour or more a day, but by running you can cut that time almost in half.

When you're done, spend a few minutes on strength-training exercises. Strength training really is good. It adds variety to your workouts, rarely causes injuries, and can build extra muscle to go with the enhanced aerobic fitness that comes from continuous exercise.

And then there's the part about looking sleeker and sexier, and who can argue with that?


http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-197-200-0-7753,00.html


I have heard the "50 cals a day per pound of muscle" alot as of late, so I decided to look into it.


Well, what do you guys think? I'm leaning towards some weight training and lots of cardio. But, I have a slow metabolism. The issue is not burning calories per se in a particular workout, but keeping lean muscle to burn them throughout the day. </P><P> One may get away with a heavy running schedule when young and having a high lean muscle ratio, but as when ages, the issue is keeping lean muscle, which running cuts into. </P><P> Anaerobic (Weights, body weight exercises), not aerobic exercises are what a older man should be doing.

DonGlock26
07-17-2005, 12:25
Originally posted by FTD
The issue is not burning calories per se in a particular workout, but keeping lean muscle to burn them throughout the day. </P><P> One may get away with a heavy running schedule when young and having a high lean muscle ratio, but as when ages, the issue is keeping lean muscle, which running cuts into. </P><P> Anaerobic (Weights, body weight exercises), not aerobic exercises are what a older man should be doing.



Thanks, for the replys. I think I'm going to do 20 min on the elliptical and WT for 30-40min 5 times a week.

I love the new Kashi Go Lean bars. They taste great and the high fiber fills me up. Give one a try, they are tasty!

.264 magnum
07-20-2005, 12:33
Don,
I'm talking outa-my-butt so be warned.

I think resting muscle mass does not burn many more calories than other mass at rest. However, hard lifting causes soft tissue damage. This damage must be repaired. This repair, SEEMS TO ME, causes significant calorie consumption. I carry quite a lot of muscle. When I don't lift hard I tend to get fatter. When I do the fat goes away.

If you work out in a club-look around-esp. at the guys who seem like regulars. Generally speaking, of course, those who stick to mostly cardio are fatter than those who lift first and use cardio as a warm-up or compliment.

I very much like your 20 mins of cardio and 30-40 mins of lifting scheme.

FTD
07-21-2005, 01:24
Originally posted by .264 magnum
Don,
I'm talking outa-my-butt so be warned.

I think resting muscle mass does not burn many more calories than other mass at rest. However, hard lifting causes soft tissue damage. This damage must be repaired. This repair, SEEMS TO ME, causes significant calorie consumption. I carry quite a lot of muscle. When I don't lift hard I tend to get fatter. When I do the fat goes away.

If you work out in a club-look around-esp. at the guys who seem like regulars. Generally speaking, of course, those who stick to mostly cardio are fatter than those who lift first and use cardio as a warm-up or compliment.

I very much like your 20 mins of cardio and 30-40 mins of lifting scheme. High muscle levels leads to a higher metabolic rate. </P><P> That is why just losing weight by diet leads to eventually it coming back because you lose muscle as well, and slow down your metabolism.