Cardio vs Weight Training; Which slims you down faster?

Cardio vs Weight Training for fat burning

  • Cardio

    Votes: 7 21.9%

  • Weight Training

    Votes: 4 12.5%

  • Do both

    Votes: 21 65.6%
  • Total voters
    32
H

Husker1

New member
Say I'm interested in simply making my gut go away, which should I do more of? Currently I do a combination of the 2 (Cardio 6 days a week, strength 3 times) but would it be more effective to do more then the other, or even throw one out the window all together? I got friends that are built/lean and they have conflicting opinions on the issue, and I know this place is a fountain of knowledge (usually...green tea a cure for cancer...lulz) when it comes to actual tests being done so thought I'd check in here.

So, which is best if the intent is only to trim fat? Cardio or Weight Training, or a combination of both?
 
I vote for a combination of both. The cardio will help to burn the fat, and the weight training will help to tone the muscles.
 
There are definitely more well informed people on this forum than me who will be able to give you more information on this, but as I understand it a pound of muscle burns more calories while at rest than a pound of fat which is why weight training is considered such an important part of a fat-burning goal. Cardio shouldn't be neglected though, so I voted that a balanced workout regime has both.
 
Although cardio does use a lot of calories is a relatively short time, excessive amounts of cardio, especially of the wrong type, can consume your muscle mass for energy. Even without cardio when on a calorie restricted diet you will loose both muscle and fat. Weight training helps to prevent that muscle loss and even build new muscle under the right circumstances.

So both forms of exercises are beneficial for fat loss, cardio to speed up short term calories used and weight training to maintain muscle for long term maintenance.
 
Out of curiosity what do you mean by 'wrong type' of cardio? And would 6 days a week (twice a day, 2 20 minute sessions on an elliptical) be excessive?
 
My Source is the training I was given When I Completed my qualifications, although I do like to read studies at time, I am not going to go hunting for studies every time I post, What does your training consist of ? Also note I did not specify Jogging lol
 
Husker said:
Out of curiosity what do you mean by 'wrong type' of cardio? And would 6 days a week (twice a day, 2 20 minute sessions on an elliptical) be excessive?
Click to expand...

Nope, that's a healthy amount of cardio. Far from excessive. So don't worry and keep working that elliptical!
 
Actually, there is quite a bit of information out there, and there *are* studies that support what Trusylver said - under certain conditions. Being in a caloric deficit is one of them. I'll copy and paste this here, because it pretty much sums up what I have read on a multitude of different websites, medical and sports alike:

The question of whether or not cardio has a negative impact on muscle mass is really up in the air for lots of people. I for one know seasoned veterans with concrete beliefs that cardio burns muscle so they steer completely clear. This post will set things straight and help you understand the impact cardio has not only on your performance but also your reflection.

What does cardio exercise ask of your body?

Unlike resistance (weight) training, cardio exercise is traditionally based around repetitive bodyweight movements which maintain a medium to high heart rate for extended periods of time. What this means is that your body's energy output is more centred around entering a catabolic state (tissue burning) rather than the anabolic state we need to build muscle.

To put really simply, when doing cardio exercise, energy is burnt in this order;

1) Carbohydrates (both stored and direct from foods)
2) Fats (from foods and as stored cells)
3) Proteins (amino acids from muscle tissue)

Points 1 & 2 above is where you should aim to be and aim to stay. It is at those stages where one can rapidly reduce their body fat levels while maintaining their hard earned muscle mass.

It is point 3 above that causes all the headaches! This is where your body transfers into a state of mass catabolism just to maintain energy output levels. It has burnt through the energy assigned for standard exercise and now needs an external outlet to keep the ball rolling. The body begins to feed off its own muscle cells as a key source of energy.

When does this happen?

As a general consensus in the strength training industry, medium to high intensity cardio with a duration OVER the 1 hour mark is seen as an instigator for the body shifting into a muscle burning state.
 
If I read all that correctly, you've got to be damn near anorexic for muscle loss from cardio to happen because your body has nothing else to use as energy, considering for this to happen you have to have a shortage of fat cells already stored in your body not to mention take in little to no carbs.
 
I think it quite clearly states that it happens a lot faster than that, and the article is referring to people who are not in a caloric deficit - so honestly, I don't know. It doesn't seem to make much sense. Personally I wouldn't think it matters - unless somebody goes completely crazy with the cardio, it shouldn't make a difference.
 
Steve53 said:
Nonsense, San.

And "general consensus in the strength training industry" doesn't cut it.

It SHOULDN'T cut it.

What do the medical professionals say? Let's hear from them.

Comments:

First of all, in the burning of amino acids, you should not immediately jump to assume that volitional striated muscle tissue is being broken down.

It isn't. Only as a very last resort.

The body is full of protein that is not volitional muscle- such as enzymes and non-essential smooth muscle. It is called labile protein, and it is this that is broken down first.

In the starvation mode, it takes more than a week to begin to breakdown the striated muscle or brain protein, when the labile protein is used up.

When other fuels are available, the labile protein is quickly reconstituted.

To say that the body will break down muscles for fuel EVEN AS YOU ARE USING THEM is simply false.

Again, let us see some studies on this.

Real ones.
Click to expand...

Those are not my words. And why don't you bring us some studies that prove that you are right? You are making the general statements, claiming to have all the answers in black and white, so please - let's see it.

I am not saying that I have all the answers - I am simply trying to find them. There are a lot of differing opinions out there, and I'm looking at all of them, and taking differing views into account.

Now, most of what you are saying makes sense, but in starvation mode, muscle is attacked a lot earlier than your claim, and that is a medical fact. Depending on the physical state of the person in question, muscle breakdown can start within a short period of time (48-72 hours), even if other fuel sources are available. The order in which sources are used up is not as linear like you make it out to be.

Still, none of that applies to cardio, unless the person doing the cardio is emaciated and performs rigorous cardio for hours on end - I just don't think that blanket 'I'm right and no other opinions should be taken into account' statements are very helpful.
 
We are talking about a person in a caloric deficit, sometimes a huge one.

And I got it, Guytons. You read a book. Of course that trumps everything else that has ever been published, or experienced by people.

I guess you'll stand by your theoretical, absolute blanket statements, and if that works for you, fine. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.
 
After looking around, this mentioned book does seem to have a reputation. I also discovered you can buy it used on amazon for pretty cheap. Think I might read it myself.
 
Interesting stuff, Steve. I haven't heard about Guyton's so far, but I'm hardly an expert or professional in the field. I will go down to the local library and borrow a copy. Thanks for mentioning that book.
 
Anyway, in an attempt to get back on topic lol...

For about the last month, I've been doing 45 minute sessions of strength training once every 3 days (prior to it was straight cardio) and while I've noticed the numbers on the scale have only dropped 4lbs in a span of 30 days, I've also noticed I now need a belt and some pants I can't even wear without looking like some form of gangsta clown. I can also make out my upper abs under all the fat still there.
I still do cardio daily, say for sundays. I'll run twice a day, once a day on weight lifting days. And even though the scale says I've lost very little since starting weight training, I feel like I've lost a lot. The stretch marks around my shoulders and chest say a lot to. ( speaking of which is there a way to get rid of them? Some are bloodshot and its pretty unsightly)

So to anyone lurking, throw strength training into your regiment. You won't regret it. (Except the day after your first session assuming you never really lift lol)

I'm now at 216, started at 270. Progress :p
 
Cardio is light on your body and mind -
but great for both.
I love doing cardio
as it helps me stay fit.
Weight training can get to be pretty stressful. :)
 
There are certainly more up to date folks on this newsgroup than me that will have the ability to provide you extra advice on this, but as I understand it a pound of muscle burns more calories while at rest than a pound of fat that's why weight training is considered such a significant part of the fat burning target. Cardiovascular exercise should not be ignored however, so I voted that a balanced work out regime has both.
 
Although this thread is about weight loss, cardio is important for so many other reasons. It strengthens your heart, increases your lung capacity, keeps your joints limber, regulates blood pressure, blood glucose, cholesterol, and is necessary for everyone, not just those interested in losing weight. Even then, a healthy diet is still key to weight loss. Weight training should be added to strengthen and firm muscles. Either one done to excess can cause problems. A little goes a long way. Weight loss without exercise might make you thin, but you won't necessarily be healthy.
 
Steve53 said:
" Even then, a healthy diet is still key to weight loss."

Who said? A healthy 3,000 calorie diet will not cause you to lose weight if you only burn 2000 calories a day.
Click to expand...


You're right! I guess in my mind a "Healthy Diet" does not only mean healthy foods. It also means portions within the calorie range for your age, weight and calorie expenditure.
 
You are both absolutely right.

The appropriate calorie level is of vital importance - but the type of food chosen is important too.
1500 calories of healthy food is a heck of a lot better than 1500 calories of junk.

It is important to remember this when deriving a plan to control your weight...

A simple selection between cardio and weight training will not by itself bring healthy weight control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top