View Single Post
  #5  
Old February 25th 08, 12:44 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Homer Simpson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?


wrote in message
...
On Feb 22, 2:15 pm, "Melissa" wrote:
"Prisoner at War" wrote in
...





On Feb 21, 2:02 am, wrote:
Does weight lifting speed up weight loss quicker or does cardio
exercises?


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.


If someone has a goal to lose about 45 to 50 lbs. in three
months and are following a healthy diet/calorie plan, would cardio
exercises be the best choice to meet their weight loss goal quicker?


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 year
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
all....


Two of my friends spent money on a personal trainer to help them with
their weight loss goal. Their trainer had them due 20 minutes of
cardio and 60 minutes of weight lifting with different routines 4
times a week. After 4 months of weightlifting with cardio exercises
and following a healthy plan to reach their weightloss goal, they only
loss 10 to 15lbs. Which was very frustrating for them.


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 offset
the losses. Main thing is to see whether they look good or
not...there are people on that "Biggest Loser" TV show who weigh fifty
pounds less than me and yet look round as a beach ball!


Today, both of my friends lost a lot of weight by eating healthy and
doing cardio exercises 4 times a week for 60 minutes a day on their
own. One lost 55lbs. and the other lost 50lbs. They both tell me
that cardio exercises helped them reach their weight loss goal quicker
than weight lifting. Now that they have reached their goal, they are
now incorporating weights to their exercises along with cardio. They
exercise 3 times a week, each day 20-30 minutes of weightlifting and
30 minutes of cardio.


Well, looks like you knew the answer all along, then!


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?


Any thoughts?


Yes, if weight loss is the primary objective, dieting is most
effective, then cardio, then weights. But best of all is to
incorporate all three, uh, "disciplines" into any plan.


Look up "target heart rate". You can burn more calories at a lower heart
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 minutes.

Use this formula: 220 minus your age times 65-75% for fat burning. Use 85%
for heart health.

Get into lifting weights...before your cardio workout. That will work the
best. High reps at a lower weight...what you can do for 15-20 reps, twice
through. Muscles continue to burn calories even at rest, and weights are
important to women especially for their bone health.

Melissa- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Well, you burn more calories the harder you exercise, but you are
still right, cause you will stop exercising if the routine is too
hard, or need time off to recouperate. Still, all being equal, you
burn more calories, thus lose more weight, the harder you go. Any
machine that tracks calories as a function of speed and distance
should show this relationship. So lifting more weight burns more
calories than lifting less weight and running faster burns more
calories than running more slowly. It would be strange if it were any
other way. When I work out on a treadmill, I am able to punch in my
weight and speed and the machine tracks speed, time, and distance.
There is this guy that often works out beside me and he really runs
fast. He also burns 2X the calories that I do for the time. The only
question is whether you burn more calories walking for two miles or
running two miles. Obviously, you would finish sooner by running. You
would also burn more calories totat. Which one is best for you?
Probably the running, since it increases cardio, but that is not
entirely clear. I would think if you are otherwise healthy, running
would be best for your heart as well, but that is not 100%. dkw

From what I have read you don't burn fat for fuel as efficiently if you go
into an anarobic state. You need the oxygen to burn fat as fuel. So though
you may be burning more calories going harder, less of what you are burning
is fat. The body will canabalise muscle for fuel if enough oxygen isn't
present to burn the fat. When was the last time you saw an endurance athlete
with bulky muscles?

This is also why arobic exercise is more effective after weight training.
The weight training burns up the glycogen stores so that when you do your
arobic work you go right into burning fat for fuel.