lifting weights to lose weight
- Thread starter faz
- Start date
_tim
Well-Known Member
WTF!
What the heck is she talking about? A half hour of curls will burn fewer calories than a half hour "walking briskly"? WHO DOES CURLS FOR A HALF HOUR?
How about 3 sets of heavy squats, lady? How many calories are we burning there, not to mention how many calories we'll continue to burn after we stop our workout? ...FOR DAYS! I'll give you a stupid brisk walk. STOOPID.
Add another 3 sets of deads. How many calories there? HUH?
Pullups? Chins? Calories?
She does say at one point that a lower body workout will burn more calories - but she discounts it by saying that most people won't push themselves hard enough, and hence cardio is better. I don't get it - I can't make a connection with her argument.
GIVE ME A DAMN BREAK!
What the heck is she talking about? A half hour of curls will burn fewer calories than a half hour "walking briskly"? WHO DOES CURLS FOR A HALF HOUR?
How about 3 sets of heavy squats, lady? How many calories are we burning there, not to mention how many calories we'll continue to burn after we stop our workout? ...FOR DAYS! I'll give you a stupid brisk walk. STOOPID.
Add another 3 sets of deads. How many calories there? HUH?
Pullups? Chins? Calories?
She does say at one point that a lower body workout will burn more calories - but she discounts it by saying that most people won't push themselves hard enough, and hence cardio is better. I don't get it - I can't make a connection with her argument.
GIVE ME A DAMN BREAK!
"You can burn more calories during a weights workout by performing more lower-body moves such as squats and lunges, or doing a circuit-style routine where you move quickly through the routine and even insert cardio intervals such as jacks or jogging in place in between exercises. There is some evidence that a very intense, super-hard weights workout can create a slight caloric afterburn. But typical exercisers simply don’t push themselves this much. So overall, cardio is more efficient at burning the most calories."
Maybe I've been out of the loop for a while, but can someone please tell me, after reading the entire article, what's wrong with what she said?
Maybe I've been out of the loop for a while, but can someone please tell me, after reading the entire article, what's wrong with what she said?
_tim
Well-Known Member
<div>
(xahrx @ Jun. 12 2007,12:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Maybe I've been out of the loop for a while, but can someone please tell me, after reading the entire article, what's wrong with what she said?</div>
She validates her argument by saying people are lazy. The question wasn't "if I'm lazy, how do I lose weight". In fact, even the laziest idiot out there who does a few sets of anything lower body will end up burning more calories than a stupid brisk walk.
That was my problem with it.
(xahrx @ Jun. 12 2007,12:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Maybe I've been out of the loop for a while, but can someone please tell me, after reading the entire article, what's wrong with what she said?</div>
She validates her argument by saying people are lazy. The question wasn't "if I'm lazy, how do I lose weight". In fact, even the laziest idiot out there who does a few sets of anything lower body will end up burning more calories than a stupid brisk walk.
That was my problem with it.
Martin Levac
New Member
The website address begins with "health.msn.com". I can't trust anything coming from Microsoft. There are so many things wrong with the "article" that it becomes a chore just to point out the flaws. The first thing that jumps out is that she dismisses outright weight training based on a comparison of immediate energy expenditure. Ok, so she's telling the fat dude that lifting weights is wrong and he should go with running and stuff. The fat dude will stay home and eat chips. The fat dude does not want to run one bit.
But tell him he's gonna lose weight by lifting heavy and gaining muscle and gaining strength and doing that only requires a few reps per workout and he can do it in his own home, he's gonna do it. Then tell him he's gonna get a whole boatload of other benefits from that, he's gonna do it. The ego is a powerful thing. Lifting heavy can boost an ego like nothing on this planet.
Tell him he needs to run, he's gonna stay home and eat chips.
But tell him he's gonna lose weight by lifting heavy and gaining muscle and gaining strength and doing that only requires a few reps per workout and he can do it in his own home, he's gonna do it. Then tell him he's gonna get a whole boatload of other benefits from that, he's gonna do it. The ego is a powerful thing. Lifting heavy can boost an ego like nothing on this planet.
Tell him he needs to run, he's gonna stay home and eat chips.
Martin Levac
New Member
I read it again and now I'm convince that anything coming from MS is absolute garbage.
He said he started weight training. He said he did that because he heard he would lose weight like that. She replies that "no, you're an idiot and you should stop doing that right now."
The fat dude is now a stupid fat dude if he listens to that advice. Let's hope he's an intelligent fat dude and does't listen to it. I have serious doubts that's gonna happen because the fat dude reads health.msn.com articles to begin with.
He said he started weight training. He said he did that because he heard he would lose weight like that. She replies that "no, you're an idiot and you should stop doing that right now."
The fat dude is now a stupid fat dude if he listens to that advice. Let's hope he's an intelligent fat dude and does't listen to it. I have serious doubts that's gonna happen because the fat dude reads health.msn.com articles to begin with.
This place is turning into BodyBuilding.com.
No where in the article did she call the guy an idiot. She answered his question, and did so reasonably. She qualified her answer with why for practical reasons cardio would be of more benefit for more people trying to achieve weight loss. Nor did she only address immediate energy expenditure. So, once more, can someone please tell me, after reading the entire article, what's wrong with what she said?
No where in the article did she call the guy an idiot. She answered his question, and did so reasonably. She qualified her answer with why for practical reasons cardio would be of more benefit for more people trying to achieve weight loss. Nor did she only address immediate energy expenditure. So, once more, can someone please tell me, after reading the entire article, what's wrong with what she said?
_tim
Well-Known Member
She dismissed his logic and subsequent question without reason - she didn't know the level of the person asking the question, and moreover, is incorrect in her fundamental argument that "cardio burns more fat than weight training". I've spoken with countless PT's who have said exactly the opposite, even for someone without much (or any) experience in the gym, and I absolutely believe that she's wrong in that argument.
Do you honestly think that someone who isn't motivated will run/walk and burn the same amount of calories that they would with similar effort using weights?
There's something very wrong with that argument and overall assumption.
Do you honestly think that someone who isn't motivated will run/walk and burn the same amount of calories that they would with similar effort using weights?
There's something very wrong with that argument and overall assumption.
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(xahrx @ Jun. 12 2007,13:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This place is turning into BodyBuilding.com.
No where in the article did she call the guy an idiot. She answered his question, and did so reasonably. She qualified her answer with why for practical reasons cardio would be of more benefit for more people trying to achieve weight loss. Nor did she only address immediate energy expenditure. So, once more, can someone please tell me, after reading the entire article, what's wrong with what she said?</div>
No, it's health.msn.com that's turning into BB.com.
Here is where I turn the question around, can you tell us what's wrong with the article? Can you tell us what's right with the article?
I will start.
The page is "Diet & Fitness/Ask the experts". Right away I expect this page to give me expert advice on the subject of diet and fitness.
The fat dude asks:
"I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? How long should I rest in between the repetitions before starting a new set?"
The "expert" begins her reply with:
"There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you."
?!?
As soon as she began her reply, she lost all her credibility and her expertise by the same token. Fact is, there is no confusion whatsoever about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. We know exactly what happens when we lift a weight. Anything she wrote after that first sentence can't be trusted one bit. The "expert" was trying to dismiss weight training outright by putting the seed of doubt into the mind of the reader.
"Oh, we have doubts about what weight training does"
Her second sentence into her answer is this:
"One thing is for sure, if you’re trying to lose weight, then doing more cardio activities—such as walking, running or using machines like the elliptical trainer—is the way to go."
Notice the use of "one thing is for sure", that means she has no doubt whatsoever about whatever is following this affirmation.
"On the other hand, we are certain of the benefits of cardio and stuff."
Everything else after this point is a point-by-point comparison between cardio and weight training. Cardio wins time after time. The whole text is filled with all-encompassing statements about one thing or another.
"A common claim is that every extra pound of muscle burns from 30 to 50 calories per day. Some sources cite that one pound of muscle can burn an extra 100 calories per day."
Says who? At first glance, says herself in the article. I have difficulty reconciling BMR with this:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."
Not to mention that she appears to know nothing of weight training in that last sentence. This all looks to me like she does not know her stuff and wants us to believe we don't either by first starting with "there's a lot of confusion about yada and whatnots". In the end, I haven't gotten my expert advice yet. I will consider that text a very elaborate opinion by a person who's not an expert on the subject.
I would have believed her had she said that she did not know what weight training does. At least then, I'd have known that she was giving her opinion, not stating facts.
(xahrx @ Jun. 12 2007,13:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This place is turning into BodyBuilding.com.
No where in the article did she call the guy an idiot. She answered his question, and did so reasonably. She qualified her answer with why for practical reasons cardio would be of more benefit for more people trying to achieve weight loss. Nor did she only address immediate energy expenditure. So, once more, can someone please tell me, after reading the entire article, what's wrong with what she said?</div>
No, it's health.msn.com that's turning into BB.com.
Here is where I turn the question around, can you tell us what's wrong with the article? Can you tell us what's right with the article?
I will start.
The page is "Diet & Fitness/Ask the experts". Right away I expect this page to give me expert advice on the subject of diet and fitness.
The fat dude asks:
"I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? How long should I rest in between the repetitions before starting a new set?"
The "expert" begins her reply with:
"There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you."
?!?
As soon as she began her reply, she lost all her credibility and her expertise by the same token. Fact is, there is no confusion whatsoever about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. We know exactly what happens when we lift a weight. Anything she wrote after that first sentence can't be trusted one bit. The "expert" was trying to dismiss weight training outright by putting the seed of doubt into the mind of the reader.
"Oh, we have doubts about what weight training does"
Her second sentence into her answer is this:
"One thing is for sure, if you’re trying to lose weight, then doing more cardio activities—such as walking, running or using machines like the elliptical trainer—is the way to go."
Notice the use of "one thing is for sure", that means she has no doubt whatsoever about whatever is following this affirmation.
"On the other hand, we are certain of the benefits of cardio and stuff."
Everything else after this point is a point-by-point comparison between cardio and weight training. Cardio wins time after time. The whole text is filled with all-encompassing statements about one thing or another.
"A common claim is that every extra pound of muscle burns from 30 to 50 calories per day. Some sources cite that one pound of muscle can burn an extra 100 calories per day."
Says who? At first glance, says herself in the article. I have difficulty reconciling BMR with this:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."
Not to mention that she appears to know nothing of weight training in that last sentence. This all looks to me like she does not know her stuff and wants us to believe we don't either by first starting with "there's a lot of confusion about yada and whatnots". In the end, I haven't gotten my expert advice yet. I will consider that text a very elaborate opinion by a person who's not an expert on the subject.
I would have believed her had she said that she did not know what weight training does. At least then, I'd have known that she was giving her opinion, not stating facts.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The "expert" begins her reply with:
"There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you."
?!?</div>
Yeah, I did stop reading that article when I saw that line, but as I said there are some 'BASIC' points throughout her articles.
"There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you."
?!?</div>
Yeah, I did stop reading that article when I saw that line, but as I said there are some 'BASIC' points throughout her articles.
<div>
(_tim @ Jun. 12 2007,13:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">She dismissed his logic and subsequent question without reason - she didn't know the level of the person asking the question, and moreover, is incorrect in her fundamental argument that "cardio burns more fat than weight training". I've spoken with countless PT's who have said exactly the opposite, even for someone without much (or any) experience in the gym, and I absolutely believe that she's wrong in that argument.</div>
And those PTs gave as their reasoning...? What were their certifications and credentials?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you honestly think that someone who isn't motivated will run/walk and burn the same amount of calories that they would with similar effort using weights?</div>
Who said he wasn't motivated? What's harder, walking fast for a while or doing ass to the grass squats at an intensity level that will burn significant calories when compared to cardio?
From Martin Levac...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The page is "Diet & Fitness/Ask the experts". Right away I expect this page to give me expert advice on the subject of diet and fitness.
The fat dude asks:</div>
Where did he say he was fat? Meanwhile you guys are criticizing her for making assumptions about a trainee she knows nothing about...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? How long should I rest in between the repetitions before starting a new set?"
The "expert" begins her reply with:
"There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you."
?!?
As soon as she began her reply, she lost all her credibility and her expertise by the same token. Fact is, there is no confusion whatsoever about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. We know exactly what happens when we lift a weight. Anything she wrote after that first sentence can't be trusted one bit. The "expert" was trying to dismiss weight training outright by putting the seed of doubt into the mind of the reader.</div>
Maybe there is no confusion among the thoroughly wanked out on PubMed or HITards. Perhaps the average reader who still frequents gyms where 'toning' is still seen as a goal, or who felt the need to pose this very question, might need some more basic advice. She was not trying to, nor did she in fact, dismiss weight training. She later said: "You can burn more calories during a weights workout by performing more lower-body moves such as squats and lunges, or doing a circuit-style routine where you move quickly through the routine and even insert cardio intervals such as jacks or jogging in place in between exercises. There is some evidence that a very intense, super-hard weights workout can create a slight caloric afterburn. But typical exercisers simply don’t push themselves this much. So overall, cardio is more efficient at burning the most calories." So perhaps you guys need to pull your heads out of PubMed for a minute and concentrate on differentiating practical advice people can use from what is technically true and physiologically possible but not practical.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"One thing is for sure, if you’re trying to lose weight, then doing more cardio activities—such as walking, running or using machines like the elliptical trainer—is the way to go."
Notice the use of "one thing is for sure", that means she has no doubt whatsoever about whatever is following this affirmation.
"On the other hand, we are certain of the benefits of cardio and stuff."</div>
And for all practical purposes she is right.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"A common claim is that every extra pound of muscle burns from 30 to 50 calories per day. Some sources cite that one pound of muscle can burn an extra 100 calories per day."
Says who? At first glance, says herself in the article. I have difficulty reconciling BMR with this:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."</div>
Take a regular person, say 185lbs. Say he's at 15% body fat. That leaves 157lbs of fat free mass. At 7 kCal a day that's 1100 maintenance. At 15 kCal that's over 2300 kCal maintenance, all without other mass taken into account of course. I have no idea where she got the numbers she uses, 7 and 15, but it seems reasonable with regard to the range of calories most people require for maintenance or BMR. So for your concern regarding that, maybe you could explain more. The numbers she gives seem to fall within a reasonable range regarding BMR.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Not to mention that she appears to know nothing of weight training in that last sentence.</div>
You guys keep issuing blanket statements like this. Perhaps you could explain how someone looking to lose weight and running a calorie deficit would be able to put on tons of muscle per month/year etc. through weight training to the point where it would positively affect their metabolism. A difficulty she notes in her answer: "When it comes to dieting with weight training, dieting may thwart any possible effect. The body needs more calories than normal to build muscle. A person trying to cut back will have a harder time producing an anabolic effect in their body where it grows new muscle tissue."
What I see here is a lot of brotelligence blather and wanking without any practical application. The guy asked a simple question, he got a simple answer that is correct for all practical purposes: cardio in general will burn more calories and assist more in weight loss. While that might astound some and leave those with their heads buried terminally in PubMed tyring to figure out which metabolic pathway is most relevant to increasing the deadlift 2 lbs, I see nothing wrong with her answer. She in fact gave a more complete answer in a small space, allowing for the possible superiority of weight training under certain circumstances, than any of you have as to why it was so horrible.
(_tim @ Jun. 12 2007,13:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">She dismissed his logic and subsequent question without reason - she didn't know the level of the person asking the question, and moreover, is incorrect in her fundamental argument that "cardio burns more fat than weight training". I've spoken with countless PT's who have said exactly the opposite, even for someone without much (or any) experience in the gym, and I absolutely believe that she's wrong in that argument.</div>
And those PTs gave as their reasoning...? What were their certifications and credentials?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you honestly think that someone who isn't motivated will run/walk and burn the same amount of calories that they would with similar effort using weights?</div>
Who said he wasn't motivated? What's harder, walking fast for a while or doing ass to the grass squats at an intensity level that will burn significant calories when compared to cardio?
From Martin Levac...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The page is "Diet & Fitness/Ask the experts". Right away I expect this page to give me expert advice on the subject of diet and fitness.
The fat dude asks:</div>
Where did he say he was fat? Meanwhile you guys are criticizing her for making assumptions about a trainee she knows nothing about...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? How long should I rest in between the repetitions before starting a new set?"
The "expert" begins her reply with:
"There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you."
?!?
As soon as she began her reply, she lost all her credibility and her expertise by the same token. Fact is, there is no confusion whatsoever about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. We know exactly what happens when we lift a weight. Anything she wrote after that first sentence can't be trusted one bit. The "expert" was trying to dismiss weight training outright by putting the seed of doubt into the mind of the reader.</div>
Maybe there is no confusion among the thoroughly wanked out on PubMed or HITards. Perhaps the average reader who still frequents gyms where 'toning' is still seen as a goal, or who felt the need to pose this very question, might need some more basic advice. She was not trying to, nor did she in fact, dismiss weight training. She later said: "You can burn more calories during a weights workout by performing more lower-body moves such as squats and lunges, or doing a circuit-style routine where you move quickly through the routine and even insert cardio intervals such as jacks or jogging in place in between exercises. There is some evidence that a very intense, super-hard weights workout can create a slight caloric afterburn. But typical exercisers simply don’t push themselves this much. So overall, cardio is more efficient at burning the most calories." So perhaps you guys need to pull your heads out of PubMed for a minute and concentrate on differentiating practical advice people can use from what is technically true and physiologically possible but not practical.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"One thing is for sure, if you’re trying to lose weight, then doing more cardio activities—such as walking, running or using machines like the elliptical trainer—is the way to go."
Notice the use of "one thing is for sure", that means she has no doubt whatsoever about whatever is following this affirmation.
"On the other hand, we are certain of the benefits of cardio and stuff."</div>
And for all practical purposes she is right.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"A common claim is that every extra pound of muscle burns from 30 to 50 calories per day. Some sources cite that one pound of muscle can burn an extra 100 calories per day."
Says who? At first glance, says herself in the article. I have difficulty reconciling BMR with this:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."</div>
Take a regular person, say 185lbs. Say he's at 15% body fat. That leaves 157lbs of fat free mass. At 7 kCal a day that's 1100 maintenance. At 15 kCal that's over 2300 kCal maintenance, all without other mass taken into account of course. I have no idea where she got the numbers she uses, 7 and 15, but it seems reasonable with regard to the range of calories most people require for maintenance or BMR. So for your concern regarding that, maybe you could explain more. The numbers she gives seem to fall within a reasonable range regarding BMR.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Not to mention that she appears to know nothing of weight training in that last sentence.</div>
You guys keep issuing blanket statements like this. Perhaps you could explain how someone looking to lose weight and running a calorie deficit would be able to put on tons of muscle per month/year etc. through weight training to the point where it would positively affect their metabolism. A difficulty she notes in her answer: "When it comes to dieting with weight training, dieting may thwart any possible effect. The body needs more calories than normal to build muscle. A person trying to cut back will have a harder time producing an anabolic effect in their body where it grows new muscle tissue."
What I see here is a lot of brotelligence blather and wanking without any practical application. The guy asked a simple question, he got a simple answer that is correct for all practical purposes: cardio in general will burn more calories and assist more in weight loss. While that might astound some and leave those with their heads buried terminally in PubMed tyring to figure out which metabolic pathway is most relevant to increasing the deadlift 2 lbs, I see nothing wrong with her answer. She in fact gave a more complete answer in a small space, allowing for the possible superiority of weight training under certain circumstances, than any of you have as to why it was so horrible.
UFGatorDude30
New Member
Martin, with all due respect, what is it, that makes you so sure that the person who asked this question is some "fat dude". For all you know, this could be a woman who was wanting to tone up, who asked the question. You twisted the article completely to one side of the spectrum... as if the article is written to a "fat dude" and telling him that lifting weights is pointless for losing fat.
I could be completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure that she very clearly explains that lifting weights does in fact burn fat. And that the CONFUSION by some, which was obviously a confusion by whoever sent in the question, is that lifting weights will burn MORE fat than cardio. Never did she try to say that lifting weights would do nothing for burning fat. In fact, she even gave some tips to increase the cardio benefit one can get while lifting weights.
Heh, Xarhx you beat me to it.
I could be completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure that she very clearly explains that lifting weights does in fact burn fat. And that the CONFUSION by some, which was obviously a confusion by whoever sent in the question, is that lifting weights will burn MORE fat than cardio. Never did she try to say that lifting weights would do nothing for burning fat. In fact, she even gave some tips to increase the cardio benefit one can get while lifting weights.
Heh, Xarhx you beat me to it.
_tim
Well-Known Member
<div>
(xahrx @ Jun. 12 2007,15:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And those PTs gave as their reasoning...? What were their certifications and credentials?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you honestly think that someone who isn't motivated will run/walk and burn the same amount of calories that they would with similar effort using weights?</div>
Who said he wasn't motivated? What's harder, walking fast for a while or doing ass to the grass squats at an intensity level that will burn significant calories when compared to cardio?
What I see here is a lot of brotelligence blather and wanking without any practical application.</div>
Calories in versus calories out using weight training, put simply. All the PT's I know are IFPP certified at minimum and each carry an independent nutritional cert whose letters I cannot remember, specifically so they can craft diets for people with special needs.
I wasn't saying that the individual writing in wasn't motivated - I'm saying that the author ASSUMES him and the rest of her audience to be so based on the biggest part of her response.
I'm sorry, xahrx, but I've seen this argument proven out quite a bit in the past two years. I'm not trying to come across with something impractical - quite the opposite. I said in my last post that there is a place for cardio for overall health. Part of that is weight loss in the grand scheme. Yes, you are right, cardio does burn fat. I just have a very big problem with her blanket logic that "light cardio" is superior to weight training for fat loss because most people won't put enough effort into a weight program to make as much of a difference. Bottom line, in case after case after case, I've seen people - some very close to me - lose a ton of weight using weight training after switching from a cardio-centric program. These folks weren't practicing the HST methodology - they were rather vanilla, very basic programs that required about the same exertion as a 30-minute cardio program. Her assertion that "light cardio" will burn more fat than weight training is just flat wrong.
Steady, medium intensity, prolonged (45 minutes+) cardio, perhaps.
(xahrx @ Jun. 12 2007,15:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And those PTs gave as their reasoning...? What were their certifications and credentials?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you honestly think that someone who isn't motivated will run/walk and burn the same amount of calories that they would with similar effort using weights?</div>
Who said he wasn't motivated? What's harder, walking fast for a while or doing ass to the grass squats at an intensity level that will burn significant calories when compared to cardio?
What I see here is a lot of brotelligence blather and wanking without any practical application.</div>
Calories in versus calories out using weight training, put simply. All the PT's I know are IFPP certified at minimum and each carry an independent nutritional cert whose letters I cannot remember, specifically so they can craft diets for people with special needs.
I wasn't saying that the individual writing in wasn't motivated - I'm saying that the author ASSUMES him and the rest of her audience to be so based on the biggest part of her response.
I'm sorry, xahrx, but I've seen this argument proven out quite a bit in the past two years. I'm not trying to come across with something impractical - quite the opposite. I said in my last post that there is a place for cardio for overall health. Part of that is weight loss in the grand scheme. Yes, you are right, cardio does burn fat. I just have a very big problem with her blanket logic that "light cardio" is superior to weight training for fat loss because most people won't put enough effort into a weight program to make as much of a difference. Bottom line, in case after case after case, I've seen people - some very close to me - lose a ton of weight using weight training after switching from a cardio-centric program. These folks weren't practicing the HST methodology - they were rather vanilla, very basic programs that required about the same exertion as a 30-minute cardio program. Her assertion that "light cardio" will burn more fat than weight training is just flat wrong.
Steady, medium intensity, prolonged (45 minutes+) cardio, perhaps.
UFGatorDude30
New Member
Just to clear it up, the only reference to a "light" cardio session, was one where she stated that 30 minutes of brisk walking would burn more calories than a 30 minute bicep workout. Which yes, I do believe is a true statement. Don't kid yourself, you won't be doing curls for 30 minutes straight.
She is asserting that if you spent the same time you do at the gym doing cardio, you will burn more calories.
"Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets. In contrast, you can double your calorie burn by spending the same amount of time doing an aerobic workout (depending on the intensity)."
Which, like Xarhx, I don't see why this is such a big argument. All this lady was trying to say, was if losing weight is your goal, then cardio is superior to weight training.
She is asserting that if you spent the same time you do at the gym doing cardio, you will burn more calories.
"Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets. In contrast, you can double your calorie burn by spending the same amount of time doing an aerobic workout (depending on the intensity)."
Which, like Xarhx, I don't see why this is such a big argument. All this lady was trying to say, was if losing weight is your goal, then cardio is superior to weight training.
_tim
Well-Known Member
The question: "I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? How long should I rest in between the repetitions before starting a new set?"
Her answer: "There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. One thing is for sure, if you’re trying to lose weight, then doing more cardio activities—such as walking, running or using machines like the elliptical trainer—is the way to go.
--how can she make this claim if in fact there is confusion about what weight training can do for you?
more for the article:
"Weight loss comes from using more calories than you take in. You can use more calories the fastest with activities that use your whole body over an extended period of time, as opposed to doing site-specific exercises that fatigue one particular muscle group or two. Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets. In contrast, you can double your calorie burn by spending the same amount of time doing an aerobic workout (depending on the intensity)."
--huge assumption - the level of the writer is not known, nor is her audience. It's a bold claim that one can double their calorie burn using cardio when their overall fitness prowess is not known.
More:
"Walking briskly for 30 minutes will burn more calories than doing a half-hour’s worth of biceps curls, ab crunches or shoulder raises, for example. If you are substituting cardio workouts with more muscle-based workouts such as body sculpting or Pilates, you will burn fewer calories over the week and that will slow down your rate of weight loss.
You can burn more calories during a weights workout by performing more lower-body moves such as squats and lunges, or doing a circuit-style routine where you move quickly through the routine and even insert cardio intervals such as jacks or jogging in place in between exercises. There is some evidence that a very intense, super-hard weights workout can create a slight caloric afterburn. But typical exercisers simply don’t push themselves this much. So overall, cardio is more efficient at burning the most calories.
--this part doesn't fit within her original argument.
Finally, after a discussion about lean muscle tissue:
"That’s not to say that lifting weights won’t help you get stronger, firmer and healthier. It will. But it just isn’t the place to focus if you are trying to shed lots of weight. You can develop more stamina from lifting weights, which in turn may help you last longer during cardio workouts—so, definitely include one to three sessions a week of weight training into your routine for this purpose. But to burn calories, do cardio more often and for longer periods."
--So cardio is better, but do 1-3 weight training sessions a week - oh, but wait - in the beginning, "There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you." Which is it?
There's some dissenting opinions about this thing, and this hopefully a better attempt at explaining my problem with it.
Her answer: "There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. One thing is for sure, if you’re trying to lose weight, then doing more cardio activities—such as walking, running or using machines like the elliptical trainer—is the way to go.
--how can she make this claim if in fact there is confusion about what weight training can do for you?
more for the article:
"Weight loss comes from using more calories than you take in. You can use more calories the fastest with activities that use your whole body over an extended period of time, as opposed to doing site-specific exercises that fatigue one particular muscle group or two. Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets. In contrast, you can double your calorie burn by spending the same amount of time doing an aerobic workout (depending on the intensity)."
--huge assumption - the level of the writer is not known, nor is her audience. It's a bold claim that one can double their calorie burn using cardio when their overall fitness prowess is not known.
More:
"Walking briskly for 30 minutes will burn more calories than doing a half-hour’s worth of biceps curls, ab crunches or shoulder raises, for example. If you are substituting cardio workouts with more muscle-based workouts such as body sculpting or Pilates, you will burn fewer calories over the week and that will slow down your rate of weight loss.
You can burn more calories during a weights workout by performing more lower-body moves such as squats and lunges, or doing a circuit-style routine where you move quickly through the routine and even insert cardio intervals such as jacks or jogging in place in between exercises. There is some evidence that a very intense, super-hard weights workout can create a slight caloric afterburn. But typical exercisers simply don’t push themselves this much. So overall, cardio is more efficient at burning the most calories.
--this part doesn't fit within her original argument.
Finally, after a discussion about lean muscle tissue:
"That’s not to say that lifting weights won’t help you get stronger, firmer and healthier. It will. But it just isn’t the place to focus if you are trying to shed lots of weight. You can develop more stamina from lifting weights, which in turn may help you last longer during cardio workouts—so, definitely include one to three sessions a week of weight training into your routine for this purpose. But to burn calories, do cardio more often and for longer periods."
--So cardio is better, but do 1-3 weight training sessions a week - oh, but wait - in the beginning, "There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you." Which is it?
There's some dissenting opinions about this thing, and this hopefully a better attempt at explaining my problem with it.
Well anyway, who lifts weights to burn calories anyway? No one does that. You lift weights to build muscle to retain muscle while on a cut. When cutting, I would do cardio to burn calories personally, and only do weights to retain muscle/strength, NOT to burn calories.
Martin Levac
New Member
I'll use her text again because it's so full of it:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."
One pound of muscle = 7-15 calories
Extensive weight training = 14-30 calories
Ergo extensive training = 2 pounds of muscle
The facts demonstrate that extensive weight training can and does allow one to accumulate a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle. I don't remember which thread in this forum but I remember one guy who said that "after two years and 70 pounds later..." 70 pounds later, that's a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle. Even using her own flawed logic, 70 pounds of muscle would burn a whole lot more than 14-30 calories per day. Oh I don't know, how about we do some math, however flawed our starting data is. You go first.
I maintain that she knows nothing of weight training and by the same token does not have the ability to make the comparison between weight training and cardio training. I go back to her first paragraph in which she states that "there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you." Since I know otherwise, I conclude that she has ulterior motive for stating that or she just does not know. In either case, anything she says afterwards can't be trusted. To paraphrase you, xahrx, for all practical purposes, she is dead wrong. As I stated in a previous post, I can't trust anything coming from Microsoft.
The first thing she is wrong about is telling the fat dude that he's wrong about what he heard and instead should do cardio. So the dude, whom for all we know had just gotten the courage to go out and begin some sort of training, now is told he's an idiot and he should stop doing whatever he is doing and begin a different training which he probably contemplated but chose not to pursue. The fat dude, if he's smart, will disregard the stupid advice and continue to do what he wants. If he's stupid, he'll do whatever other people tell him to do. Yeah, I think that's how "smart" and "stupid" work. The fat dude is smart, the lady is stupid.
I don't know if he's a fat dude or a thin dude or any other kind of dude for that matter, maybe he's not a dude, maybe he's a dudette. Do you know? I presume that anybody reading that page for advice and asking questions about losing weight is a fat dude and I use the term to denote everybody who reads that page for advice without discrimination. She is speaking to "most people" and especially to beginners. For instance in this text: "Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets." She's telling the dude, who's a beginner as he stated in his question, that he should not be a beginner if he wants to lift weights and lose fat. She's speaking to "most people", she's writing for "Diet & Fitness": She's speaking to fat dudes. Ergo, he's a fat dude.
"Ya, so doing that thing is bad mkay, especially since you just started doing it. It's better if you stop doing it and start doing something else, something I can dig myself. As a matter of fact, you should do something you don't want to do. Idiot, stupid fat dude. Have a nice day."
xahrx, alluding to my intelligence or my lack thereof is a fallacious argument. If you persist in that direction, I'll just have to ignore your arguments altogether which would not be constructive in my opinion. If you wish to know more, check "personal attack" on wikipedia.
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."
One pound of muscle = 7-15 calories
Extensive weight training = 14-30 calories
Ergo extensive training = 2 pounds of muscle
The facts demonstrate that extensive weight training can and does allow one to accumulate a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle. I don't remember which thread in this forum but I remember one guy who said that "after two years and 70 pounds later..." 70 pounds later, that's a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle. Even using her own flawed logic, 70 pounds of muscle would burn a whole lot more than 14-30 calories per day. Oh I don't know, how about we do some math, however flawed our starting data is. You go first.
I maintain that she knows nothing of weight training and by the same token does not have the ability to make the comparison between weight training and cardio training. I go back to her first paragraph in which she states that "there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you." Since I know otherwise, I conclude that she has ulterior motive for stating that or she just does not know. In either case, anything she says afterwards can't be trusted. To paraphrase you, xahrx, for all practical purposes, she is dead wrong. As I stated in a previous post, I can't trust anything coming from Microsoft.
The first thing she is wrong about is telling the fat dude that he's wrong about what he heard and instead should do cardio. So the dude, whom for all we know had just gotten the courage to go out and begin some sort of training, now is told he's an idiot and he should stop doing whatever he is doing and begin a different training which he probably contemplated but chose not to pursue. The fat dude, if he's smart, will disregard the stupid advice and continue to do what he wants. If he's stupid, he'll do whatever other people tell him to do. Yeah, I think that's how "smart" and "stupid" work. The fat dude is smart, the lady is stupid.
I don't know if he's a fat dude or a thin dude or any other kind of dude for that matter, maybe he's not a dude, maybe he's a dudette. Do you know? I presume that anybody reading that page for advice and asking questions about losing weight is a fat dude and I use the term to denote everybody who reads that page for advice without discrimination. She is speaking to "most people" and especially to beginners. For instance in this text: "Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets." She's telling the dude, who's a beginner as he stated in his question, that he should not be a beginner if he wants to lift weights and lose fat. She's speaking to "most people", she's writing for "Diet & Fitness": She's speaking to fat dudes. Ergo, he's a fat dude.
"Ya, so doing that thing is bad mkay, especially since you just started doing it. It's better if you stop doing it and start doing something else, something I can dig myself. As a matter of fact, you should do something you don't want to do. Idiot, stupid fat dude. Have a nice day."
xahrx, alluding to my intelligence or my lack thereof is a fallacious argument. If you persist in that direction, I'll just have to ignore your arguments altogether which would not be constructive in my opinion. If you wish to know more, check "personal attack" on wikipedia.
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jun. 12 2007,19:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well anyway, who lifts weights to burn calories anyway? No one does that. You lift weights to build muscle to retain muscle while on a cut. When cutting, I would do cardio to burn calories personally, and only do weights to retain muscle/strength, NOT to burn calories.</div>
Indeed, had she known what she was talking about in the first place, she'd have given him the exact same advice.
(Totentanz @ Jun. 12 2007,19:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well anyway, who lifts weights to burn calories anyway? No one does that. You lift weights to build muscle to retain muscle while on a cut. When cutting, I would do cardio to burn calories personally, and only do weights to retain muscle/strength, NOT to burn calories.</div>
Indeed, had she known what she was talking about in the first place, she'd have given him the exact same advice.