4 ms·

Your advice to workout hard and short instead of cardio is wrong. Working out at all is better than not working out. But cardio exercise (e.g. running and/or bi

by ebbv 15y ago

Your advice to workout hard and short instead of cardio is wrong. Working out at all is better than not working out. But cardio exercise (e.g. running and/or biking) for sustained periods of time will burn much more calories. And that's what weight loss is all about. Calories in vs. calories out. I speak from not only the obvious facts but also experience, I lost over 100lbs from January 2009 to July 2010 and got healthy in the process.

z0r 15y ago
http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539 http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539 Summary: resistance training is most effective, then interval training (high intensity and lower intensity), and then steady state high intensity cardio training, and finally least effective steady state low intensity cardio training.
- ebbv 15y ago
  What a shock that a body building website would say that. I can't believe it. Let me ask Microsoft if I should use Linux for my servers or not, hold on BRB. The reality is that an hour of cardio is going to burn many, many more calories than 15 minutes of lifting. Now, if you hate cardio and can't stand to do it for an hour, but you love lifting, then obviously you're better off lifting. But if you can learn to enjoy cardio, or if you want to do the workout that's the most effective for burning calories, you should be biking/running.
  - hmottestad 15y ago
    Keep in mind secondary and tertiary effects. 1. How many calories used to rebuild and strengthen the muscles? 2. How many more calories do your bigger and stronger muscles burn even when not in use? This goes for both cardio and weight lifting.
    - dhs 15y ago
      re. 2: Not many, according to the sources I can find on that. Example: "[M]uscle tissue has been observed to burn roughly seven to 10 calories per pound per day, compared to two to three calories per pound per day for fat. Therefore, if you replace a pound of fat with a pound of muscle, you can expect to burn only approximately four to six more calories a day." Source: http://www.acefitness.org/fitnessqanda/fitnessqanda_display.aspx?itemid=358 http://www.acefitness.org/fitnessqanda/fitnessqanda_display....
  - rmgraham 15y ago
    Both are better than doing nothing. It's generally much easier to find time for 15 minutes of X than 60 minutes of Y. In HN terms, you are arguing about which type of balanced tree is better but are ignoring the fact the data is only 100 items long and you're much better off just pushing out your MVP than agonizing over the inefficiency of one over the other.
    - ebbv 15y ago
      You are right that either is better than nothing. But the bad advice that "lifting is the way to go, cardio doesn't work" is very common and it needs to be corrected.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    > What a shock that a body building website would say that. I can't believe it. Let me ask Microsoft if I should use Linux for my servers or not, hold on BRB. The source of the argument does not take away from the validity of the argument itself. You should be able to evaluate an argument on it's points alone.
wrl 15y ago
You are correct that sustained aerobic exercise burns more calories than an anaerobic activity such as weightlifting. The benefit of weightlifting in particular is that, by building more muscle, you are increasing your body's BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) because more muscles == more energy necessary to run them. This translates to your body burning more calories while at rest.
- ebbv 15y ago
  While this is true it also applies to cardio workouts as well. They also build muscle and increase your metabolism. It's a myth that this is an advantage of weight lifting over cardio. It really comes down to personal preference. Do the workout you're going to be able to keep doing.
  - hessenwolf 15y ago
    Personal experience, I was running for miles for the last couple of years and still piling it on. Back to weights now 2 days per week and running one, and am burning it off surprisingly rapidly. Note, though, that I wouldn't be exactly beginner level when it comes to weights.
    - ebbv 15y ago
      I don't know what your pace was or whether "for miles" means 2 miles or 10. But there are plenty of apps for iOS and Android that will tell you how many calories you burned on your runs, and if it was multiple miles and you were maintaining a decent pace, you probably burned many more calories on those runs than you do lifting. The likely reasons you kept gaining weight while running, pick one or multiple: - Not running as often as you lift, so the total calories burned per week (or month) was lower. - Running too slowly so that your heart rate didn't get up to the point where you were really working. - Ramping up your carb intake, whether consciously or subconsciously this is really common when people start running -- your body starts craving carbs. Which then results in a calorie increase, which is the real problem (not carbs themselves.) - Policing your eating better while lifting. Ultimately if you want to lose weight you have to not only exercise but also keep your daily calorie budget at a deficit. People who have trouble losing weight usually fail at the latter one.

by ebbv 15y ago

z0r 15y ago

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539 http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539 Summary: resistance training is most effective, then interval training (high intensity and lower intensity), and then steady state high intensity cardio training, and finally least effective steady state low intensity cardio training.

ebbv 15y ago
What a shock that a body building website would say that. I can't believe it. Let me ask Microsoft if I should use Linux for my servers or not, hold on BRB. The reality is that an hour of cardio is going to burn many, many more calories than 15 minutes of lifting. Now, if you hate cardio and can't stand to do it for an hour, but you love lifting, then obviously you're better off lifting. But if you can learn to enjoy cardio, or if you want to do the workout that's the most effective for burning calories, you should be biking/running.
- hmottestad 15y ago
  Keep in mind secondary and tertiary effects. 1. How many calories used to rebuild and strengthen the muscles? 2. How many more calories do your bigger and stronger muscles burn even when not in use? This goes for both cardio and weight lifting.
  - dhs 15y ago
    re. 2: Not many, according to the sources I can find on that. Example: "[M]uscle tissue has been observed to burn roughly seven to 10 calories per pound per day, compared to two to three calories per pound per day for fat. Therefore, if you replace a pound of fat with a pound of muscle, you can expect to burn only approximately four to six more calories a day." Source: http://www.acefitness.org/fitnessqanda/fitnessqanda_display.aspx?itemid=358 http://www.acefitness.org/fitnessqanda/fitnessqanda_display....
- rmgraham 15y ago
  Both are better than doing nothing. It's generally much easier to find time for 15 minutes of X than 60 minutes of Y. In HN terms, you are arguing about which type of balanced tree is better but are ignoring the fact the data is only 100 items long and you're much better off just pushing out your MVP than agonizing over the inefficiency of one over the other.
  - ebbv 15y ago
    You are right that either is better than nothing. But the bad advice that "lifting is the way to go, cardio doesn't work" is very common and it needs to be corrected.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  > What a shock that a body building website would say that. I can't believe it. Let me ask Microsoft if I should use Linux for my servers or not, hold on BRB. The source of the argument does not take away from the validity of the argument itself. You should be able to evaluate an argument on it's points alone.

wrl 15y ago

You are correct that sustained aerobic exercise burns more calories than an anaerobic activity such as weightlifting. The benefit of weightlifting in particular is that, by building more muscle, you are increasing your body's BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) because more muscles == more energy necessary to run them. This translates to your body burning more calories while at rest.

ebbv 15y ago
While this is true it also applies to cardio workouts as well. They also build muscle and increase your metabolism. It's a myth that this is an advantage of weight lifting over cardio. It really comes down to personal preference. Do the workout you're going to be able to keep doing.
- hessenwolf 15y ago
  Personal experience, I was running for miles for the last couple of years and still piling it on. Back to weights now 2 days per week and running one, and am burning it off surprisingly rapidly. Note, though, that I wouldn't be exactly beginner level when it comes to weights.
  - ebbv 15y ago
    I don't know what your pace was or whether "for miles" means 2 miles or 10. But there are plenty of apps for iOS and Android that will tell you how many calories you burned on your runs, and if it was multiple miles and you were maintaining a decent pace, you probably burned many more calories on those runs than you do lifting. The likely reasons you kept gaining weight while running, pick one or multiple: - Not running as often as you lift, so the total calories burned per week (or month) was lower. - Running too slowly so that your heart rate didn't get up to the point where you were really working. - Ramping up your carb intake, whether consciously or subconsciously this is really common when people start running -- your body starts craving carbs. Which then results in a calorie increase, which is the real problem (not carbs themselves.) - Policing your eating better while lifting. Ultimately if you want to lose weight you have to not only exercise but also keep your daily calorie budget at a deficit. People who have trouble losing weight usually fail at the latter one.