interesting article on strength training vs. cardio

Thought I'd share this great article on the pros and cons of strength training vs. cardio for weight loss with those who are interested... 

EDIT: I copied and pasted the article right in here. cuz the links wasn't working.

Metabolism Boosting Techniques CAN YOU REALLY BOOST YOUR METABOLISM? Burn calories--even while you sleep!--with a little strength training. Sounds great. But does it work? By Amby Burfoot
From the August 2004 issue of Runner's World 

Let me say right up front that I'm a big fan of strength training. Muscle is sleek and sexy, and I wish I had more. Muscle is also functional; it helps you do stuff. More muscle can help you run faster, for example, or slow down the nasty effects of aging, or get you an invite every time one of your friends needs to move heavy furniture. The problem is, strength training has been vastly oversold as a metabolism-boosting calorie burner. It's time for a reality check.

First, let's do a quick review of Metabolism 101. To lose weight, you want to increase your total calorie burn, which scientists call TEE (total energy expenditure; get ready for a parade of acronyms). To raise your TEE, you need to increase one or more of its four key parts: BMR, TEF, PAEE, and EPOC. Got that? Don't worry, I'll explain.

Your basal metabolic rate, or BMR, is essentially the calories you burn at rest. Also called resting energy expenditure, your BMR is important because it makes up a large percentage of total calorie burn, but unfortunately you can't do much about it. Your BMR is mostly determined by your genetic makeup and body weight. The only big-time way to boost your BMR is to gain weight, which will do nothing to help you wiggle into a bathing suit. 

The thermic effect of feeding (TEF) is otherwise known as the energy your body expends while digesting food. The TEF is generally about 10 percent of your daily calorie burn, and can be nudged a little by eating multiple small meals, drinking more stimulant beverages (like coffee, tea, or Red Bull), consuming more chile peppers, and eating more protein.

Your physical-activity energy expenditure, or PAEE, is the sum total of your workouts, plus other activities like walking the dog, climbing stairs, and break dancing. It can be anything from zero to a substantial number, depending on whether you're more enamored of your sofa or your running shoes. Your PAEE is the most important part of your daily calorie burn, because you can actually do something about it. 

The excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) of your workout is also known as the "afterburn," that is, the extra calories you burn after exercise. It will be zero if you don't work out, and a smallish number if you do.

Now, let's return to the supposed calorie-burning benefits of strength training. We'll start with a ridiculous review of two strength-training books that was published in The New York Times last year. The Times story quoted one author, Adam Zickerman, at some length. In his book, Power of 10: The Once-a-Week Slow Motion Fitness Revolution, Zickerman says that a single 20-minute strength-training workout burns as many calories as 25 miles of running. As he told the Times: "Three extra pounds of lean muscle burns about 10,000 extra calories a month, just sitting around."

You've probably read similar claims, which often sound like this: "Every pound of new muscle burns an additional 50 to 100 calories a day." Or "Muscle burns calories even while you sleep."

If you believe any of this, you might also want to try doing long runs in your sleep. It would sure beat that damnable alarm clock buzzing on weekends. While some personal trainers promote the calorie-burning power of muscle, most reputable experts don't. In her book Ultimate Fitness: The Quest For Truth About Exercise And Health, Gina Kolata talked to Claude Bouchard, Ph.D., a world authority on virtually all things related to obesity. His response: Sorry, but muscle actually has a relatively low metabolic rate at rest. 

Bouchard is likely familiar with the article "Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body," from a 2001 issue of Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. This article gave me new respect for my kidneys, which burn 182 calories per day for every pound they weigh, and for my brain, which clocks in at 110 calories for every pound it weighs. But my muscles, damn them, are lazy. They burn six calories per pound, barely edging out fat's two-calorie burn. In other words, if you lose one pound of fat and replace it with one pound of muscle, your net gain in calorie burning is four calories a day. Enjoy the celery stick.

What Works

If you're interested in boosting your metabolism to lose weight, aerobic training such as running and walking (and bicycling, swimming, Nordic skiing, snow shoeing, step climbing, elliptical training) is a better investment than strength training. Here's why, with all figures taken from the authoritative "Compendium of Physical Activities." Let's say you have time to exercise for 40 minutes a day. You weigh 150 pounds, and you can do either 40 minutes of modest running (8:30 pace) or 40 minutes of moderate strength training. The tally:

Physical-activity energy expenditure (PAEE): The running will burn 522 calories, the strength training 136, largely because strength training involves too much sitting and resting between lifts. Advantage: Running, by 386 calories.

Excess post oxygen consumption: EPOC was once thought to give your metabolism a decent boost, but the experts have grown more conservative in their estimates. Most now believe that EPOC burns an extra 20 to 30 calories, about the same between aerobic and strength-building exercise, with both dependent on the length and intensity of your workout. Advantage: Running still leads by 386 calories.

Basal metabolic rate: As noted earlier, BMR isn't easy to change, and increased muscle seems to boost it by just four to six calories per pound. Also, it isn't easy to create muscle, a dirty little secret that's rarely discussed. Eating spinach and lifting weights don't guarantee you biceps like Popeye. Women in particular won't find it easy to build muscle, due to their low testosterone levels. Still, I'm in a charitable mood, so I'll give strength training 30 extra calories a day, because you might be diligent enough to add several pounds of muscle, and that muscle will burn a few extra calories every time you chase the kids, the bus, or a basketball. Advantage: Running's lead has slipped to 356 calories per workout.

And there it stands: If you want to boost your metabolism to lose more weight, run (or walk) around the block as much as you can.

But first, eat less. The experts from the American Dietetic Association and the American College of Sports Medicine all agree, generally advising a 500- to 1000-calorie-a-day reduction. Without this--that is, with exercise alone--few people succeed in their weight-loss efforts. Weight loss works best when you: (1) Eat less; (2) Add exercise to increase your daily calorie deficit; (3) Keep exercising to keep the pounds off.

The more you exercise, the better. The National Weight Control Registry has followed more than 5,000 people who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for more than six years. Their secret? They burn almost 400 calories a day in exercise, mostly by walking. This takes an hour or more a day, but by running you can cut that time almost in half.

When you're done, spend a few minutes on strength-training exercises. Strength training really is good. It adds variety to your workouts, rarely causes injuries, and can build extra muscle to go with the enhanced aerobic fitness that comes from continuous exercise. 

And then there's the part about looking sleeker and sexier, and who can argue with that? 

Interesting article.  Thanks for sharing.

Original Post by rebeccalamvocals:

the pros and cons of strength training vs. cardio for weight loss

Um, strength training IS cardio. And the link doesn't work.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by rebeccalamvocals:

the pros and cons of strength training vs. cardio for weight loss

Um, strength training IS cardio. And the link doesn't work.

 

 Copy and past the entire URL and then get rid of the space between ht ml.  For some reason, it wants to separate the last part of the URL.  I tried to copy it onto this post but it did the same thing to me.

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/printer/1 ,7124,s6-242-304--7753-0,00.ht ml

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by rebeccalamvocals:

the pros and cons of strength training vs. cardio for weight loss

Um, strength training IS cardio. And the link doesn't work.

 

Some activities that are considered strength training can also be considered  cardio: circuit training using weights, rapid sets of weight lifting ... but they are not the same. It seems that this article regards strength training to be lifting weights, using your own body weight to work out (pushups, pull ups, crunches, etc.) and regards cardio as what we all know it to be - running, aerobic dancing, spinning, cycling, elliptical machine, etc. They're not the same.

interesting indeed... an article in Runner's World saying to run more

It makes a couple of good points, but assumes WAY too much in trying to make the comparison.

I like how they sum up the article:

"Weight loss works best when you: (1) Eat less; (2) Add exercise to increase your daily calorie deficit; (3) Keep exercising to keep the pounds off.

The more you exercise, the better. The National Weight Control Registry has followed more than 5,000 people who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for more than six years. Their secret? They burn almost 400 calories a day in exercise, mostly by walking. This takes an hour or more a day, but by running you can cut that time almost in half.

When you're done, spend a few minutes on strength-training exercises. Strength training really is good. It adds variety to your workouts, rarely causes injuries, and can build extra muscle to go with the enhanced aerobic fitness that comes from continuous exercise. 

And then there's the part about looking sleeker and sexier, and who can argue with that?" 

"interesting indeed... an article in Runner's World saying to run more "

Haha, I know what you mean. Just to make it clear though, the intention of this post is to start a discussion; I neither agree or disagree with the article. 

For me, a combination of cardio (be it cycling, running, whatever), strength training and yoga seems to be best. I try to strive for balance, never one thing over another.

Original Post by rebeccalamvocals:

"interesting indeed... an article in Runner's World saying to run more "

Haha, I know what you mean. Just to make it clear though, the intention of this post is to start a discussion; I neither agree or disagree with the article. 

For me, a combination of cardio (be it cycling, running, whatever), strength training and yoga seems to be best. I try to strive for balance, never one thing over another.

 It may be one of those debates that never goes away.  For every source that says one thing, there's another source that says the opposite.  I happen to side with the strength training done properly camp - mainly cause I'm seeing results for myself.

Original Post by tattooed_kitty:

Some activities that are considered strength training can also be considered  cardio

ALL activities that can be considered strength training can also be considered cardio.  Cardio-vascular activities are those that put a stress on the cardiovascular system (i.e. increase heart-rate) and I've yet to find any strength training activities that don't increase the heart rate at all.

Original Post by tattooed_kitty:

but they are not the same. It seems that this article regards strength training to be lifting weights, using your own body weight to work out (pushups, pull ups, crunches, etc.) and regards cardio as what we all know it to be - running, aerobic dancing, spinning, cycling, elliptical machine, etc.

I never said that what the author calls 'strength training' and what she calls 'cardio' are the same, there are plenty of differences, but they're all cardio activities.  The author incorrectly uses cardio as a synonym for 'aerobic'.

Original Post by snapshot8d:

 It may be one of those debates that never goes away.  For every source that says one thing, there's another source that says the opposite.  I happen to side with the strength training done properly camp - mainly cause I'm seeing results for myself.

I've read, and seen many posts on CC, that if you want to lose weight faster, incorporate more cardio.  Strength training will also help you lose weight, but not as quickly.  However, strength training will help you continue to lose weight even after your workout through EPOC.

If I'm reading the article correctly, then they are focusing mainly on the weight-loss issue.  So yeah.... cardio (a.k.a. running and walking for their purposes) over weight training.  They don't diss it completely.

For my personal preference and style, weight training is best for me.  I also incorporate cardio into my workouts, but I rather enjoy the weights much better!

Original Post by rebeccalamvocals:

Let's say you have time to exercise for 40 minutes a day. You weigh 150 pounds, and you can do either 40 minutes of modest running (8:30 pace) or 40 minutes of moderate strength training. The tally:

Physical-activity energy expenditure (PAEE): The running will burn 522 calories, the strength training 136, largely because strength training involves too much sitting and resting between lifts. Advantage: Running, by 386 calories.

This, which seems to be the entire basis for her arguement, is total BS.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by rebeccalamvocals:

Let's say you have time to exercise for 40 minutes a day. You weigh 150 pounds, and you can do either 40 minutes of modest running (8:30 pace) or 40 minutes of moderate strength training. The tally:

Physical-activity energy expenditure (PAEE): The running will burn 522 calories, the strength training 136, largely because strength training involves too much sitting and resting between lifts. Advantage: Running, by 386 calories.

This, which seems to be the entire basis for her argument, is total BS.

 

Sully, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious on your reasoning.   When I checked the Burn Meter on CC, I came up with these numbers based on the 40 minutes mentioned above:

     Moderate Weight Lifting:  166 calories burned
     Vigorous Weight Lifting:  332 calories burned
     Brisk Walking:  210 calories burned
     Running 6 mph:  553 calories burned.

These seem to be in line with the article.  I'm not thrilled with the comment about too much sitting and resting between lifts.  I don't know about others, but between lifts my heart is pounding and I'm breathing pretty hard!  Isn't that part of what cardio (vs. aerobic..... good catch) is all about?

Cardio = Aerobic

Weight Lifting (for Strength) = Anaerobic

It is not the same thing.

(I don't have time now, but I'll read the article later, probably tomorrow.)

Oh goody!  I'm going to learn more about this whole cardio vs. weight training stuff!  And I'm not being sarcastic!

All I know for sure is that my health has improved tremendously thanks to healthy eating and exercising.  Just like the doctors and experts always said.  Amazing, isn't it!  LOL

Original Post by kaufmkk:

Sully, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious on your reasoning.   When I checked the Burn Meter on CC, I came up with these numbers based on the 40 minutes mentioned above:

     Moderate Weight Lifting:  166 calories burned
     Vigorous Weight Lifting:  332 calories burned
     Brisk Walking:  210 calories burned
     Running 6 mph:  553 calories burned.

These seem to be in line with the article.  I'm not thrilled with the comment about too much sitting and resting between lifts.  I don't know about others, but between lifts my heart is pounding and I'm breathing pretty hard!  Isn't that part of what cardio (vs. aerobic..... good catch) is all about?

Any weight lifting that's more than a couple of half-hearted curls with weights the person could lift hundreds of times is "vigorous weight lifting" - or "calisthenics" can work as a good approximation too.  CC's "moderate weight lifting" category is pretty much useless so, if that's the basis of the article, the article needs to rethink what it considers to be strength training.

I'm with you.  My heart is racing during my strength training sessions - especially if they involve step-ups!  The idea that I'm mostly sitting around doing not much is a joke. 

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by rebeccalamvocals:

Let's say you have time to exercise for 40 minutes a day. You weigh 150 pounds, and you can do either 40 minutes of modest running (8:30 pace) or 40 minutes of moderate strength training. The tally:

Physical-activity energy expenditure (PAEE): The running will burn 522 calories, the strength training 136, largely because strength training involves too much sitting and resting between lifts. Advantage: Running, by 386 calories.

This, which seems to be the entire basis for her arguement, is total BS.

 

 AGREED!

Original Post by susiecue:

Any weight lifting that's more than a couple of half-hearted curls with weights the person could lift hundreds of times is "vigorous weight lifting" - or "calisthenics" can work as a good approximation too.  CC's "moderate weight lifting" category is pretty much useless so, if that's the basis of the article, the article needs to rethink what it considers to be strength training.

I'm with you.  My heart is racing during my strength training sessions - especially if they involve step-ups!  The idea that I'm mostly sitting around doing not much is a joke. 

Step-ups make me cry.

Melkor and I had a discussion about this a while back and I decided that it pretty much evens out for the average person. So do what you enjoy!!!! If you know you are never going to enjoy running for 60 minutes several times a week, go ahead and lift weights! If you know you are never going to spend more than 2 minutes lifting, do your cardio!

And contrary to popular belief, you can get lovely muscle just from running. I have the picture to prove it and I will put it in my profile/gallery. Just remember, I don't look like that now! But all I ever did was run-for-fun, trail running about one hour, 5x week.

Original Post by mkculs:

So do what you enjoy!!!!

Worth repeating.  This is absolutely the most important thing.

Original Post by rebeccalamvocals:

You weigh 150 pounds, and you can do either 40 minutes of modest running (8:30 pace) or 40 minutes of moderate strength training.

 Is it just me, or does anyone else consider 40 minutes of an 8:30 pace a bit more than "modest" ?