Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

Does weight lifting speed up weight loss quicker or does cardio
exercises? If someone has a goal to lose about 45 to 50 lbs. in three
months and are following a healthy diet/calorie plan, would cardio
exercises be the best choice to meet their weight loss goal quicker?

Two of my friends spent money on a personal trainer to help them with
their weight loss goal. Their trainer had them due 20 minutes of
cardio and 60 minutes of weight lifting with different routines 4
times a week. After 4 months of weightlifting with cardio exercises
and following a healthy plan to reach their weightloss goal, they only
loss 10 to 15lbs. Which was very frustrating for them.

Today, both of my friends lost a lot of weight by eating healthy and
doing cardio exercises 4 times a week for 60 minutes a day on their
own. One lost 55lbs. and the other lost 50lbs. They both tell me
that cardio exercises helped them reach their weight loss goal quicker
than weight lifting. Now that they have reached their goal, they are
now incorporating weights to their exercises along with cardio. They
exercise 3 times a week, each day 20-30 minutes of weightlifting and
30 minutes of cardio.

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?

<Maribel.Trujillo-Moran@asu.edu> wrote in message
> ....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?
>

I lost about 60 lbs, gained some lean mass, and went from fat to fit in
about a year by doing a combination of cardio and weights. AFAIC they
complement each other and I wouldn't do one without the other. My routine
every other day was about 30-45 mins intense cardio at the gym followed by
about 40 minutes of weights, with very little rest between sets. I tries to
maintain a heartrate of about 75-80% of max, and though my weights weren't
that high because of the short rests, the workout felt pretty intense. Also
would do longish (20-35 mile) bike rides a couple days a week at a good pace
(about 18 mph). I didn't rush the weight loss and though I improved the
quality of my diet, I didn't cut back that much on calories.

On Feb 21, 2:02 am, Maribel.Trujillo-Mo...@asu.edu wrote:
> Does weight lifting speed up weight loss quicker or does cardio
> exercises? If someone has a goal to lose about 45 to 50 lbs. in three
> months and are following a healthy diet/calorie plan, would cardio
> exercises be the best choice to meet their weight loss goal quicker?
>
> Two of my friends spent money on a personal trainer to help them with
> their weight loss goal. Their trainer had them due 20 minutes of
> cardio and 60 minutes of weight lifting with different routines 4
> times a week. After 4 months of weightlifting with cardio exercises
> and following a healthy plan to reach their weightloss goal, they only
> loss 10 to 15lbs. Which was very frustrating for them.
>
> Today, both of my friends lost a lot of weight by eating healthy and
> doing cardio exercises 4 times a week for 60 minutes a day on their
> own. One lost 55lbs. and the other lost 50lbs. They both tell me
> that cardio exercises helped them reach their weight loss goal quicker
> than weight lifting. Now that they have reached their goal, they are
> now incorporating weights to their exercises along with cardio. They
> exercise 3 times a week, each day 20-30 minutes of weightlifting and
> 30 minutes of cardio.
>
> 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?

Hi,
I just got on the group. I saw & read your post and here are some
thoughts;

1) A goal to lose 50-75 pounds is not easily done with any
routine.
2) Your friends may have lost fat weight but gained some muscle,
which is a good thing, because muscle burns more calories even at
rest. You are really better off losing 15 pounds of fat and gaining 10
pounds of muscle ( net on the scale, you lost 5 pounds). You will
look and feel better and have a better metabolism for the long run
than had you lost 25 pounds ( some of which probably muscle) and
gained no muscle. Don't just go by the scale.

On Feb 21, 2:02 am, Maribel.Trujillo-Mo...@asu.edu 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.

> If someone has a goal to lose about 45 to 50 lbs. in three
> months and are following a healthy diet/calorie plan, would cardio
> exercises be the best choice to meet their weight loss goal quicker?

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....

> Two of my friends spent money on a personal trainer to help them with
> their weight loss goal. Their trainer had them due 20 minutes of
> cardio and 60 minutes of weight lifting with different routines 4
> times a week. After 4 months of weightlifting with cardio exercises
> and following a healthy plan to reach their weightloss goal, they only
> loss 10 to 15lbs. Which was very frustrating for them.

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. Main thing is to see whether they look good or
not...there are people on that "Biggest Loser" TV show who weigh fifty
pounds less than me and yet look round as a beach ball!

> Today, both of my friends lost a lot of weight by eating healthy and
> doing cardio exercises 4 times a week for 60 minutes a day on their
> own. One lost 55lbs. and the other lost 50lbs. They both tell me
> that cardio exercises helped them reach their weight loss goal quicker
> than weight lifting. Now that they have reached their goal, they are
> now incorporating weights to their exercises along with cardio. They
> exercise 3 times a week, each day 20-30 minutes of weightlifting and
> 30 minutes of cardio.

Well, looks like you knew the answer all along, then!

> 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?

Yes, if weight loss is the primary objective, dieting is most
effective, then cardio, then weights. But best of all is to
incorporate all three, uh, "disciplines" into any plan.

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb250e16-ae6c-4149-9783-2d2a94b2d062@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 2:02 am, Maribel.Trujillo-Mo...@asu.edu 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.
>
>> If someone has a goal to lose about 45 to 50 lbs. in three
>> months and are following a healthy diet/calorie plan, would cardio
>> exercises be the best choice to meet their weight loss goal quicker?
>
> 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....
>
>> Two of my friends spent money on a personal trainer to help them with
>> their weight loss goal. Their trainer had them due 20 minutes of
>> cardio and 60 minutes of weight lifting with different routines 4
>> times a week. After 4 months of weightlifting with cardio exercises
>> and following a healthy plan to reach their weightloss goal, they only
>> loss 10 to 15lbs. Which was very frustrating for them.
>
> 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. Main thing is to see whether they look good or
> not...there are people on that "Biggest Loser" TV show who weigh fifty
> pounds less than me and yet look round as a beach ball!
>
>> Today, both of my friends lost a lot of weight by eating healthy and
>> doing cardio exercises 4 times a week for 60 minutes a day on their
>> own. One lost 55lbs. and the other lost 50lbs. They both tell me
>> that cardio exercises helped them reach their weight loss goal quicker
>> than weight lifting. Now that they have reached their goal, they are
>> now incorporating weights to their exercises along with cardio. They
>> exercise 3 times a week, each day 20-30 minutes of weightlifting and
>> 30 minutes of cardio.
>
> Well, looks like you knew the answer all along, then!
>
>> 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?
>
> Yes, if weight loss is the primary objective, dieting is most
> effective, then cardio, then weights. But best of all is to
> incorporate all three, uh, "disciplines" into any plan.

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.

Get into lifting weights...before your cardio workout. That will work the
best. High reps at a lower weight...what you can do for 15-20 reps, twice
through. Muscles continue to burn calories even at rest, and weights are
important to women especially for their bone health.

Melissa

On Feb 22, 2:15*pm, "Melissa" <nos...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:eb250e16-ae6c-4149-9783-2d2a94b2d062@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 2:02 am, Maribel.Trujillo-Mo...@asu.edu 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.
>
> >> *If someone has a goal to lose about 45 to 50 lbs. in three
> >> months and are following a healthy diet/calorie plan, would cardio
> >> exercises be the best choice to meet their weight loss goal quicker?
>
> > 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....
>
> >> Two of my friends spent money on a personal trainer to help them with
> >> their weight loss goal. Their trainer had them due 20 minutes of
> >> cardio and 60 minutes of weight lifting with different routines 4
> >> times a week. *After 4 months of weightlifting with cardio exercises
> >> and following a healthy plan to reach their weightloss goal, they only
> >> loss 10 to 15lbs. *Which was very frustrating for them.
>
> > 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. *Main thing is to see whether they look good or
> > not...there are people on that "Biggest Loser" TV show who weigh fifty
> > pounds less than me and yet look round as a beach ball!
>
> >> Today, both of my friends lost a lot of weight by eating healthy and
> >> doing cardio exercises 4 times a week for 60 minutes a day on their
> >> own. *One lost 55lbs. and the other lost 50lbs. *They both tell me
> >> that cardio exercises helped them reach their weight loss goal quicker
> >> than weight lifting. *Now that they have reached their goal, they are
> >> now incorporating weights to their exercises along with cardio. *They
> >> exercise 3 times a week, each day 20-30 minutes of weightlifting and
> >> 30 minutes of cardio.
>
> > Well, looks like you knew the answer all along, then!
>
> >> 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?
>
> > Yes, if weight loss is the primary objective, dieting is most
> > effective, then cardio, then weights. *But best of all is to
> > incorporate all three, uh, "disciplines" into any plan.
>
> 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.
>
> Get into lifting weights...before your cardio workout. That will work the
> best. High reps at a lower weight...what you can do for 15-20 reps, twice
> through. Muscles continue to burn calories even at rest, and weights are
> important to women especially for their bone health.
>
> Melissa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, you burn more 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, you
burn more 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 you burn more calories walking for two miles or
running two miles. Obviously, you would finish sooner by running. You
would also burn more calories totat. Which one is best for you?
Probably the running, since it increases cardio, 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

In article <47bf4a07$0$4963$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Melissa
<nospam@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eb250e16-ae6c-4149-9783-2d2a94b2d062@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 21, 2:02 am, Maribel.Trujillo-Mo...@asu.edu 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.

My advice: Find activities that you *enjoy* doing enough to *want* to
do them several days a week, for 20-60 minutes at a time. They may
not seem like "exercise"--so much the better! Mix things up, keep your
body guessing. Don't fall into a rut where you do the same thing every
time, the same way, the same amount of time with the same degree of
commitment. As long as you keep doing what you're doing, you're going
to keep getting what you're getting. In other words, if you get to a
point where you haven't seen any progress in several weeks, take a look
at what you can change about your routine: frequency, intensity,
duration, or mode (i.e., type of activity). Really apply yourself to
the activity, don't just halfheartedly go through the motions.
Otherwise, why bother? You won't get much out of it, nor will your
body.

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

On Feb 22, 9:58 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:02 am, Maribel.Trujillo-Mo...@asu.edu 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.
>
> > If someone has a goal to lose about 45 to 50 lbs. in three
> > months and are following a healthy diet/calorie plan, would cardio
> > exercises be the best choice to meet their weight loss goal quicker?
>
> 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....
>
> > Two of my friends spent money on a personal trainer to help them with
> > their weight loss goal. Their trainer had them due 20 minutes of
> > cardio and 60 minutes of weight lifting with different routines 4
> > times a week. After 4 months of weightlifting with cardio exercises
> > and following a healthy plan to reach their weightloss goal, they only
> > loss 10 to 15lbs. Which was very frustrating for them.
>
> 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. Main thing is to see whether they look good or
> not...there are people on that "Biggest Loser" TV show who weigh fifty
> pounds less than me and yet look round as a beach ball!
>
> > Today, both of my friends lost a lot of weight by eating healthy and
> > doing cardio exercises 4 times a week for 60 minutes a day on their
> > own. One lost 55lbs. and the other lost 50lbs. They both tell me
> > that cardio exercises helped them reach their weight loss goal quicker
> > than weight lifting. Now that they have reached their goal, they are
> > now incorporating weights to their exercises along with cardio. They
> > exercise 3 times a week, each day 20-30 minutes of weightlifting and
> > 30 minutes of cardio.
>
> Well, looks like you knew the answer all along, then!
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, if weight loss is the primary objective, dieting is most
> effective, then cardio, then weights. But best of all is to
> incorporate all three, uh, "disciplines" into any plan.

The real question is: is the goal to reduce your weight or to look
better. Since muscle weighs more than fat we may even get weight at
the beginning of exercising after a sedentary life style. I
recommend to my weight reduction clients to forget about using the
scale for the first few weeks of getting fit and use their clothes as
a measure of success. Later they can use their weight as a guideline.

As far as the original question is concerned a combination of eating
well (lowering calories while eating more nutritious foods like more
fruits and vegetables) doing both cardio and weights leads to best
permanent weight reduction.

<dkw12002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6095c214-c63a-4e3d-9ad4-938fe63892b3@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 22, 2:15 pm, "Melissa" <nos...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:eb250e16-ae6c-4149-9783-2d2a94b2d062@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 2:02 am, Maribel.Trujillo-Mo...@asu.edu 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.
>
> >> If someone has a goal to lose about 45 to 50 lbs. in three
> >> months and are following a healthy diet/calorie plan, would cardio
> >> exercises be the best choice to meet their weight loss goal quicker?
>
> > 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....
>
> >> Two of my friends spent money on a personal trainer to help them with
> >> their weight loss goal. Their trainer had them due 20 minutes of
> >> cardio and 60 minutes of weight lifting with different routines 4
> >> times a week. After 4 months of weightlifting with cardio exercises
> >> and following a healthy plan to reach their weightloss goal, they only
> >> loss 10 to 15lbs. Which was very frustrating for them.
>
> > 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. Main thing is to see whether they look good or
> > not...there are people on that "Biggest Loser" TV show who weigh fifty
> > pounds less than me and yet look round as a beach ball!
>
> >> Today, both of my friends lost a lot of weight by eating healthy and
> >> doing cardio exercises 4 times a week for 60 minutes a day on their
> >> own. One lost 55lbs. and the other lost 50lbs. They both tell me
> >> that cardio exercises helped them reach their weight loss goal quicker
> >> than weight lifting. Now that they have reached their goal, they are
> >> now incorporating weights to their exercises along with cardio. They
> >> exercise 3 times a week, each day 20-30 minutes of weightlifting and
> >> 30 minutes of cardio.
>
> > Well, looks like you knew the answer all along, then!
>
> >> 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?
>
> > Yes, if weight loss is the primary objective, dieting is most
> > effective, then cardio, then weights. But best of all is to
> > incorporate all three, uh, "disciplines" into any plan.
>
> 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.
>
> Get into lifting weights...before your cardio workout. That will work the
> best. High reps at a lower weight...what you can do for 15-20 reps, twice
> through. Muscles continue to burn calories even at rest, and weights are
> important to women especially for their bone health.
>
> Melissa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

If you are really serious about wanting burn stomach fat, and burning
it fast. Then don't waste your time doing slow, even paced cardio.

Instead do interval training. You can learn this and more by going to
http://www.best-abs-exercises.com/burn-stomach-fat.html

Good luck.

Also, if you strength train the right way. You'll be getting cardio
(burning fat) and working your abs at the same time.

You can learn more strength training tips here
http://www.best-abs-exercises.com/bu...belly-fat.html

Another factor to weight loss though is diet.

Start reducing or completely eliminating sugar (e.g soda, junk food,
etc.) and processed foods (anything that comes out of a box or the
typical American diet).

And start eating more protein, fiber, and REAL food. Not something
that comes out of a box.

For instance you can still eat pizza (everything in moderation of
course), but just eat REAL pizza. That's loaded with fresh toppings
and veggies. Learn more on what and how to eat by going to
http://www.best-abs-exercises.con/abs-diet-plan.html

But, losing weight has the same concepts as getting abs. B/c in order
to get abs you have to first lower your body fat.

You can learn this and more by going to http://www.best-abs-exercises.com

"jimmy_boi" <lawrence.ban@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:97c87cab-fe21-43a2-b327-232daf85e6ee@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Also, if you strength train the right way. You'll be getting cardio
> (burning fat) and working your abs at the same time.
>
> You can learn more strength training tips here
> http://www.best-abs-exercises.com/bu...belly-fat.html
>
I remember years ago they put a heart rate monitor on Dr Squat (Fred
Hatfield) during his squat workout. His heart rate went through the roof
during his set, it never settled back to normal during his 5 minute rest
before his next set. After 5 sets of squats he had an average heart rate of
80% over around a half an hour period.
I know when I first get on a cardio machine after my workout my heart rate
is generally 126. Being 52 years old that puts my heart rate at 75% of
maximum. It's a pretty safe bet it was in that range throughout most of my
workout.
I still believe in slow steady arobic training for fat burning. Though I am
open to reading any research anyone is willing to point me to that would
convince me otherwise. As an ex bicycle racer I am convinced that interval
training is the best way there is to increase fitness level. However I don't
know how it is as far as fat burning.

"Homer Simpson" <homersimpson@springfield.com> wrote in message
.....>>
> I remember years ago they put a heart rate monitor on Dr Squat (Fred
> Hatfield) during his squat workout. His heart rate went through the roof
> during his set, it never settled back to normal during his 5 minute rest
> before his next set. After 5 sets of squats he had an average heart rate
> of 80% over around a half an hour period.

My heartrate spikes pretty high when I do a number of weight routines. When
I'm in the middle of a hard workout and take minimal rest, I can do a set of
15 goblet squats with maybe 70 lbs and my HR will spike up to about 165,
which is about 90% of my max (about 180; I'm 49). Same with lateral raises.
I usually don't let it drop below 140 till I go to the next set.

> I know when I first get on a cardio machine after my workout my heart rate
> is generally 126. Being 52 years old that puts my heart rate at 75% of
> maximum. It's a pretty safe bet it was in that range throughout most of my
> workout.

I get bored if my HR is below 150 when I'm dong cardio on a machine, and
much of my cardio session is in the 85-90% range with spikes near maximum. I
maybe overdoing it, though, because it will leave my lungs feeling "sore"
for a couple days.

> I still believe in slow steady arobic training for fat burning.

I lost 60 lbs over about a year and I seem to have lost the most weight with
2-3 hr bike rides (usually with an avg HR of about 150).

Though I am
> open to reading any research anyone is willing to point me to that would
> convince me otherwise. As an ex bicycle racer I am convinced that interval
> training is the best way there is to increase fitness level. However I
> don't know how it is as far as fat burning.

How hard do you push yourself nowadays? I looked at some old logs from 20+
yrs ago where I was doing 21.5 mph avg over a 30-mile ride (including a
couple stoplights and no drafting). Now, on a much lighter bike, I can
barely do 18 mph avg over the same distance. My old times are certainly not
racer category but it sure would be nice to get to that level again. I
suspect I'm just getting too old, though.

On Feb 25, 10:39 am, "Homer Simpson" <homersimp...@springfield.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I remember years ago they put a heart rate monitor on Dr Squat (Fred
> Hatfield) during his squat workout. His heart rate went through the roof
> during his set, it never settled back to normal during his 5 minute rest
> before his next set.

Whoa, I'm not a cardiologist but I should think that there's something
wrong with this picture. A heart rate that doesn't settle back after
five minutes of rest?? Is that even physically possible???

> <SNIP>
>
> I still believe in slow steady arobic training for fat burning. Though I am
> open to reading any research anyone is willing to point me to that would
> convince me otherwise. As an ex bicycle racer I am convinced that interval
> training is the best way there is to increase fitness level. However I don't
> know how it is as far as fat burning.

I also believe in that "slow drain" when it comes to aerobic activity
and fat-burning. It's easiest to do, and in that respect more likely
to be pursued and thus the method most likely to be successful for
many. But for those who don't have the time, or just hate cardio so
much they want to get it over with ASAP, a very intense but relatively
brief session would be just as good...interval training is the best of
both worlds, though, and helps build speed, if one is after other
training effects besides fat loss.

"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c2f71d$0$6499$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Homer Simpson" <homersimpson@springfield.com> wrote in message
> ....>>
>> I remember years ago they put a heart rate monitor on Dr Squat (Fred
>> Hatfield) during his squat workout. His heart rate went through the roof
>> during his set, it never settled back to normal during his 5 minute rest
>> before his next set. After 5 sets of squats he had an average heart rate
>> of 80% over around a half an hour period.
>
> My heartrate spikes pretty high when I do a number of weight routines.
> When I'm in the middle of a hard workout and take minimal rest, I can do a
> set of 15 goblet squats with maybe 70 lbs and my HR will spike up to about
> 165, which is about 90% of my max (about 180; I'm 49). Same with lateral
> raises. I usually don't let it drop below 140 till I go to the next set.
>
>> I know when I first get on a cardio machine after my workout my heart
>> rate is generally 126. Being 52 years old that puts my heart rate at 75%
>> of maximum. It's a pretty safe bet it was in that range throughout most
>> of my workout.
>
> I get bored if my HR is below 150 when I'm dong cardio on a machine, and
> much of my cardio session is in the 85-90% range with spikes near maximum.
> I maybe overdoing it, though, because it will leave my lungs feeling
> "sore" for a couple days.

My biggest concern with doing cardio this hard would be that it would cut
into my recovery time drastically. For that reason it would make it very
difficult, if not impossible, to build muscle.

>
>> I still believe in slow steady arobic training for fat burning.
>
> I lost 60 lbs over about a year and I seem to have lost the most weight
> with 2-3 hr bike rides (usually with an avg HR of about 150).

That sounds like the training I did when I raced. I could never get my
bodyweight over 136 pounds in those days regardless of what I ate or how
much of it I ate. I could go to a more than I look like I can eat buffet and
put away more food than most 250 pound men. My appetite was enormous. I
think it was because of the huge expendature of calories during hours of
training a day.

>
> Though I am
>> open to reading any research anyone is willing to point me to that would
>> convince me otherwise. As an ex bicycle racer I am convinced that
>> interval training is the best way there is to increase fitness level.
>> However I don't know how it is as far as fat burning.
>
> How hard do you push yourself nowadays? I looked at some old logs from 20+
> yrs ago where I was doing 21.5 mph avg over a 30-mile ride (including a
> couple stoplights and no drafting). Now, on a much lighter bike, I can
> barely do 18 mph avg over the same distance. My old times are certainly
> not racer category but it sure would be nice to get to that level again. I
> suspect I'm just getting too old, though.

These days my average mph over a 25 mile ride is about 15 mph. I did go out
with a group last summer and averaged 18 mph over that distance. 12 years
ago I did a 25 mile out and back time trial in slightly over an hour. I
could also do a century ride alone in around 6 hours. I could never come
close to matching that now. But I don't train like I used to. Now I am more
interested in just being fit rather than athletic. I am also interested in
building and maintaining as much muscle mass as I possibly can. At my age I
don't expect impressive results. I gave up training for powerlifting
competition after having 2 hernia surgeries. One in late 2005 and the other
in late 2006. My surgeon told me it would be ok to go back to powerlifting
but I don't want to take the risk. I powerlifted for 26 years and achieved
all of my lifetime goals (double bodyweight benchpress/400 pound
squat/triple bodyweight deadlift). None of those are really all that
competative in open powerlifting but they were my goals and I achieved them.

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0d25428e-e1c5-46ea-b034-2fdeefa01c51@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 10:39 am, "Homer Simpson" <homersimp...@springfield.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I remember years ago they put a heart rate monitor on Dr Squat (Fred
>> Hatfield) during his squat workout. His heart rate went through the roof
>> during his set, it never settled back to normal during his 5 minute rest
>> before his next set.
>
> Whoa, I'm not a cardiologist but I should think that there's something
> wrong with this picture. A heart rate that doesn't settle back after
> five minutes of rest?? Is that even physically possible???

Yes it is possible and quite common. A person's heart rate generally is
elevated the entire time their breathing is raised. If you have a heart rate
monitor try it for yourself. Do a few heavy sets of squats to get your heart
rate up and time the interval it takes to return to normal.

>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> I still believe in slow steady arobic training for fat burning. Though I
>> am
>> open to reading any research anyone is willing to point me to that would
>> convince me otherwise. As an ex bicycle racer I am convinced that
>> interval
>> training is the best way there is to increase fitness level. However I
>> don't
>> know how it is as far as fat burning.
>
> I also believe in that "slow drain" when it comes to aerobic activity
> and fat-burning. It's easiest to do, and in that respect more likely
> to be pursued and thus the method most likely to be successful for
> many. But for those who don't have the time, or just hate cardio so
> much they want to get it over with ASAP, a very intense but relatively
> brief session would be just as good...interval training is the best of
> both worlds, though, and helps build speed, if one is after other
> training effects besides fat loss.

On Feb 25, 2:54 pm, "Homer Simpson" <homersimp...@springfield.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Yes it is possible and quite common. A person's heart rate generally is
> elevated the entire time their breathing is raised. If you have a heart rate
> monitor try it for yourself. Do a few heavy sets of squats to get your heart
> rate up and time the interval it takes to return to normal.

Um, well, what's "normal," now...I suppose the rate never gets back to
one's pre-exercise figure, okay, but when you said "through the roof"
and "never...back to normal" it sounds like more than just the general
elevated condition one would expect for a state of physical rigor...in
which case I have to wonder again whether something isn't unusual...I
mean, me, five minutes' rest, I'm almost back into "civilian
mode"...someone as well-practiced as Dr. Squat should recover much
better than me, even though he lifts, what, over three times more than
me....

Right after a squat or deadlift my heart's pumping like I'd just done
a long half-minute sprint or something, but within five minutes?? I
just can't imagine anyone still breathing hard after such a long time.

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba28f8bb-5485-484a-93c7-e9ea915015fc@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 2:54 pm, "Homer Simpson" <homersimp...@springfield.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes it is possible and quite common. A person's heart rate generally is
>> elevated the entire time their breathing is raised. If you have a heart
>> rate
>> monitor try it for yourself. Do a few heavy sets of squats to get your
>> heart
>> rate up and time the interval it takes to return to normal.
>
> Um, well, what's "normal," now...I suppose the rate never gets back to
> one's pre-exercise figure, okay, but when you said "through the roof"
> and "never...back to normal" it sounds like more than just the general
> elevated condition one would expect for a state of physical rigor...in
> which case I have to wonder again whether something isn't unusual...I
> mean, me, five minutes' rest, I'm almost back into "civilian
> mode"...someone as well-practiced as Dr. Squat should recover much
> better than me, even though he lifts, what, over three times more than
> me....
>
> Right after a squat or deadlift my heart's pumping like I'd just done
> a long half-minute sprint or something, but within five minutes?? I
> just can't imagine anyone still breathing hard after such a long time.

I was trying to repeat what the article had said. By "through the roof" I
meant maxed out. He hit maximum heart rate during his set. After 5 minutes
of rest his heart rate had not returned to normal (what it was before he
began his sets) leaving his average heart rate at 80% for the duration of
his workout.

They also said in that same article that Fred Hatfield had a heart as strong
as a marathon runner. Yet he said he never did any cardio exercise at all.
That was all from the powerlifting.

I believe Fred's best squat was 1014 pounds.

On Feb 25, 3:14 pm, "Homer Simpson" <homersimp...@springfield.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I was trying to repeat what the article had said. By "through the roof" I
> meant maxed out. He hit maximum heart rate during his set. After 5 minutes
> of rest his heart rate had not returned to normal (what it was before he
> began his sets) leaving his average heart rate at 80% for the duration of
> his workout.
>
> They also said in that same article that Fred Hatfield had a heart as strong
> as a marathon runner. Yet he said he never did any cardio exercise at all.
> That was all from the powerlifting.
>
> I believe Fred's best squat was 1014 pounds.

He's an impressive guy, yes, but like I said, five minutes should be
plenty time to get his heart back down to "normal," especially if he's
got such a strong heart. Remember, the heart's only pumping hard
'cause it's trying to keep up with demand. If it's still pumping
pretty hard (such that it's not settled back to normal) even after the
demand's stopped, after five minutes, well, that sounds scary.

Maybe someone from the newsgroup SMC can advise?

<latina_liebhaber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:364d6083-700c-4b91-8eea-182b73d246d8@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 3:14 pm, "Homer Simpson" <homersimp...@springfield.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was trying to repeat what the article had said. By "through the roof" I
>> meant maxed out. He hit maximum heart rate during his set. After 5
>> minutes
>> of rest his heart rate had not returned to normal (what it was before he
>> began his sets) leaving his average heart rate at 80% for the duration of
>> his workout.
>>
>> They also said in that same article that Fred Hatfield had a heart as
>> strong
>> as a marathon runner. Yet he said he never did any cardio exercise at
>> all.
>> That was all from the powerlifting.
>>
>> I believe Fred's best squat was 1014 pounds.
>
> He's an impressive guy, yes, but like I said, five minutes should be
> plenty time to get his heart back down to "normal," especially if he's
> got such a strong heart. Remember, the heart's only pumping hard
> 'cause it's trying to keep up with demand. If it's still pumping
> pretty hard (such that it's not settled back to normal) even after the
> demand's stopped, after five minutes, well, that sounds scary.
>
> Maybe someone from the newsgroup SMC can advise?

It would help if I could find the article. But I just did a search on Fred's
site as well as on the internet at large. And it is not available. This
article was written some 15 years ago or more. Fred was in excellent health
at the time I can assure you.

On Feb 23, 12:38 am, Denise Howard <den...@invalid.domain> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Sure, all-hands-on-deck is ideal, but the original question was framed
as an either-or between cardio and lifting in the context of weight
loss, so the supreme answer would have to be a proper diet.

> 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.

The link below (mid-page) seems to indicate only 6 calories per pound
of muscle-at-rest per day!

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...e71&ei=5087%0A

> Very possible. People too often get obsessed with what the scale says
> instead of what the tape measure says.

Or the mirror, oddly enough! There are folks who weigh much less than
me but look way worse (like those "Biggest Loser" TV contestants who
are below 240-lbs. but still all roly-poly).

> <SNIP>

In article
<a831988b-05b7-4425-bda4-5b27f391724c@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<latina_liebhaber@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 12:38 am, Denise Howard <den...@invalid.domain> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Sure, all-hands-on-deck is ideal, but the original question was framed
> as an either-or between cardio and lifting in the context of weight
> loss, so the supreme answer would have to be a proper diet.

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

> > 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.
>
> The link below (mid-page) seems to indicate only 6 calories per pound
> of muscle-at-rest per day!
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...tml?em&ex=1200
> 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!

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

On Feb 25, 9:31*pm, Denise Howard <den...@invalid.domain> wrote:
> In article
> <a831988b-05b7-4425-bda4-5b27f3917...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <latina_liebha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 12:38 am, Denise Howard <den...@invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Sure, all-hands-on-deck is ideal, but the original question was framed
> > as an either-or between cardio and lifting in the context of weight
> > loss, so the supreme answer would have to be a proper diet.
>
> In an either-or context, yes, I'd have to agree.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > The link below (mid-page) seems to indicate only 6 calories per pound
> > of muscle-at-rest per day!
>
> >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!
>
> --
> Denise * denise dot howard at comcast dot net
> ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
> AFAA step and kickboxing certified

Hey Denise,
Did you ever get that 10 inch "clit" clipped off? They'll stop calling
you Denny in the locker rooms if you do.

ABS everybody wants them.* Then why don't people do something about
it? i made a blog that i really hope will help and motivate you to
achieve this goal www.superrippedabs.blogspot.com* The key to getting
abs is through Patience and Persistence. If you put your mind to it
you can achieve anything (i know, its cliche, but very true!)