3 ms·
You're putting down the weight lifters but I would argue that weights is better than cardio. With weights you build your strength, your muscles then consume mor
by dalore 11y ago
You're putting down the weight lifters but I would argue that weights is better than cardio. With weights you build your strength, your muscles then consume more even when not exercising. Too much cardio starts burning your muscle giving you the skinny fat look.
Cardio takes a long time, an hour each day for 5 days is 5 hours. Can burn more at the weights. Unless you do sports that need endurance (MMA, boxing, rugby, …) you don’t need cardio. Strength training will increase your cardiovascular fitness above average.
- 0xcde4c3db 11y agoI don't think Swizec was trying to say that cardio is better than lifting, but rather that a high volume of exercise is needed to burn a lot of energy. A lot of people go to the gym, but mostly do it for the social meaning of "going to the gym" rather than actually using that time efficiently on a good workout.
- Swizec 11y agoLifting is awesome. But you have to actually do it, not just sit around chatting or lifting at 40% your capacity like I see way too many people do. If you aren't sweating, you aren't getting a workout. Coincidentally cardio will make you better at lifting. When I recent got back to lifting for a few months I could power through 20 sets of compound lifts in an hour. By the time I change weight, I'm ready to go because my regenerative capacity is so quick (boxing will do that to you). Back when I was just lifting, 20 sets took over teo hours and the gains were very comparable. I'd lift more, but it makes me slow.