Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

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.

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

In article , Melissa
wrote:

"Prisoner at War" wrote in message
...
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.

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 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....

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 offset
the losses.

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?

Any thoughts?

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 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.

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.

My advice: Find activities that you *enjoy* doing enough to *want* to
do them several days a week, for 20-60 minutes at a time. They may
not seem like "exercise"--so much the better! Mix things up, keep your
body guessing. Don't fall into a rut where you do the same thing every
time, the same way, the same amount of time with the same degree of
commitment. As long as you keep doing what you're doing, you're going
to keep getting what you're getting. In other words, if you get to a
point where you haven't seen any progress in several weeks, take a look
at what you can change about your routine: frequency, intensity,
duration, or mode (i.e., type of activity). Really apply yourself to
the activity, don't just halfheartedly go through the motions.
Otherwise, why bother? You won't get much out of it, nor will your
body.

--
Denise denise dot howard at comcast dot net
ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
AFAA step and kickboxing certified

On Feb 22, 9:58 am, Prisoner at War wrote:
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.

The real question is: is the goal to reduce your weight or to look
better. Since muscle weighs more than fat we may even get weight at
the beginning of exercising after a sedentary life style. I
recommend to my weight reduction clients to forget about using the
scale for the first few weeks of getting fit and use their clothes as
a measure of success. Later they can use their weight as a guideline.

As far as the original question is concerned a combination of eating
well (lowering calories while eating more nutritious foods like more
fruits and vegetables) doing both cardio and weights leads to best
permanent weight reduction.

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.

If you are really serious about wanting burn stomach fat, and burning
it fast. Then don't waste your time doing slow, even paced cardio.

Instead do interval training. You can learn this and more by going to
http://www.best-abs-exercises.com/burn-stomach-fat.html

Good luck.

Also, if you strength train the right way. You'll be getting cardio
(burning fat) and working your abs at the same time.

You can learn more strength training tips here
http://www.best-abs-exercises.com/bu...belly-fat.html

Another factor to weight loss though is diet.

Start reducing or completely eliminating sugar (e.g soda, junk food,
etc.) and processed foods (anything that comes out of a box or the
typical American diet).

And start eating more protein, fiber, and REAL food. Not something
that comes out of a box.

For instance you can still eat pizza (everything in moderation of
course), but just eat REAL pizza. That's loaded with fresh toppings
and veggies. Learn more on what and how to eat by going to
http://www.best-abs-exercises.con/abs-diet-plan.html

But, losing weight has the same concepts as getting abs. B/c in order
to get abs you have to first lower your body fat.

You can learn this and more by going to http://www.best-abs-exercises.com

"jimmy_boi" wrote in message
...
Also, if you strength train the right way. You'll be getting cardio
(burning fat) and working your abs at the same time.

You can learn more strength training tips here
http://www.best-abs-exercises.com/bu...belly-fat.html

I remember years ago they put a heart rate monitor on Dr Squat (Fred
Hatfield) during his squat workout. His heart rate went through the roof
during his set, it never settled back to normal during his 5 minute rest
before his next set. After 5 sets of squats he had an average heart rate of
80% over around a half an hour period.
I know when I first get on a cardio machine after my workout my heart rate
is generally 126. Being 52 years old that puts my heart rate at 75% of
maximum. It's a pretty safe bet it was in that range throughout most of my
workout.
I still believe in slow steady arobic training for fat burning. Though I am
open to reading any research anyone is willing to point me to that would
convince me otherwise. As an ex bicycle racer I am convinced that interval
training is the best way there is to increase fitness level. However I don't
know how it is as far as fat burning.

On Feb 25, 10:39 am, "Homer Simpson"
wrote:


I remember years ago they put a heart rate monitor on Dr Squat (Fred
Hatfield) during his squat workout. His heart rate went through the roof
during his set, it never settled back to normal during his 5 minute rest
before his next set.

Whoa, I'm not a cardiologist but I should think that there's something
wrong with this picture. A heart rate that doesn't settle back after
five minutes of rest?? Is that even physically possible???

SNIP

I still believe in slow steady arobic training for fat burning. Though I am
open to reading any research anyone is willing to point me to that would
convince me otherwise. As an ex bicycle racer I am convinced that interval
training is the best way there is to increase fitness level. However I don't
know how it is as far as fat burning.

I also believe in that "slow drain" when it comes to aerobic activity
and fat-burning. It's easiest to do, and in that respect more likely
to be pursued and thus the method most likely to be successful for
many. But for those who don't have the time, or just hate cardio so
much they want to get it over with ASAP, a very intense but relatively
brief session would be just as good...interval training is the best of
both worlds, though, and helps build speed, if one is after other
training effects besides fat loss.