Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

IN TERMS OF LOSING WEIGHT...
since aerobics is all about pacing in the sense that there is a
constancy of motion and thus heartrate, should one try to acheive this
"constant state" of activity when do weights as well? should i quickly
move from one weight exercise to another without stopping? ,,,or
should i lift for the sake of lifting before moving on to aerobics.


On Feb 24, 6:44 pm, "Homer Simpson"
wrote:
wrote in message


Well, youburnmore 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, youburnmore 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 youburnmore calories walking for two miles or
running two miles. Obviously, you would finish sooner by running. You
would alsoburnmore calories totat. Which one is best for you?
Probably the running, since it increasescardio, 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'tburnfatfor fuel as efficiently if you go
into an anarobic state. You need the oxygen toburnfatas fuel. So though
you may be burning more calories going harder, less of what you are burning
isfat. The body will canabalise muscle for fuel if enough oxygen isn't
present toburnthefat. 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 burningfatfor fuel.

I

On Feb 22, 11:38 pm, Denise Howard wrote:
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.
Snippage
--
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
straight formula:
(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

On Feb 24, 6:44 pm, "Homer Simpson"
wrote
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 burningfatfor fuel.

if i start doing weights before aerobic exercises should i move from
one weight regimen to another without stopping. i mean,,,there's a
constancy of activity when one does aerobic workouts,,,,should i
strive for this "continual activity" mode when i do weights prior to
aerobics as well, or does it not matter?

"miko" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 6:44 pm, "Homer Simpson"
wrote
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 burningfatfor fuel.

if i start doing weights before aerobic exercises should i move from
one weight regimen to another without stopping. i mean,,,there's a
constancy of activity when one does aerobic workouts,,,,should i
strive for this "continual activity" mode when i do weights prior to
aerobics as well, or does it not matter?

I lift to build muscle or strength then do my cardio work after I lift
weights.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 22, 11:38 pm, Denise Howard wrote:
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.
Snippage
--
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
straight formula:
(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.

Dnia 2008-02-28 miko napisa³(a):
On Feb 24, 6:44 pm, "Homer Simpson"
wrote
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 burningfatfor fuel.

if i start doing weights before aerobic exercises should i move from
one weight regimen to another without stopping. i mean,,,there's a
constancy of activity when one does aerobic workouts,,,,should i
strive for this "continual activity" mode when i do weights prior to
aerobics as well, or does it not matter?

Quite honestly, you are overanalyzing things here. Basics are simple:

1. Lift to build muscles. Muscles look good and weight the same as fat,
so you won't need a calorie restriction to lose fat.
2. Diet to lose weight. No other way works. You can overeat your
cardio expenses very easily.
3. Run. (No cardio - really run.) Being lighter helps you run better
times, so you will hopefully be motivated to watch your diet.
Concentrate on making progress with your running (and go outside too).

You can switch the order of things as suits you best, but you can't make
them work differently. Lifting will not make you lose weight, until you
overeat due to largely psychological problems. Lifting makes you feel
goo, so it works for some people. Running alone also doesn't work all
that great if you don't watch your diet. Diet alone will always work,
but it's hard to maintain it infinitely, so for long term success you
need a lifestyle change. Be it running, lifting or a combination of
both, it still mainly helps you in watching what you eat.

I mean, it doesn't matter if you run then lift or the other way around.
Whatever you do first will improve faster, but that's it. Don't overdo
it too. Injuries suck.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Feb 25, 9:31 pm, Denise Howard wrote:


In an either-or context, yes, I'd have to agree.

I never used to believe that, but it really does seem like one's diet
is the greatest factor in weight loss -- by far. Took me years to
accept, but -- sigh! -- it's true! It's true!

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...ise-ess.html?e...
546000&en=45b136f71cdf1e71&ei=5087%0A

Thanks for the link. That's a newer study; looks like they've
determined the added burn to be a lot less than earlier ones indicated.
That's a darn shame!

Tell me about it! So, muscles not burning too many calories being the
case, how come the body resists packing on muscle mass? The old
explanation used to be about how many calories muscles "cost," and the
body's all about being energy-efficient...well, those muscles don't
cost much in terms of caloric maintenance, after all -- so why the
reluctance for building more muscle fibers and/or enlarging existing
ones??

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

"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
...
Dnia 2008-02-28 miko napisa³(a):
On Feb 24, 6:44 pm, "Homer Simpson"
wrote
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 burningfatfor fuel.

if i start doing weights before aerobic exercises should i move from
one weight regimen to another without stopping. i mean,,,there's a
constancy of activity when one does aerobic workouts,,,,should i
strive for this "continual activity" mode when i do weights prior to
aerobics as well, or does it not matter?

Quite honestly, you are overanalyzing things here. Basics are simple:

1. Lift to build muscles. Muscles look good and weight the same as fat,
so you won't need a calorie restriction to lose fat.
2. Diet to lose weight. No other way works. You can overeat your
cardio expenses very easily.
3. Run. (No cardio - really run.) Being lighter helps you run better
times, so you will hopefully be motivated to watch your diet.
Concentrate on making progress with your running (and go outside too).

You can switch the order of things as suits you best, but you can't make
them work differently. Lifting will not make you lose weight, until you
overeat due to largely psychological problems. Lifting makes you feel
goo, so it works for some people. Running alone also doesn't work all
that great if you don't watch your diet. Diet alone will always work,
but it's hard to maintain it infinitely, so for long term success you
need a lifestyle change. Be it running, lifting or a combination of
both, it still mainly helps you in watching what you eat.

I mean, it doesn't matter if you run then lift or the other way around.
Whatever you do first will improve faster, but that's it. Don't overdo
it too. Injuries suck.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

First Muscle weighs more than fat. It is denser material.

Second it does matter which you do first. Cardio work will deplete your
glycogen stores so that you cannot resistance train effectively enough to
make any progress weight training at all. Where as weight training will
deplete your glycogen stores so that your cardio will take you into fat
burning phase much quicker making both modes of training more effective. It
is a synergistic thing.

Dnia 2008-02-29 Homer Simpson napisa³(a):

"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
...
Quite honestly, you are overanalyzing things here. Basics are simple:

1. Lift to build muscles. Muscles look good and weight the same as fat,
so you won't need a calorie restriction to lose fat.
2. Diet to lose weight. No other way works. You can overeat your
cardio expenses very easily.
3. Run. (No cardio - really run.) Being lighter helps you run better
times, so you will hopefully be motivated to watch your diet.
Concentrate on making progress with your running (and go outside too).

You can switch the order of things as suits you best, but you can't make
them work differently. Lifting will not make you lose weight, until you
overeat due to largely psychological problems. Lifting makes you feel
goo, so it works for some people. Running alone also doesn't work all
that great if you don't watch your diet. Diet alone will always work,
but it's hard to maintain it infinitely, so for long term success you
need a lifestyle change. Be it running, lifting or a combination of
both, it still mainly helps you in watching what you eat.

I mean, it doesn't matter if you run then lift or the other way around.
Whatever you do first will improve faster, but that's it. Don't overdo
it too. Injuries suck.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

First Muscle weighs more than fat. It is denser material.

But a pound of muscle weights the same as a pound of fat. It takes the
same amount of calories to carry it around with you all day too, so you
can lose fat without restricting calories. That's what I wrote.

Anyway, that's what I see on myself all the time. I weight the same no
matter how much I train. 82 kg when I was in college and 85 kg now. My
training varied from absolutely nothing for years to twice a day. I never
diet.

Second it does matter which you do first. Cardio work will deplete your
glycogen stores so that you cannot resistance train effectively enough to
make any progress weight training at all.

Let's say, that a runner decides to supplement his running with some
lifting after his primary workout. Would he progress or not? After
training for half a year would he be able to lift more or not? If not,
why not?

"Whatever you do first will improve faster, but that's it." That's what
I wrote.

Where as weight training will
deplete your glycogen stores so that your cardio will take you into fat
burning phase much quicker making both modes of training more effective.

More effective way of wasting your training effort, probably. If you
want good mile times, you need to run relatively fresh, not after you
depleted yourself off all glycogen (and reason) with heavy squats. If you
want heavy lifts, cardio is a waste of recovery resources. If you need
both, separate workouts or a mixed routine would work better. Whatever
you do after you already gave your best for the day is probably just a
filler anyway, so either separate workouts or a balanced blend should give
better results.

It is a synergistic thing.

Yeah, sure. And magical too.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
...
Dnia 2008-02-29 Homer Simpson napisa³(a):

"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
...
Quite honestly, you are overanalyzing things here. Basics are simple:

1. Lift to build muscles. Muscles look good and weight the same as fat,
so you won't need a calorie restriction to lose fat.
2. Diet to lose weight. No other way works. You can overeat your
cardio expenses very easily.
3. Run. (No cardio - really run.) Being lighter helps you run better
times, so you will hopefully be motivated to watch your diet.
Concentrate on making progress with your running (and go outside too).

You can switch the order of things as suits you best, but you can't make
them work differently. Lifting will not make you lose weight, until you
overeat due to largely psychological problems. Lifting makes you feel
goo, so it works for some people. Running alone also doesn't work all
that great if you don't watch your diet. Diet alone will always work,
but it's hard to maintain it infinitely, so for long term success you
need a lifestyle change. Be it running, lifting or a combination of
both, it still mainly helps you in watching what you eat.

I mean, it doesn't matter if you run then lift or the other way around.
Whatever you do first will improve faster, but that's it. Don't overdo
it too. Injuries suck.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

First Muscle weighs more than fat. It is denser material.

But a pound of muscle weights the same as a pound of fat. It takes the
same amount of calories to carry it around with you all day too, so you
can lose fat without restricting calories. That's what I wrote.

A pound of muscle is much smaller than a pound of fat. Thats why often even
though a person is getting smaller from losing fat, they don't see a
corresponding loss on the scale. Because the muscle they are building is
keeping the weight from dropping as much.


Anyway, that's what I see on myself all the time. I weight the same no
matter how much I train. 82 kg when I was in college and 85 kg now. My
training varied from absolutely nothing for years to twice a day. I never
diet.

Second it does matter which you do first. Cardio work will deplete your
glycogen stores so that you cannot resistance train effectively enough to
make any progress weight training at all.

Let's say, that a runner decides to supplement his running with some
lifting after his primary workout. Would he progress or not? After
training for half a year would he be able to lift more or not? If not,
why not?

"Whatever you do first will improve faster, but that's it." That's what
I wrote.

Where as weight training will
deplete your glycogen stores so that your cardio will take you into fat
burning phase much quicker making both modes of training more effective.

More effective way of wasting your training effort, probably. If you
want good mile times, you need to run relatively fresh, not after you
depleted yourself off all glycogen (and reason) with heavy squats. If you
want heavy lifts, cardio is a waste of recovery resources. If you need
both, separate workouts or a mixed routine would work better. Whatever
you do after you already gave your best for the day is probably just a
filler anyway, so either separate workouts or a balanced blend should give
better results.

It is true if you want better mile times you need to run fresh. But you
don't run the mile for time everytime you run. I would think if you wanted
to increase your strength to improve your time you would want to do some leg
training on one of your "easy" running days before you run. That was how I
did my weight training when I was racing bicycles. I didn't lift weights on
training ride days (days I rode with the team). But on "non training" ride
days I would do my resistance training then go for a ride. I believed then,
and still do, that this aided in specifity in sports training. It pre
exhausted the muscles for the ride so the muscles actually got worked before
I got winded. Then the next time I did a training ride, I was fresh from not
working out, a bit stronger, and my sprint and hill climbing ability would
improve.


It is a synergistic thing.

Yeah, sure. And magical too.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R