Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?
wrote in message
On Feb 22, 11:38 pm, Denise Howard wrote:
In article , Melissa
"Prisoner at War" wrote in message
On Feb 21, 2:02 am, wrote:
Does weight lifting speed up weight loss quicker or does cardio
Carido does -- but dieting helps most of all. You really can't burn
enough calories to make up for a thousands of daily calories, unless
maybe if you're Army infantry or something.
Exercise (cardio and strength) and diet together are the way. By
"diet" I don't mean that awful four-letter word that stands for
deprivation, denial and failure. I mean careful changes to one's daily
food intake to get good nutrition without junk calories.
Definitely. But you should do some weight-training as well, just for
the general healthy aspects of it. The advice from lifters is that
muscles burn calories even at rest, but a recent NYT article this
noted that those increased muscles -- at rest -- would only burn an
extra 25 or so calories a day...so yeah it's true that more
musculature burns more calories but apparently not much more at
It's 35-50 more calories per day per pound of muscle. Muscle is
metabolically active tissue, unlike fat, which means it requires energy
just to continue to exist. So for just five extra pounds of muscle you
could burn as many as 250 calories a day doing nothing at all.
Yes, it may be frustrating, but it's also safer to lose weight slowly
than too fast. It's also possible that your friends gained a few
pounds of muscle (though probably only three or four) which had
Very possible. People too often get obsessed with what the scale says
instead of what the tape measure says.
If someone has about 50 lbs. to 75 lbs. to lose in 6 months and
follows a healthy food plan, should they lose the majority of their
weight with cardio exercises first, then incorporate weight lifting
and cardio once they reached their goal?
Do it all. Why wait? There's no benefit to putting it off. Get
stronger now, and use your new strength to accomplish activities in
your daily life that you couldn't before.
Look up "target heart rate". You can burn more calories at a lower
rate than the results for "heart health" that you see at a higher rate.
Killing yourself going full steam on a treadmill or elipticall for 15
minutes is not as beneficial as working at 70% of your THR for 30
Use this formula: 220 minus your age times 65-75% for fat burning. Use
for heart health.
You were doing okay there until you said "65-75% for fat burning".
Please stop promoting that old, dead "fat burning" myth. There is no
on-off switch in the human body for "fat burning". We are always
burning fat as one of our sources of energy, even when sleeping. In
fact, when we're asleep is when the highest *percentage* of energy
comes from fat. Does that mean that sleeping is the best way to lose
weight? Of course not! Because our rate of calorie burn when sleeping
is very low.
Denise denise dot howard at comcast dot net
ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
AFAA step and kickboxing certified
Aint that the truth!
And the straight 220-age*percentage is bogus too since it ignores
level of fitness as relates to resting heart rate.
A more accurate tool is the Karvonen formula for determining heart
rate (for the n00bs the google search is karvonen training zones).
Here's a comparison of my requirements per Karvonen vs the old
(49 yrs old, resting hr @ 52bpm)
Intensity Karvonen Straight
% Max HR HR
95 165 162
90 159 154
85 153 145
80 147 137
75 141 128
70 135 120
65 129 111
I will take a look at that. But I believe the only true way to determine max
heart rate with with a monitor and maximum activity. I am 52 years old and
can maintain 180 BPM for 3 minutes. Therefore I don't believe that 180 BPM
is even my max. I am pretty sure if you ever hit your max it will be a peaky
thing, not something you will maintain for any stretch of time.