It would depend on what you consider "cardio."
In early 2001 I lost a noticeable amount of body fat during my one and only (so far) attempt at serious fat loss. Following a certain program, I lost about ten net pounds but lost more fat than that; I looked as if I lost more than "ten pounds"
and got stronger besides.
The main exercise was intense weight training. I also followed the eating instructions--while they weren't "clean eating" per se, they were a departure from what I usually eat. I am not going to guess how "important" each component was by naming a percentage, but I would rather exercise that way and eat whatever than eat that way and not exercise at all. You can tell that I'm not one of those "eating is 90%" people.
The program also incorporated a daily walk; while it was a step up from my normal activity, it didn't raise my heart rate to any high level (or even the famed "fat-burning zone") and was only half an hour besides, so I wasn't making up for low, low intensity with longer time. I guess I would call it added "activity" rather than "cardio." I imagine that without the walking, I would've seen similar results.
Of course, YMMV; I wouldn't base your predicted results on any anecdotes or single experiences, especially mine.
Seabush, have you examined your body composition?
Of course, the disclaimers:
- Cardiovascular health is important, yadda yadda. At the same time, I've never seen a "cardio"-lacking exercise system that pooh-poohs cardiovascular health; they say explicitly that their programs provide for that health. Even so, I'm not interested in participating in a debate over how valid those claims are.
- The importance of exercise goes beyond fat loss (or "weight loss," if you really insist), but we knew that.