Cardio vs. Weights for fat loss

[~^~RedFlame~^~]

Originally Posted by lwseymour

I wish it only took exercise to lose weight because I have that part down. Heck, I even enjoy exercise (gasp). But I admit I'm terribly jealous of my neighbor who has lost so much with only diet (she hates exercise). I swear she gets smaller by the day. Now she is suddenly an expert and likes to give advice to everyone and her advice to me was "stop lifting weights". I'm also tempted to follow her advice since she is looking so good but I know down the road I would regret it. Wouldn't I?

YES YOU WOULD!! Do you want to be skinny and weak or fit and strong? I have no idea what d**t this woman is on, but chances are if she is losing a lot of weight without exercise she isn't eating healthy. Massive weight loss that happens fast often INCLUDES healthy muscle, which we do NOT want to lose. At some point this gal may very well hit her plateau, and start gaining again, and the only way to get it all going again will be exercise and adding some healthy muscle to her frame to eat the calories. By that point she will probably have to be starving in order to not gain weight!

[Kyra]

Originally Posted by benemma

I was attempting to do two full body weight days, two intervals days (cardio coach), and the rest longer steady state cardio and pilates and yoga in there somewhere.

Hmmm, your proposed workout plan sounds familiar... That basic formula did work for me, with a balanced but calorie restricted diet. And we are talking the last 5 - 10 pounds type weight loss (but not figure competition cutting weight loss, although I got very lean).

I think, from what you read elsewhere, consider a) the source and what they're selling, and b) that many of the claims about things such as post exercise caloric burn and muscle as a fat burner, while true, are exaggerated. The TRUE bottom line is your individual experience, what you like/can tolerate/will do. Sources vary re: amounts of cardio for getting/staying lean - even the pros have differing forumulas. Venuto (BFFM) advocates more cardio for leanness; the trainer I worked with (competed in bodybuilding and figure) did as little cardio as possible, even during competition prep. Both got ripped.

I DON'T think bodies - yours, mine, anyone's here - are all that spectacularly different; it's more a matter of doing what we believe in and what we see working for us. One trainer guru type (Jon Benson) believes that it's more important to move forward with your program with total conviction - even if that program is somewhat flawed - than to move forward WITHOUT conviction with a 100% perfect program. Just a thought.

[Kathryn]

Originally Posted by benemma

On another board studies were mentioned that say steady state cardio is not the best way to lose weight (that weight training 3 x a week and interval training are the way to go). So.......I'm confused. Whenever anyone asks about fat loss, besides diet of course, cardio, cardio, cardio is mentioned. I thought most people always say that long steady state cardio is the best for fat loss. Also, I thought too many interval training sessions a week were not good for you. I'm so confused.

Long, steady-state burns more of a % of calories from fat, but because it burns fewer calories overall than interval work, it actually ends up burning less fat. Also, there is more of an 'afterburn' from interval work (as there is from resistance training).

You're right that too many interval training sessions a week aren't good: 1-2 per week for most people, maybe 3 times per week for some. 2 times a week is good to aim for.

[Kathryn]

Originally Posted by benemma

Thanks guys! I haven't really ever done AWT, that is about all that I haven't tried.

I thought you did the Firm workouts? Those are AWT (in fact, they may have coined the term).

[~^~RedFlame~^~]

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Long, steady-state burns more of a % of calories from fat, but because it burns fewer calories overall than interval work, it actually ends up burning less fat.

This is such an important point! Back when this first started being a huge "NEW" idea, that you burn a higher percent of fat from lower intensity work, so many people started dropping their intensity just to find that they gained weight and lost fitness! You have to DO THE MATH. Lower levels of intensity are great if you are just starting, elderly, really overweight, etc., because the "training effect" says you can get the same benefits from your lower intensity work, but you have to do it much longer. You STILL burn more fat at higher intensities because you burn far more calories. But you should do BOTH types of training anyway, because of "specificity of training", you can be strong and have no endurance, so what good would THAT be?

[Kimberly33]

Originally Posted by Peggy T

My problem with higher intensity cardio is that it makes me RAVENOUS. I find that strength training/yoga and moderate cardio and clean eating gets the last 10 off for me. I think its different if you have more to lose, plus every body reacts differently.

When you do intense cardio, you really need to fuel your workouts properly. You can really burn through your glycogen stores, and if you don't refuel pretty soon after your workout, your muscles send panic signals to your digestive system (that's my take on it, anyway). If you do intense cardio, eat a snack very soon afterward (within 30-45 mins or so, I think I've heard up to an hour) that is 3/4 carbs and 1/4 protein (yogurt works really well). I read about this in my triathlon training books. When I started practicing it, it made a HUGE difference in how hungry I've gotten after hard workouts.

[Sue B]

Originally Posted by Kimberly33

When you do intense cardio, you really need to fuel your workouts properly. You can really burn through your glycogen stores, and if you don't refuel pretty soon after your workout, your muscles send panic signals to your digestive system (that's my take on it, anyway). If you do intense cardio, eat a snack very soon afterward (within 30-45 mins or so, I think I've heard up to an hour) that is 3/4 carbs and 1/4 protein (yogurt works really well). I read about this in my triathlon training books. When I started practicing it, it made a HUGE difference in how hungry I've gotten after hard workouts.

Since a mod brought up this topic...

This article, Feeding an Exercise Habit , says it's important to feed your *brain* before a workout, otherwise a drop in blood glucose can cause you to feel dizziness and fatigue. It suggests a carb snack around 300 calories such as a banana or bagel. That plus a post-workout carb/protein munchie like you mentioned (such as a small PBJ sandwich or cereal with milk) has worked well for me.

[olexa17]

Sorry to sound really stupid but what is AWT?

[~^~RedFlame~^~]

Originally Posted by olexa17

Sorry to sound really stupid but what is AWT?

Aerobic Weight Training (ala Firm), where you use lighter weights with high reps and are often moving your legs doing something at the same time. You continue moving throughout the workout, so your heartrate stays up, but not INTENSE, so you are burning fat throughout, and adding muscle at the same time. And the fact that you are using muscle while you do cardio means a MUCH higher calorie burn, because muscles are hungry! I have seen cardio instructors who do 3 classes a day and they are still flabby with no real form to their bodies, because they do not do wieghts! You will have a very healthy heart, but the heart doesn't burn THAT many calories, haha.

[Kathryn]

Originally Posted by Kimberly33

You can really burn through your glycogen stores, and if you don't refuel pretty soon after your workout, your muscles send panic signals to your digestive system (that's my take on it, anyway).

I agree, though I've more often seen the '4-to-1 ratio of carbs to proteiin' cited as the ideal post-workout fuel. Works for me!