Fitness

Ok i appologise im having a "moment"

if i do 30mins cardio v's 30mins wieght training i burn more calories by doing the cardio right?? but i burn more fat doing the wieght training right??

Ok can someone explain how that works?? because i don't "get it"

Losing weight is on a basic level about calories in v's calories out ... so assuming ive created a deficit i should lose weight ?? and that "weight" has to come from fat stores in both cases correct?? ??? Although i realise when you do heavy cardio it's also possible to lose muscle as well ...

So my point ... i do have one im sure ...

If cardio is best for "creating a deficit" because it's easier to wrack up a good number of burned calories why is it that weight training burns more fat?? surely they both just burn fat??? and therefore cardio is better because you can burn more calories for less effort???

Btw im not questioning the whole weight training thing... i just noticed i get to "eat more" on my cardio/ HIIT days than i do on my lifting days because i eat in proportion to my "apparent burn" trying to keep a 500 deficit each day ... but i feel i work harder on my lifting days..... and i also feel it's my lifting thats doing my body the most good...

i've been trying to up my workouts to give me more wiggle room on the food front im getting fed up of dieting and running out of calories when im still hungry, while my 200lb husband shoves yet more food into his mouth out of his "3X's higher calorie limit" .... sometimes being a 100lb girly sucks so i thought it would be ok for me to eat more if i upped my burn... but it seems te best way to do that is cardio ??

Whichever one burns more calories will help you create the larger calorie deficit.  Given a 30 min to 30 min comparison, most people burn more calories doing 30 min cardio. 

Cardio will burn more calories during the 30 minutes, but weight lifting will cause you to continue burning calories at an elevated rate long after you stop weight lifting.  In other words, a 30 minute weight training workout will burn more calories than a 30 minute cardio workout, but a lot of those calories won't be burned until after you finish the workout.

a 3500 calorie deficit should result an about 1 pound of weight loss, that weight can be from either fat or lean tissue, if the deficit was created with weight lifting the amount of lean tissue lost will likely be lower than if the deficit was created though cardio.

If you have a 500 calories deficit every day, you will lose the same amout of weight whether you are doing diet only, cardio, or weights.  So when you have a heavy cardio day and burn a big chunk of calories you will either lose more or eat more, your choice.  The benefit of weight training is body composition.  The less you weigh the less muscle you need to do the everyday things that you do.  Your body won't maintain muscle that is not being used so if you lose weight you will likely lose some muscle too.  But if you challenge your muscle through resistances training you will keep the muscle that you have.  The result is that with a given deficit weight lost will be the same whether you lift weights or not but if you do lift weights you will keeps some muscle you would have otherwise lost so more of the weight lost is fat.  This is a good thing as long as you stick with the weights but if you stop lifting you will lose the muscle.

But yes, if you want to burn more calories do more cardio and keep your weight training to 3 hours a week max.

ok cardio is aerobic training where as weight training is anaerobic traiing,so with the cardio the first 20 to 25 minutes ur burn sugar in ur liver and blood ,and the the other 20 minutes u start burning fat than its fatigue.

so i would suggest u go with the weight lifting first than with the cardio. 

You know I was contemplating the exact same thing today!  I was wondering why when I work super hard on say the stationary bike with a high resistance and strength training I burn less but feel way more tired than if I burned a million cals just doing regular cardio. 

The answers on here do make sense though so I suggest balancing them out.  Do cardio one day and strength the next and so on.

Edit: Removed

 Oh dear, Thax - this is going to sound so nasty, but seriously - that's about 99% incorrect.

 A gram of fat is about 9 calories is the only thing you got right.

 Strength training preserves and increases your resting metabolism, cardio does not. Even the best form of cardio, HIIT, only has an 'afterburn' or Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consuption that lasts about 4 hours, and that's "Oh-god-my-lungs-are-about-to-explode"-level anaerobic interval training, normal cardio has essentially zero EPOC.

 In contrast, resistance training has measurable EPOC lasting 38 hours.

 9.5 times longer than even the most intese form of cardio, in other words.

for reals? we are talking about just lifting weight right? I'm thinking of benching and stationary weight lifting. EPOC 38 hours?  How many calories it burn per hour after you lift? 

It depends on the intensity of your workout mainly - EPOC mostly stems from your body repairing damage done to your muscle fibres through strength training, restoring intramuscular ATP and glycogen depleted through energy expenditure, and converting any leftover lactate to glycogen.

 This process is reasonably fast for all but the muscle fibre restoration, leading to results like this one:

Oxygen consumption ( ) measurements were obtained at consistent times (34 h pre-, 29 h pre-, 24 h pre-, 10 h pre-, 5 h pre-, immediately post-, 14 h post-, 19 h post-, 24 h post-, 38 h post-, 43 h post-, and 48 h post-exercise). Post-exercise measurements were compared to the baseline measurements made at the same time of day. The was significantly elevated ( P<0.05) above baseline values at immediately post, 14, 19, and 38 h post-exercise. Mean daily values for both post-exercise days were also significantly elevated above the mean value for the baseline day.

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.

and

Postexercise oxygen consumption remained elevated during the entire 3-hr postexercise recovery period compared to the pre-exercise baseline. Resting metabolic rate was increased by 4.2% (p<.05) from Day 1 (morning prior to exercise: 1,419 +/- 58 kcal/24hr) compared to Day 2 (16 hr following exercise: 1,479 +/- kcal/24hr). Resting fat oxidation as determined by the respiratory exchange ratio was also significantly elevated on Day 2 compared to Day 1.
Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate in young women, Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2000 Mar;10(1):71-81.

Been a while since I've posted those particular two - but the best you can do with cardio is about 4 hours.

 Note that the difference is rather small and doesn't amount to a whole lot for a single session - 4.2% increase over baseline means their RMR increased by 62 calories, which isn't really terribly impressive. It's when you add it up over time that the difference becomes noticeable, and vastly better with strength training than with cardio - you can do cardio+diet and have exactly the same results as dieting alone would give you.

hi leiela,

... but i feel i work harder on my lifting days.....  <---- this is a clue  

You've said that treadmill intervals and jumping rope were really hard for you and you can't do more than a couple of minutes at once, right?  Your skill level is affecting how hard you can do cardio workouts.  Just doing 20 minutes on the elliptical trainer is like nothing if you're in ordinary shape. Weight lifting feels harder. But,  if you were in good enough cardio shape so that you could do, say, hill repeats -- run up a steep hill, jog down, run up, til you feel like you can't move, you will surely feel like you are working hard.  

melkor is absolutely right... i don't know about the numbers exactly, but ur EPOC increases and ur RMR increases as well after workouts as ur body repairs itself. Its the single best thing to do to lose weight. Interval training (HIIT) is excellent as well. After your warm-up sprint for 30 seconds and rest for a minute. This is for beginners. As your lungs adapt increase to 1 minute sprints and 2 minute rests. Sprint 10 times as u rest between each set. If you wanna to increase endurance then u can run on ur off days but it wont be doing anything exept burning calories.

k concerning H.I.I.T and tabata ,a person wanting to do them has to be fit,its not easy,but if u insist

proper hiit schedule

3 times a week

12 minutes per time

the first 4 minutes warmup by jogging

the 5th,6th,7th,and 8th minute

u run as fast as u can for 30 seconds than jog for the other 30 seconds

9th,10th,11th,and 12th warming down by jogging

"for reals? we are talking about just lifting weight right? I'm thinking of benching and stationary weight lifting. EPOC 38 hours?  How many calories it burn per hour after you lift?"

The studies that I've read, courtesy of Melkor's links, indicate that in a best case senerio a 38 hour EPOC from weight training might burn as many as 40 extra calories, total! Not per hour, not per day but total.  So structuring your weight loss plans around exercises that have a higher potential for EPOC is basically pointless, in my opinion.  Any even steady state cardio has some EPOC. 

Carlories Burned > Calories Consumed = Weight Loss.

Mm, agreed - EPOC isn't hugely significant, accounting for maybe a 3.8-5.8% boost in RMR. It's nice to have and all, but it's not the be-all, end-all of considerations when designing your personal workout plan, it's just one factor among many.

 Your numbers are off though, the EPOC is based off RMR and is approx. 4.2% calories extra on the day following a bout of resistance training. Most of the EPOC effect for all forms of exercise occurs within the first 4 hours post-exercise though. And if you look at the studies involving anaerobic interval training it's actually higher for HIIT than for weight training, it just doesn't last as long.

 If you were going strictly by EPOC effect, you'd do all HIIT, all the time ;)

 I have a tendency to get a little bit myopic, but humans are not made to be specialists, we're made to do a variety of things. On the macro weight loss level, it's all about the calories, for optimal health, it's all about giving your body a variety of challenges.

i hope someone reads this cuz its been a couple days since the last post, but interval training is also the healthiest for your body and prolongs your life. I can't quite remember where and when I read/heard this, but the bset way to show you is by example. So, let me first ask u, which athletes are the most fit? think which sports require quick bursts and which endurance. its the short bursts.

 

Short Burst Sports:

Track

Football

Hockey

 

More Endurance:

marathon runner

Bicyclists

Basketbal

Tenni

Soccer

 

Basketball, soccer, nor tennis are not your typical burst of energy sports. Of course they both have their moments, but for the majority of the time you trying to outlast your opponent and use ur burst when the time is right.

 

Football, Hockey, and Track on the otherhand are directly based on bursts. Hockey players shifts lasts for 30-60 seconds before they go back onto the bench. Football is the same way; a sprint then a rest. And track is pretty obvious.

 

Just imagine any of these players and its pretty obvious what the difference is. If you can't imagine, I will for you"

 

Track (think olympics - maurice green, michael johnson)

Football (reggie Bush, terrell owens)

Hockey (Sidney Crosby, Alex ovechkin, but goalies are stick-like if you know any)

 

Bicyclists (lance armstrong)

Basketball (kevin garnett, kobe, bryant)

Tennis (Roger Federer, andy roddick)

Soccer (Zinedine Zidane, David Beckham)

 

if you most of the endurance athletics on the street wearing normal clothes, you may not recognize them as being hardcore athletists as they really are